VEHICLE AND FUELS 

TECHNOLOGY: NEXT GENERATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 24, 2006 

Serial No. 109-103 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

29-894PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(EX OFFICIO) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Karsner, Hon. Alexander A., Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy .......................................................... 14 

Cischke, Susan M., Vice President, Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company ........................................................................................................................ 22 

Morrissett, Deborah, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, DaimlerChrysler Corporation. 29 

Reinert, William, National Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Toyota Motor 

Sales, USA, Inc. ............................................................................................................. 35 

Lowery, Elizabeth, Vice President, Public Policy Center, General Motors....................... 50 

Pacheco, Dr. Michael A., Director, National Bioenergy Center, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory.......................................................................................................... 67 

Warzel, Jon A., Vice President, Business Development and Government Programs, 

Syntoleum Corporation .................................................................................................. 75 

Hughes, Scott, Director of Government Affairs, National Biodiesel Board...................... 82 

Pratt, Mitchell, Senior Vice President, Clean Energy......................................................... 88 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Cischke, Susan M., Vice President, Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company, response for the record ................................................................................. 106 

Reinert, William, National Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Toyota Motor 

Sales, USA, Inc., response for the record ...................................................................... 115 

Lowery, Elizabeth, Vice President, Public Policy Center, General Motors, response for 

the record........................................................................................................................ 120 

Morrissett, Deborah, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, DaimlerChrysler 

Corporation, response for the record ............................................................................. 126 

Ramsbottom, Hunt, CEO and President, Rentech, Inc., submission for the record........... 136 

(III) 

(1) 

VEHICLE AND FUELS TECHNOLOGY: 

NEXT GENERATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall 

[Chairman] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hall, Whitfield, Norwood, Shimkus, 

Radanovich, Bono, Sullivan, Burgess, Ross, Green, and Dingell (ex 

officio). 

Staff Present: Kelly Cole, Counsel; Elizabeth Stack, Policy 

Coordinator; Margaret Caravelli, Counsel; Anh Nguyen, Legislative 

Clerk; Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk; Bruce Harris, Minority 

Professional Staff Member; Sue Sheridan, Minority Senior Counsel; and 

Lorie Schmidt, Minority Counsel. 

MR. HALL. I would like first to welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing entitled “Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation,” and 

to thank the two panels that are witnesses for being here today to testify 

and educate us on this topic. You really do us a great favor by, first, 

being as qualified as you are and as recognized as you are; and, then, 

giving us your time today. And that is the way we write laws here. We 

get people that know more about it than we do, and we listen to them. 

And we thank you for being here. 

The U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a pending national security 

and economic crisis. While we are working to improve oil production, 

we must also work toward becoming more fuel-efficient. The U.S. 

Congress can facilitate that with the production of new technologies that 

will improve fuel efficiency. Technologies that could have an impact 

within the next 2 to 4 years is what is really needed. 

Historically, we have been focusing on long-term technologies at our 

national laboratories and universities. And while that is good, we have to 

consider now, due to the staggering increase in the cost of fuel, 

technology that can be used in the near term. Major automotive 

companies have both the financial and manufacturing resources to do 

what is needed, but I think Congress has to make the greatest difference 
2

by helping smaller companies that don’t have those vast resources at 

their disposal. 

I am aware of several technologies being developed with just such 

potential. For example, there is a new concept for a continuously 

variable transmission that would reduce both the weight and cost of 

present-day continuously variable transmissions and improve the fuel 

efficiency of the vehicle. This same technology also has applications in 

hybrid electric vehicles, improving their already good fuel efficiency. 

This technology is available now, but because of limited resources, it 

will not be in full-scale production for five more years. We have an 

opportunity with technologies such as this to work together with 

developing technologies for exploration of oil and gas and to help ease 

our dependence on foreign oil. And I think we should certainly nurture 

them. 

In regards to hydrogen, regardless of the number of hydrogen fuel 

vehicles produced, without a reliable and adequate infrastructure, the 

vehicles are going to be useless. To progress to a hydrogen economy 

requires large-scale hydrogen production, and I am aware of an effort in 

Texas where the automobile manufacturers, fossil fuel industry, and the 

renewable energy industry are coming together as a coalition with this 

goal in mind. The effort in Texas is boosted by the abundance of 

domestic resources in the State suitable for the large-scale production of 

hydrogen, and these new efforts must be encouraged and expanded 

across the country so that a network of infrastructure is in place to 

support the vehicles of the future. 

I believe we have a lot to look forward to. It is a very exciting time 

in our history as we look for new ways to build and power our vehicles. 

There are many promising developments, several of which we will hear 

about today, not only with new next-generation vehicle technology, but 

also the fuels that make them run: cellulosic ethanol, the production of 

which has the potential to turn what we call waste material into a 

valuable resource; biodiesel, the replacement fuel made from renewable 

food stocks, including vegetable oils and animal fats; coal to liquid, the 

conversion of solid coal into liquid fuels; and chemicals and natural gas 

as a transportation fuel. 

Again, I thank you for being with us today, and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Hall follows:] 
3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH HALL, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND AIR QUALITY

I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled “Vehicle and Fuels 

Technology: Next Generation”, and to thank our two panels of witnesses for being here 

today to testify and educate us on this topic. 

The US dependence on foreign oil is a pending national security and economic 

crisis. While we are working to improve oil production, we must also work towards 

becoming more fuel efficient. The US Congress can facilitate the path to production of 

new technologies that will improve fuel efficiency. Technologies that could have an 

impact within the next 2 to 4 years are what is needed. Historically, we have been 

focusing on long-term technologies at our National Laboratories and Universities. While 

that is good, we must consider now - due to the staggering increases in the cost of fuel - 

technology that can be used in the near term. The major automotive companies have both 

the financial and manufacturing resources to do what is needed, but I believe that 

Congress can make the greatest difference by helping smaller companies that don’t have 

those vast resources at their disposal. I am aware of several technologies being 

developed with just such potential. For example, there’s a new concept for a 

continuously variable transmission that would reduce both the weight and cost of present 

day continuously variable transmissions, and improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. 

This same technology also has applications in hybrid electric vehicles--improving their 

already good fuel efficiency. This technology is available now, but because of limited 

resources it will not be in full scale production for five more years. We have an 

opportunity with technologies such as this to work together with developing technologies 

for exploration of oil and for gas, to help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and I think 

we should nurture them. 

In regards to hydrogen, regardless of the number of hydrogen fueled vehicles 

produced, without a reliable and adequate infrastructure the vehicles will be useless. To 

progress to a hydrogen economy requires large scale hydrogen production. I am aware of 

an effort in Texas where the automobile manufacturers, fossil fuel industry and the 

renewable energy industry are coming together as a coalition with this goal in mind. The 

effort in Texas is boosted by the abundance of domestic resources in the state suitable for 

the large-scale production of hydrogen. These new efforts must be encouraged and 

expanded across the country so that a network of infrastructure is in place to support the 

vehicles of the future. 

I believe we have a lot to look forward to – it’s a very exciting time in our history as 

we look for new ways to build and power our vehicles. There are many promising 

developments, several of which we will hear about today. Not only with new next 

generation vehicle technology, but also the fuels that make them run . Cellulosic ethanol 

– the production of which has the potential to turn “waste material” into a valuable 

resource. Biodiesel – a replacement fuel made from renewable feedstocks including 

vegetable oils and animal fats. Coal-to-liquids – the conversion of solid coal into liquid 

fuels and chemicals, and natural gas as a transportation fuel. 

Again, thank you to our witnesses for coming today. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

Without objection, the Chair will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4(e) and 

recognize Members for 3 minutes for opening statements. If they defer, this time will be 

added to their opening round of questions. 

MR. HALL. Without objection, the Chair will proceed pursuant to 

Committee Rule 4(e) and recognize Members for 3 minutes for opening 
4

statements. If they defer this time it will be added to their opening 

rounds of question. 

The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Mr. Ross, from the 

great city of Texarkana, Arkansas, my neighbor. We both represent 

Texarkana. He represents Texarkana, Arkansas and I just represent 

Texarkana, Texas. I recognize you at this time. 

MR. ROSS. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting town. You 

can drive south down State Line Avenue and on the right side of the road 

you can vote for Ralph Hall and buy lottery tickets. On the left side of 

the road you can vote for me and buy liquor. And you can’t do either 

one on the other side of the street. It is a unique situation. 

But, thank you. And I am glad we are holding today’s hearing to 

discuss vehicle and fuel technologies and what the future holds for 

American consumers. As we continue to experience record fuel prices, 

the demand for alternative fuels, hybrid and flex fuel vehicles, and other 

energy-efficient technologies will continue to increase. I strongly 

believe the substance of our discussions in this hearing today will be a 

significant piece in the puzzle of meeting our future energy needs. We 

all recognize that our Nation’s transportation sector is the primary 

contributor to the United States’ consumption of roughly 20 million 

barrels of oil a day. Reducing the transportation sector’s use of this 

commodity will require future implementation and advancement of the 

many technologies that will be discussed today. 

High fuel prices have certainly increased the awareness and interest 

in alternative fuels and vehicles. Even in the State of Arkansas, where 

pickup trucks far exceed cars, my constituents are talking more and more 

about hybrid and flex fuel vehicles. My district spans 21,000 square 

miles, 29 counties, and 150 towns. It is not uncommon for my 

constituents to drive 50 miles or more each way to and from work; and in 

most cases, they commute these distances for a job that pays well below 

the national average. These long commutes and frequent costly stops at 

the gas station are forcing not only Arkansans but all Americans to think 

about alternatives. As this trend continues, it is increasingly important 

for industry, government, and the consumers to engage in these issues 

and work together to advance energy-efficient technologies. 

As a member of this committee, we have received testimony from 

the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration 

regarding their forecast indicating both fuel prices and demand are going 

to remain high. With these record cost projections, it will be costeffective for us to make the necessary investment and aggressively 

advance alternatives. 

I have been pleased with the automobile industry and their efforts 

toward the development of hybrid and flex fuel vehicles. They have 
5

embraced the consumers’ demand for increased energy efficiency and 

are working to expand the production of their hybrid and flex fuel 

models. 

I am also supportive of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act 

regarding hybrid vehicles. This legislation, which was passed last 

August, provides tax credits to consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles. 

This has been a successful incentive program and has stimulated hybrid 

vehicle sales. However, I believe we can and should do more. I hope to 

hear from our witnesses today on ways and ideas to improve this tax 

credit, allowing more consumers to access these technologies. I am not 

100 percent convinced eliminating the 60,000-unit cap is the answer, but 

I think it is an option that should be investigated, and I look forward to 

receiving input from the industry representatives here today. And the 

more consumers who can access the tax credit, the more hybrid vehicles 

there will be on our highways, therefore, reducing our dependence on 

foreign oil. 

I also look forward to hearing from our two panels about the 

development of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Ironically, this morning, I 

test drove a hydrogen fuel-cell car and I was very impressed. It had a lot 

of pick-up, or get-up, as we would say in south Arkansas. I understand 

the challenges facing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, especially the needed 

infrastructure to support them and similar problems facing expanded use 

of E-85. I do believe hydrogen fuel-cell technology will be a significant 

part of our future, and I look forward to working with the industry on its 

continued development. 

Being from Arkansas, I am extremely excited about the growing 

potential for biodiesel ethanol and biomass ethanol in this country. The 

increased use of ethanol and biodiesel provides new markets for our farm 

families, reduces our dependence on imported oil, and lowers greenhouse 

gas emissions. Efforts are underway in my congressional district and 

across the Nation on the development of ethanol, which is derived from 

biomass feedstocks such as wood chips, switchgrass, and other plant 

fibers. We must make the investments to continue the development and 

expansion of ethanol, including the E-85 infrastructure needed to support 

flex-fuel vehicles. 

And Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by simply asking that I can 

submit the rest of the statement to you for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mike Ross follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am glad we are holding today’s hearing to discuss 

vehicle and fuel technologies and what the future holds for American consumers. As we 
6

continue to experience record fuel prices, the demand for alternative fuels, hybrid and 

flex fuel vehicles, and other energy efficient technologies will continue to increase. 

I strongly believe the substance of our discussions in this hearing today - will be a 

significant piece in the puzzle of meeting our future energy needs. We all recognize that 

our nation’s transportation sector is the primary contributor to the U.S. consumption of 

roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day. Reducing the transportation sector’s use of this 

commodity will require further implementation and advancement of the many 

technologies that will be discussed today. 

High fuel prices have certainly increased the awareness and interest in alternative 

fuels and vehicles. Even in the state of Arkansas, where pickup trucks far exceed cars 

and sedans, my constituents are talking more and more about hybrid and flex fuel 

vehicles. My district spans 21,000 square miles, 29 counties, and 150 towns. It is not 

uncommon for my constituents to drive 50 miles or more – each way to and from work. 

And in most cases they commute these distances for a job that pays well below the 

national average. These long commutes and frequent, costly stops at the gas station, are 

encouraging, not only Arkansans, but all Americans to think about alternatives. As this 

trend continues, it is increasingly important for industry, government, and the consumers 

to engage in these issues and work together to advance energy efficient technologies. 

As members of this Committee, we have received testimony from the Department of 

Energy’s Energy Information Agency regarding their forecast indicating both fuel prices 

and demand are going to remain high. With these record cost projections, it will be cost 

effective for us to make the necessary investments and aggressively advance alternatives. 

I have been pleased with the automobile industry and their efforts toward the 

development of hybrid and flex fuel vehicles. They have embraced the consumer’s 

demand for increased energy efficiency and are working to expand the production of their 

hybrid and flex fuel models. 

I am also supportive of the provisions in the Energy Policy Act regarding hybrid 

vehicles. This legislation, which was passed last August, provides tax credits to 

consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles. This has been a successful incentive program 

and has stimulated hybrid vehicle sales. However, I believe we can and should do more. 

I hope to hear from our witnesses today on ways and ideas to improve this tax credit - 

allowing more consumers to access these technologies. I am not 100 percent convinced 

eliminating the 60,000 unit cap is the answer, but I think it is an option that should be 

investigated and I look forward to receiving input from the industry representatives here 

today. The more consumers who can access the tax credit - the more hybrid vehicles 

there will be on our highways. 

I also look forward to hearing from our two panels about the development of 

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Coincidently, I test drove a hydrogen fuel cell car this 

morning and was impressed. I understand the challenges facing hydrogen fuel cell 

vehicles, especially the needed infrastructure to support them– a similar problem facing 

expanded use of E-85. I do believe hydrogen fuel cell technology will be a significant 

part of our future hybrid vehicle fleet and look forward to working with industry on its 

continued development. 

Being from Arkansas, I am extremely excited about the growing potential for 

biodiesel, ethanol and cellulosic biomass ethanol in this country. The increased use of 

ethanol and biodiesel provides new markets for our farm families, reduces our 

dependence on imported oil, and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts are under 

way in my Congressional District and across the nation on the development of cellulosic 

ethanol, which is derived from biomass feedstocks such as wood chips, switch grass, and 

other plant fibers. We must make the investments to continue the development and 

expansion of ethanol, including the E-85 infrastructure needed to support flex fuel 

vehicles. The reality is this: the energy bill, which I voted for, authorizes $632 million 

for the next fiscal year for renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and 
7

commercial application activities by the Department of Energy- $213 million of which is 

for bio-energy purposes--including $100 million for bio-refinery demonstration projects. 

This funding is authorized, but not yet appropriated. And yet we send $1.9 billion to Iraq 

every week. I want to make sure the American people understand that while there is a lot 

of talk these days about alternative and renewable fuels, over the next fiscal year we are 

going to spend less than half as much money toward research and development of 

alternative and renewable energy as we will spend this week alone in Iraq. It is about 

priorities, and we as a nation need to re-evaluate our priorities and make the desperately 

needed investments in alterative and renewable energy. 

Coal-to-Liquid technology and natural gas are also exciting alternative sources of 

transportation fuels being used and developed. The public transportation buses here in 

the District of Columbia are using natural gas technology and have proudly printed on the 

side of each bus that “they are running on clean burning natural gas.” 

Our future will have a strong blend of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles that will 

hopefully provide a choice to consumers when they go to purchase a car and fill up at the 

pump. We must work together toward making these technologies affordable and 

reasonable for all Americans – and work to build our nation’s infrastructure to support 

these technologies. I thank our panel for being here today and look forward to receiving 

their testimony. 

MR. HALL. Without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. A couple of things, real 

quick. We appreciate you all coming. We appreciate the auto industry’s 

getting on board on the flexible-fuel vehicle bandwagon. It is a long 

time in coming, but now the marketing is just great. 

I have been driving a flex-fuel vehicle, as a lot of people on the 

committee know, for a couple of years. I am in my fourth year. I have 

got a Ford Explorer. And In southern Illinois where we have 200 retail 

locations for E-85 pumps, in my district I have 20. So I can really--and I 

represent a large rural district, from Springfield to Metropolis, which is 

right across from Paducah, Kentucky, from Collinsville, my hometown, 

right outside St. Louis, all the way to the Indiana border. So that is 

progress, and we need to talk about that. 

Part of that progress came from the Energy Policy Act where we sent 

a signal. When Ralph Hall starts talking about biofuels, I know that the 

world has changed dramatically. And we welcome that, because that is 

one way that we are going to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. 

And now everybody is on board with that. And everybody is on board 

with biodiesel. 

I am focusing now on over the horizon, the next obtainable 

assistance. And I dropped a bill with Rick Boucher just yesterday. I will 

encourage all my colleagues to get on board. It is H.R. 5453, and it 

basically will extend the excise tax credit on refineries to 2020. And 

here is the premise. It is very simple. I am holding in my hand a vial of 

diesel fuel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel, diesel fuel produced from coal. 

And some of the folks came up and checked it out before the hearing. 
8

And you can--I will encourage my friends in the media to come and take 

a whiff of it. And it is cleaner-burning diesel fuel. But if you look here, 

this is the premise: U.S. coal, on top of the coal field in southern Illinois, 

a refinery; a coal to liquid refinery. You pipe that on U.S. pipes to--the 

DOD has great interest in this type of fuel for diesel applications and for 

aviation applications. This is an issue whose time is right. We are all 

tired of the reliance on imported crude oil. We are going to have a 

chance to expand our ability to get our own resources with a vote 

tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, or on Friday, on ANWR. 

But this battle is a wide battle on multiple fuels. So that is why the 

biofuels debate is great. We are glad to have you here. Coal to liquid is 

an application already in South Africa, and we want to continue that and 

do our other petroleum research that we have. 

So this is a timely hearing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time. 

MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. It is well said, and you are right 

about tomorrow. You could also say that we have a shot at voting for 

ultra-deep today, that people are trying to back away from what might 

keep our kids from having to fight a war or something. 

MR. SHIMKUS. I am with you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HALL. At this time I recognize the Honorable Gene Green from 

the great State of Texas. Mr. Green. 

MR. GREEN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a note; I signed that 

letter you asked me about a while ago, so your staff should have it. 

MR. HALL. I thank you and the generations that follow. Thank you 

for that. 

MR. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I will put in the 

record. But I really want to thank you for calling the hearing because 

coming from a State that is basically hydrocarbons, but we are producing 

less than we are used to, I will literally leave no stone unturned to see 

how any other way we can move our vehicles, power our factories and 

our homes. But I appreciate your calling this hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gene Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member thank you for convening this hearing today on 

vehicle and fuel technology. 

This hearing is another in a long string of recent hearings focusing on the rapid rise 

in fuel costs. 

Many working American families have budgets that are border right on the line 

between financial health and serious financial problems. 

Rapid increases in the price of gasoline are causing the drive to work, to school, or 

to visit family and friends to become a serious drain on the family budget. 

I am interested to hear today from the US automakers about how their fleets are 

evolving to reduce gasoline consumption in the future. 
9

I am especially interested to know whether fuel efficiency and fuel alternatives will 

bring relief to working class and middle class Americans, or whether these new 

technologies will be too expensive to afford. 

Biodiesel is also an important part of our future fuel mix, and I am pleased that at 

least one chemical manufacturer along the Houston Ship Channel, which is the heart of 

our nation’s gasoline refining supply, is also in the biodiesel business. 

I have a lot of professional truck drivers in my district and they are hit coming and 

going by gas prices, as a cost of doing business and a consumer cost just like the rest of 

us. 

Biodiesel needs to increase rapidly if we are going to help out on diesel prices and 

keep a lot of trucking operations is business. 

MR. HALL. The Chair is honored to recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia, Dr. Norwood. 

MR. NORWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will simply submit for 

the record, and thank you for having this hearing, and yield to the panel. 

I am anxious to hear what they have to say. 

MR. HALL. I am honored to recognize Mary Bono from the great 

State of California. 

MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have a statement I will 

submit for the record. And I welcome the witnesses. I am so happy you 

are here and look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mary Bono follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. 

I believe the subject of this hearing is not only about how we can promote fuels and 

vehicles that are more environmentally friendly but more importantly, how we can use 

good old fashioned American ingenuity to wean ourselves off foreign oil. 

Of course, oil, and for that matter foreign oil, will always play some role in our 

economy. But as of today, the United States is too dependent on stability in the Middle 

East and on various dictators in South America. It troubles me to have foreign oil serve 

as the keystone to our economic and even national security. We must become more self 

sufficient. 

Self sufficiency involves supporting our domestic suppliers of oil but it also means 

looking beyond oil as the sole means for fueling our economy. There are a variety of 

experimental fuels out there. I believe that between private industry, our colleges and 

universities as well as government, we can identify the most promising of those 

alternative fuels and then focus on how to bring them to market in an efficient manner so 

it they are widely available as well as affordable. 

Our country must make a concerted decision to forge ahead on this front. We must 

be bold because it is, in sorts, a race. We don’t know when international incidents will 

slow or stop the flow of oil to the U.S. We don’t know when and if our own source of 

domestic oil will be unable to keep up with demand. But we do know that at some point, 

our economy could come to an abrupt halt if we do not have an adequate supply of oil. 

So, we must set out upon this course of finding and developing alternative forms of 

energy right here and right now 
10

It is my hope to work with those involved in the process to see how government can 

best help. Too often, the federal government gets in the way of good ideas. It is my hope 

that when it comes to this, government can serve to facilitate a process that in the end, 

makes sense for the consumer and gives greater security to our country. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

 Thank you, Chairman Hall, for holding this hearing today on the future of vehicles 

and fuels technology in the United States. I would also like to thank our witnesses for 

appearing before us today to tell us about their work putting the U.S. on a path towards 

transportation security through innovation and diversity. 

Vehicles and fuels constitute approximately 25 percent of the energy demand in this 

country and they are vital to the continued growth of the national economy. 

 Advanced technologies will balance supply and demand. On the supply side, a 

diverse spectrum of fuels can and will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, benefiting 

our economy, our environment, and our national security. 

On the demand side, innovation in vehicle design allow us to use those fuels more 

efficiently, cutting both emissions and the strain on fuel distribution networks. 

A new fuel, even if it’s the perfect fuel, is useless without the vehicle that can run on 

it. And even of millions of cars can run on it, the perfect fuel won’t do much good if it 

can’t reach your tank. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPACT took bold steps on supply-side and 

demand-side energy issues. For example, EPACT law directs DOE to partner with 

industry to enable and promote hydrogen and fuel cell technology This law provides a 

virtual roadmap to energy independence and is being used today to make hydrogen 

transportation a reality. 

EPACT also gives consumers tax incentives to buy fuel-saving advanced vehicles. 

These incentives are technology-neutral – the law does not favor hybrids over diesel, or 

fuel cells over flex fuel vehicles. By creating vehicle and fuel diversity in our 

transportation sector, we can decrease our dependency on imported oil. 

I am eager to learn today about all of the advances in vehicle technologies. There 

are literally billions of dollars being invested in research and development efforts both by 

government and by industry. The goal, as we will hear today, is to move from the 

petroleum-fueled vehicles we rely on today to running our transportation infrastructure 

on the cleanest of fuels, hydrogen. Moving to hydrogen is seen as the most promising 

long-term way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. 

However, most will agree that we are many years from the commercial realization of 

hydrogen-powered vehicles. But we should be creating plans and strategies for the 

intervening years. The Department of Energy has a Transition Strategy which we will 

hear about today that will help improve our energy security until fuel cell hydrogen 

vehicles are a market reality. 

I also look forward to hearing what advanced technologies automakers are 

developing that will improve fuel economy, maintain freedom of mobility, and a wide 

range of vehicle choices. Today consumers have multiple options to the gasolinepowered internal combustion engine, such as lean burn diesel, hybrids, and flex fuel 

vehicles. These are the technologies that will take us from here into the future of fuel cell 

hydrogen vehicles. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring a 

significant amount of renewable fuel be part of our national fuel supply. Beginning in 
11

2013 we required 250,000,000 gallons of renewable fuel derived from cellulosic biomass 

be incorporated in the Renewable Fuel Standard. Given the state of the art in cellulosic, 

this schedule is very ambitious. Cellulosic ethanol will diversify ethanol supply, with 

many different feedstocks. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided production incentives for cellulosic 

biofuels, conversion assistance for cellulosic biomass producers for the production of 

renewable fuels, and loan guarantees for the construction of facilities for the production 

of fuel ethanol from cellulosic biomass. 

Other next generation fuels in use today include biodiesel and natural gas. Biodiesel 

in a blend with petroleum diesel reduces harmful particulate matter emissions making our 

air cleaner. Natural gas as an alternative fuel is clean burning and efficient. 

The production and use of coal-to-liquid fuels is appealing given the vast coal 

reserves in this country. This ripe technology can make coal-based liquid transportation 

fuel one of the cleanest on the market. All these sources will move us into an era of 

greater choice, greater freedom and greater security. 

Beyond pushing technology development in fuels and vehicles designs we must take 

other steps to win our energy security. Unlocking America’s conventional energy 

resources in Alaska and offshore is crucial. And applying common sense rules to 

developing energy projects especially with regard to the permitting process is also 

critical. Taking all these steps, not just a few here and there will be required to get the 

job done. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today. 

In recent months, and indeed since Hurricane Katrina reminded us how perilously 

dependent and accustomed we have become, as a nation, to cheap oil and gasoline, there 

have been dozens of hearings, held in multiple committees, on both sides of the Capitol, 

on the subject of high gasoline prices. 

I continue to believe that the most important thing that we can do to alleviate high 

gas prices in the short term is to increase domestic supply of crude oil. We should allow, 

and in fact encourage, exploration and production here at home. This includes traditional 

exploration and development in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, as well as non-traditional sources like oil shale. 

But in the mid to long term, we need to look at other solutions. Since the 

transportation sector consumes the lion's share of oil used in the United States, the future 

of transportation will play a vital role in weaning our addition to foreign oil. 

It is no secret that I am an avid supporter of hybrid vehicles, but I am looking 

forward to hearing the panelists discuss the other types of vehicle technologies as well as 

the other possible motor fuels. 

I'd like to thank our panelists again for giving up their time to testify before us this 

morning. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. Don’t be discouraged by the empty seats up 

here. This is a terrible time for Congress, and we are trying to right some 

wrongs that have been going on for 30 years and all telescoping it into 

these last few weeks. But they all have other committee meetings, and 

you have the main ones here. You have the staffers that are here that tell 

us what you all say after you leave. And we glean from that the 

legislation that we are going to do. But it is being taken down, and I 
12

have a good court reporter here. Everybody gets a copy, and everybody 

will read it. So your testimony is not just going to four or five people. 

You are talking to the most important people on this committee, other 

than Chairman Barton. And please tell him I said that, how important he 

is. 

But we will at this time recognize the Honorable Alexander A. 

Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

The Chair recognizes you for about 5 minutes. We don’t hold you to 

5 minutes, but try to give us just a brief statement of what you are going 

to tell us, and then we will ask you questions about it and let you enlarge 

on it. I might even ask you something you can knock clear out of the 

park, by golly. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. ALEXANDER A. KARSNER, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; SUSAN M. CISCHKE, VICE 

PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY 

ENGINEERING, FORD MOTOR COMPANY; DEBORAH 

MORRISSETT, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY 

AFFAIRS, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION; 

WILLIAM REINERT, NATIONAL MANAGER, ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY GROUP, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, 

INC.; AND ELIZABETH LOWERY, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PUBLIC POLICY CENTER, GENERAL MOTORS

MR. KARSNER. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the 

next generation of vehicles and fuel technology. I have submitted a 

fuller statement of written testimony for the record so I will summarize 

during my time here. 

To paraphrase President Bush in his State of the Union address this 

year, breaking out of our national addiction to oil is an imperative for our 

time. Today no sector of energy consumption is more in the spotlight 

than vehicles, cars and trucks, and the fuels that propel them. In the 

President’s Advanced Energy Initiative, a broad program for developing 

cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources and 

technologies, vehicles and fuel initiatives hold a central place. 

I would like to give you an overview of the Department of Energy’s 

research and development and deployment programs in these areas, 

including technologies that will make a difference for today’s drivers and 

those that can usher in a generational change over time. Biomass is the 
13

predominant clean renewable energy resource that can make a short-term 

impact on diversifying our liquid transportation fuels, thereby reducing 

our dependency on imported oil. 

The President’s Biofuels Initiative aims to make cellulosic ethanol 

cost competitive by 2012. If successful, this research could lead to the 

production of biofuels equivalent to 30 percent of today’s gasoline 

consumption by 2030. The additional impetus created by the President’s 

Biofuels Initiative will enable program RD&D to accelerate the 

development and deployment of cost-competitive biobased liquid 

transportation fuels. The Department presently addresses near, middle, 

and long-term vehicle technology outcomes with two cooperative 

government industry activities: the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership 

and the 21st Century Truck Partnership. The FreedomCAR and Fuel 

Partnership is a collaborative effort among the U.S. Council for 

Automotive Research, five energy companies and DOE, for research on 

advances that may possess significant potential to reduce oil 

consumption. Activities in FreedomCAR focus on the technical 

challenges of advanced and high-efficiency vehicle technologies such as 

fuel cells, advanced combustion engines and enabling fuels, hybrid and 

plug-in hybrid vehicle systems including high-power and high-energy 

batteries, power electronics and motors, and lightweight materials. 

Near-term activities also include developing and deploying biofuels to 

displace petroleum. 

This year we will spend at least $3 million to provide assistance for 

fueling stations to add E-85 capabilities and each DOE dollar will be 

leveraged by cost share, from either the private sector or State and local 

governments. Through ongoing discussions with auto makers, the 

Department is encouraging increased production of flex-fuel vehicles. 

The Department is also working with the National Biodiesel Board to 

tighten fuel standards and to develop real-time fuel quality tests for 

biodiesel to enhance performance in advanced engines. Advanced 

catalysis research at our national labs could enable more efficient diesel 

engines to replace gasoline engines in light-duty vehicles without 

sacrificing air quality. 

Research focused on advanced batteries, power electronics, motors, 

and lightweight materials is essential for improved hybrid electric 

vehicles in the near and mid term as well as fuel-cell hybrid electric 

vehicles in the long term. Hydrogen offers a strategy for long-term 

energy security and reduced emissions. The Department is pleased to 

have Congress’s support of the hydrogen program in Title VIII of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The requirements in this act are consistent 

with the Department’s plans and include important provisions for 

coordination of efforts across the Federal government and for 
14

independent advice from outside of the Department on our hydrogen 

efforts. 

Indeed, much progress has been made since 2003, when President 

Bush committed $1.2 billion over 5 years to accelerate hydrogen 

research. Our hydrogen program is focused on research to overcome the 

technology barriers that would be a precondition to broad 

commercialization. Over 3 years our ongoing research has contributed to 

reducing the high-volume costs of automotive fuel cells from $275 per 

kilowatt in 2002 to $110 per kilowatt in 2005. In addition to supporting 

fuel-cell cost reduction, this work will help us achieve the durability 

target of 5,000 hours which equates to the vehicle lifetime required. 

Hydrogen storage on board a vehicle to meet all performance and 

cost requirements is one of the most technically challenging barriers we 

face. The Department has a diverse portfolio through three centers of 

excellence as well as independent projects both in applied and basic 

science, with a total of about 40 universities, 15 companies and 10 

Federal laboratories. In just 1 year, we are starting to see promising 

results with some completely new materials being developed in different 

areas, such as metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based 

materials. Through cost-shared partnerships with the automotive and 

energy industries, four teams are installing hydrogen refueling stations 

and putting cars on the road to test the technology and real-world 

conditions as part of the Department’s learning demonstration. Data 

collected on vehicle performance, durability, and fuel economy is 

feeding back into our research program to ensure our research is focused 

on the most relevant problems. 

We are working with our indispensable partners in the economic 

community, at the national labs, and, as importantly, in private industry; 

and we are putting our research dollars in the most promising areas to 

address critical technical barriers, and I believe, with confidence, that the 

next generation of vehicles and fuels is already in sight. 

This concludes my opening remarks and I would be happy to answer 

any questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Alexander A. Karsner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDER A. KARSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today on the next generation of vehicle and fuels technology. 

To paraphrase President Bush in his State of the Union address this year, breaking 

our national addiction to oil is an imperative for our time. Today, no sector of energy 

consumption is more in the spotlight than vehicles (cars and trucks), and the fuel that 

propels them. In the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative, a broad program for 

developing cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources and 
15

technologies, vehicle and fuels initiatives hold a central place. I would like to give you 

an overview of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research and development (R&D) 

programs in these areas, including technologies that will make a difference for today’s 

drivers, and those that can usher in a generational change. In general, the Department 

supports efforts that would reduce petroleum consumption both through improved 

efficiency of use and through substitution of domestic alternatives to petroleum, such as 

biomass derived ethanol. 

Biofuels 

Biomass is the predominant clean, renewable energy source that can make a shortterm impact on diversifying our liquid transportation fuels, thereby reducing our 

dependency on imported oil. The President’s Biofuels Initiative aims to make cellulosic 

ethanol cost competitive by 2012. If successful, this research could lead to the 

production of biofuels equivalent to 30 percent of today’s gasoline consumption by 2030. 

In FY 2007, the Department requested $149.7 million for EERE’s Biomass program. 

The additional impetus created by the President’s Biofuels Initiative will enable program 

RD&D to accelerate the development and deployment of costcompetitive, bio-based 

liquid transportation fuels. 

The program’s research focus is in three areas: Feedstock Infrastructure, for 

reducing the cost of collecting and preparing raw biomass, and for the sustainable 

production and delivery of future energy crops; Platforms R&D, for reducing the cost of 

outputs and byproducts from biochemical and thermochemical processes; and Utilization 

of Platform Outputs, for developing technologies and processes that utilize intermediates 

such as sugars and syngas to co-produce fuels, valueadded chemicals and materials, and 

heat and power. The program’s strategy is to integrate those technologies and processes 

in biorefinery configurations that industry will validate at an industrial scale. We 

ultimately envision the development of biorefineries that will produce transportation fuels 

along with value-added chemicals and materials, and/or power from nonconventional, 

low-cost feedstocks such as agricultural and forest residues and other biomass. 

For the near-term, the program supports expansion of the existing biofuels industry 

by helping current producers become the early adopters of our advanced cellulosic 

conversion technology. The leveraging of the technology through the use of the existing 

plant and delivery infrastructure should enable earlier deployment. The deployment is 

supported by our current cost-shared projects, and we plan to continue this support. 

The mid term expands the Government’s focus in two important ways. The first is 

meeting the President’s objective of cost competitive cellulosic ethanol by 2012. The 

Department is accelerating research and development efforts to continue to reduce the 

barriers to cost effectiveness. Second, we will continue to work with industry to apply 

that research and reduce the capital, operating costs, and risks associated with these 

future facilities. Deployment may be initiated in the further expansion of the existing 

industry and through niche opportunities ultimately leading to sustainable biorefineries. 

EERE’s Biomass Program’s long-term focus is on further reducing the cost of 

producing domestic biofuels by continuing to develop advanced technologies to 

transform the Nation’s domestic biomass resources into affordable biofuels, biopower, 

and high-value bioproducts. Working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

the program leads a multi-agency initiative that coordinates and accelerates all Federal 

bioenergy R&D in accordance with the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. 

The long-term objectives require the development of the feedstock and the associated 

infrastructure discussed by the USDA and DOE in their jointly published “Billion Ton 

Study” report. It is anticipated that feedstock development will be the culmination of 

regional feedstock development efforts leading to costeffective collection and use of 

agricultural and forest residues as well as regionally indigenous energy crops, such as 

switchgrass in the South Central region and willow in the Northeast. Research efforts 
16

combined with limited, targeted demonstrations to further focus research efforts should 

continue to lower conversion costs leading to the growth of the biofuels industry. 

Vehicle Technologies 

The Department presently addresses near, middle and long-term vehicle technology 

outcomes with two cooperative Government/industry activities: the FreedomCAR and 

Fuel Partnership (where CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research) and the 21st 

Century Truck Partnership. 

The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership is a collaborative effort among the U.S. 

Council for Automotive Research, five energy companies, and DOE for research on 

advanced automotive technologies that may possess significant potential to reduce oil 

consumption. The National Research Council of the National Academies published a 

2005 report on the research program of the partnership, describing it as “an extremely 

challenging program, whose ultimate vision involves a fundamental transformation of 

automotive technologies and the supporting fuel infrastructure.” The report went on to 

say that “the committee believes that research in support of this vision is justified by the 

potentially enormous beneficial impact for the nation.” 

Activities in FreedomCAR focus on the technical challenges of advanced and highefficiency vehicle technologies, such as fuel cells, advanced combustion engines and 

enabling fuels, hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle systems (including high-power and 

high-energy batteries, power electronics, and motors) and light weight materials. Hybrid 

technologies can lead to near-term oil savings when used in advanced combustion hybrid 

electric vehicles; they are also the foundation for the hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles of 

tomorrow. The requested 2007 funding level of $166 million for EERE’s FreedomCAR 

and Vehicle Technologies Program fully supports the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership 

goals. 

In support of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative, the Vehicles Technologies 

program requests $31 million, an increase of 27 percent, for advanced battery technology 

research. 

Advances in battery and other technologies can help accelerate development of 

“plug-in” hybrid electric vehicles. It is anticipated that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

should look and perform much like regular cars, but have a high energy battery that can 

be charged from an electrical outlet. Plug-ins would run on the stored energy for much of 

a typical day's driving – depending on the size of the battery--up to 40 miles per charge, 

satisfying the daily commuting needs of many Americans. In fact, some analysts say that 

a 40 mile battery range would allow substitution of electricity for petroleum in up to twothirds of all miles driven by average Americans. 

Most of the goods we consume cover part of their journey to us by truck. The 21st 

Century Truck Partnership involves key members of the commercial highway vehicle 

industry such as truck equipment and engine manufacturers, along with three other 

Federal agencies. The R&D centers on improving the efficiency of large combustion 

engine and fuel systems, while reducing “parasitic” losses (such as wind resistance and 

rolling resistance) to decrease the overall fuel consumption of highway freight 

transportation. 

Other activities focus on accelerating the adoption of alternative fuel and advanced 

technology vehicles, deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure, and expansion of 

advanced vehicle fleet evaluations to include plug-in hybrids. There are three activities--

regulatory and rulemaking support for the Energy Policy Acts of 1992 and 2005, 

alternative fuel and fleet activities, and Clean Cities--that work to accelerate alternative 

fuel infrastructure installation. Clean Cities promotes deployment of vehicle 

technologies and alternative fuels that can reduce petroleum consumption. Advanced 

Vehicle Competitions provide educational opportunities for university students to learn 

and use real-world engineering skills while demonstrating the performance of advanced 
17

vehicle technologies. We think of these competitions as building the next generation of 

automotive engineers. A couple of years ago the Department found that 60 percent of 

graduating seniors that had participated in one of these competitions were hired by an 

automaker or one of the major automotive suppliers. Next week students from 17 

university engineering departments will face off in the second round of the Challenge X 

competition at GM’s Desert Proving Grounds, and see who has done the best job of 

improving the fuel economy and emissions of a Chevy Equinox while maintaining 

vehicle comfort and capabilities. GM is our headline co-sponsor this year, but they are 

joined by over 30 corporate sponsors from the supplier community. 

Near-term activities also include developing and deploying bio-fuels to displace 

petroleum. This year, we will spend at least $3 million to provide assistance for fueling 

stations to add E-85 capabilities. Depending on the results of a solicitation out right now 

(closing June 8), the total committed to E-85 deployment could reach $4.5 million. And 

each DOE dollar will be leveraged by cost-share from the private sector or state and local 

governments. Through ongoing discussions with automakers, the Department is 

encouraging increased production of flex fuel vehicles. The Department is also working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to tighten fuel standards and to develop real-time fuel 

quality tests for biodiesel to enhance performance in advanced engines. Advanced 

catalysis research at our National Laboratories could enable more efficient diesel engines 

to replace gasoline engines in light duty vehicles without sacrificing air quality. 

In the mid-term, advanced combustion research seeks to use electronic controls and 

new fuel formulations to operate compression ignition engines in the zone between soot 

formation and nitrogen oxide formation. Research success in homogeneous charge 

compression ignition (HCCI) and other low temperature combustion regimes could result 

in passenger vehicles greater than 40 percent more fuel efficient than today’s best 

gasoline cars. Additional gains are possible since advanced combustion engines will still 

generate waste heat. One of our most tantalizing research opportunities is the direct 

conversion of waste heat to electricity using solid state thermoelectric devices. Our 2007 

budget request commits over $3 million to solid state thermoelectric research. 

Research on hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) technologies (batteries, power 

electronics, motors), addresses reduced component cost, improved performance, and 

extended lifetimes. Efforts are being expanded to include technologies that would enable 

plug-in HEVs. Materials research emphasizes new processes to make raw carbon fiber 

cheaper, and allow carbon fiber parts to be manufactured at speeds appropriate for 

automotive mass production. Use of carbon fiber parts, along with magnesium, titanium 

and lightweight steel alloys would enable fabrication of lighter vehicles that use less fuel 

while maintaining occupant safety and comfort. We are also examining new processes 

for recycling these vehicles in our pilot recycling facility at Argonne National 

Laboratory. Research focused on advanced batteries, power electronics, motors and 

lightweight materials is essential for improved hybrid electric vehicles in the near- and 

mid-term as well as fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles in the long-term. 

The Hydrogen Frontier 

Now that I’ve discussed the near- and mid-term options for reducing foreign oil 

dependence, I’d like to move on to hydrogen, which offers a strategy for long-term 

energy security and reduced emissions. Hydrogen is a transportation fuel that can be 

made from a variety of domestically available resources, while removing criteria 

pollutants and carbon from the tailpipes of vehicles. The Department’s research explores 

pathways to manufacture and deliver hydrogen from fossil, nuclear and renewable 

resources. 

The FY 2007 Budget requests $289.5 million for the President’s Hydrogen Fuel 

Initiative, including $195.8 within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. The balance is requested in our basic science, fossil and nuclear offices, as well 
18

as the Department of Transportation. We are closely coordinating our efforts with other 

Federal agencies through a special task force led by the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. 

The Department is pleased to have Congress’ support of the hydrogen program in 

Title VIII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The requirements in the Act are consistent 

with the Department’s plans and include important provisions for coordination of efforts 

across the Federal Government and for independent advice from outside the Department 

on our hydrogen efforts. 

Indeed, much progress has been made since 2003 when President Bush committed 

$1.2 billion over five years to accelerate hydrogen research. Since then, the Department’s 

program has been twice reviewed by the National Academies. In the latest review 

released last summer, the chair of the review committee said the program “is making 

significant headway” and that “it could have an enormous beneficial impact on energy 

security and the U.S. economy.” 

Our hydrogen program is focused on research to overcome the technology barriers 

that would be a precondition to broad commercialization. Over three years, our ongoing 

research has contributed to reducing the high-volume cost of automotive fuel cells from 

$275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $110 per kilowatt in 2005.1

 Further research and 

development are required to meet our ultimate cost target of $30 per kilowatt. In FY 

2007, the Department will initiate new projects in several areas, including improved fuel 

cell membranes, cold-weather start-up and operation, and the effects of impurities on fuel 

cells. In addition to supporting fuel cell cost reduction, this work will help us achieve our 

durability target of 5,000 hours which equates to the vehicle lifetime required. 

Hydrogen storage on board a vehicle to meet all performance and cost requirements 

is one of the most technically challenging barriers we face. The Department has a diverse 

portfolio through three Centers of Excellence as well as independent projects both in 

applied and basic science with a total of about 40 universities, 15 companies and 10 

Federal laboratories. 

In just one year we are starting to see promising results with some completely new 

materials being developed in different areas such as metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, 

and carbon-based materials. Some of these materials can store 6 to 9 percent by weight 

of hydrogen. This is up from a maximum of 5.5 weight percent a year ago. Another step 

taken is to tailor these materials for storing and releasing hydrogen under practical 

temperature and pressure conditions. 

Further research breakthroughs on materials and systems engineering is required to 

meet our system target to provide consumers with a 300-mile driving range. The 

Department’s basic research is carefully coordinated with our applied research in 

materials development for hydrogen storage. 

We are also analyzing transition scenarios on how the Nation might initiate 

hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure investment during the early years of 

potential vehicle market penetration and growth. 

Working with our nuclear and basic science offices, we are pursuing revolutionary 

approaches to hydrogen production. For example, heat from nuclear reactors or solar 

energy can be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This approach involves 

thermochemical cycles that are still under development. Other high risk, high pay-off 

production approaches also involve harnessing the huge potential resource of solar 

energy. Working with the DOE Office of Science, we are developing “photobiological” 

hydrogen production where micro-organisms produce hydrogen and 

“photoelectrochemical” hydrogen production where solid state devices use photon energy 

to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. 

 

1

 Cost Analysis of PEM Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation, September 30, 2005, Carlson, E.J., 

et.al., Tiax, LLC 
19

In our coal-based hydrogen program, we plan to scale up membrane reactors for 

separating hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide streams. This research is closely 

coordinated with our FutureGen effort to create the world’s first near zero-emission fossil 

fuel plant by using clean coal technology and sequestering of greenhouse gas emissions. 

In our nuclear-based hydrogen program, we plan to complete the assembly and 

preliminary testing of a laboratory system to demonstrate hydrogen production by using 

nuclear heat to drive chemical cycles, just discussed, that split water to produce hydrogen 

and oxygen. In another approach, we plan to demonstrate hydrogen production from a 

higher temperature electrolysis system that can be more efficient than electrolyzers used 

today in standard industry practice. 

Through cost-shared partnerships with the automotive and energy industries, four 

teams are installing hydrogen refueling stations and putting cars on the road to test the 

technology in realworld conditions as part of the Department’s Learning Demonstration. 

Data collected on vehicle performance, durability and fuel economy is feeding back into 

our research program to ensure our research is focused on the most relevant problems. 

As mentioned, hydrogen is critical to our Nation’s long-term strategy for energy and 

environmental security. Developing hydrogen technologies that can be manufactured 

domestically will improve our economic competitiveness as well. Our manufacturing 

research and development effort is new in FY 2007 and will address the need for highvolume manufacturing processes for components like fuel cells that are currently handbuilt. These processes are important to lowering the costs of fuel cells and to developing 

a supplier base. Establishing an early supply base for fuel cell applications such as 

portable, stationary, remote and emergency backup power lays the groundwork for much 

larger supply chains needed for automotive applications. In January, Secretary Bodman 

released a draft roadmap for public comment on manufacturing research for the hydrogen 

economy. This roadmap is being finalized and will be the foundation for executing this 

important research. 

Investments are not only occurring in the Federal Government but also at the state 

and local level. From Aiken, South Carolina, to Sacramento, California, hydrogen 

research facilities and infrastructure investments show a commitment to hydrogen and 

may provide the earliest catalysts for a hydrogen economy. These diverse investments 

increase our probability of success in solving technology barriers that would enable 

industry to make fuel cell vehicles that consumers will want to buy and to invest in 

hydrogen refueling infrastructure that is profitable. These investments can ultimately 

help displace demand for oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Conclusion 

Our national pathway to a secure energy future will be composed of a variety of 

invaluable components, from making today’s internal combustion engines more efficient 

to developing home-grown biofuels, plugging in our cars, and harnessing the renewable, 

pollution-free potential of hydrogen. Working with our indispensable partners in the 

academic community, at our National Labs, and in private industry, we are putting our 

research dollars in the most promising areas to address critical technical barriers, and I 

believe, with confidence, that the next generation of vehicles and fuels is already in sight. 

MR. HALL. I thank you very much. And we recognize at this time 

Ms. Susan Cischke, Vice President of Environmental and Safety 

engineering, Ford Motor Company. I’m honored to recognize you. 

MS. CISCHKE. Members of the committee, my name is Susan 

Cischke, and I am the Vice President of Environmental and Safety 

Engineering at Ford Motor Company. Energy security is a significant 
20

issue facing our Nation and the role of the next generation of vehicles 

and fuels is of great importance to the auto industry. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share with you Ford Motor Company’s view on this issue. 

We believe that our Nation’s energy challenges can only be properly 

addressed by an integrated approach; that is, a partnership of all 

stakeholders, which includes the automobile industry, the fuel industry, 

government, and consumers. The truth is that we must all accept that 

these are long-term challenges, and we are all part of the solution. 

From our perspective, no one factor can be ignored in the highly 

competitive U.S. marketplace. As a result, we are working to accelerate 

the commercial application of all areas of advanced vehicle technologies, 

including hybrids, flexible-fuel vehicles, advanced clean diesel, 

hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines, and fuel-cell vehicles. 

The diversity of customer needs within and across the market is why we 

are investing in a portfolio of solutions. At Ford we recognize that 

hybrids have an important place within this portfolio of solutions. They 

deliver excellent benefits in lower-speed stop/start traffic and offer many 

customers significant improvements in fuel economy, up to 80 percent in 

city driving without compromise. 

And much of this technology is also applicable to our fuel-cell and 

our ethanol vehicle development efforts. In 2004, we launched the 

world’s first gasoline electric full-hybrid SUV, the Escape hybrid. In 

2005, we expanded this technology to the Mercury Mariner hybrid and 

have announced plans to offer this technology on the Mazda Tribute 

SUV, the Ford Fusion, the Mercury Milan, the Ford 500, and Mercury 

Montego sedans, plus the Ford Edge and Lincoln Mark X crossover 

vehicles. 

Ford’s U.S. HEV volume for the 2005 model year was over 10,000 

units and has almost doubled in 2006. And we have over 130 

hybrid-related U.S. patents issued or pending. Expansion of our hybrid 

offering is clearly an important part of our overall innovation strategy, 

which embraces our recent commitment to increase our production 

capacity to up to 250,000 hybrids per year by 2010 and to offer hybrids 

on half of our Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury products. Nevertheless, a key 

challenge facing hybrids is the incremental costs both in terms of higher 

prices for components and engineering investments that must be 

overcome for this technology to transition from niche markets to 

high-volume applications. 

In addition to hybrids, we believe that the greater use of renewable 

fuels, like ethanol, a domestically produced renewable fuel, will help 

reduce reliance on foreign oil. We applaud Congress’s efforts that 

resulted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as the President’s 

recent commitment to address our Nation’s addiction to oil. Ford has 
21

been building flexible-fuel vehicles, or FFVs, for over a decade, and we 

are an industry leader in this technology. These FFVs are capable of 

operating on up to 85 percent ethanol or gasoline or any mixture in 

between, and all of our gasoline-powered vehicles are capable of 

operating on 10 percent ethanol or E-10. 

FFVs are a great alternative for our customers because they provide 

them with an option to choose between E-85 and gasoline as they desire. 

And as ethanol production increases driven by growing availability and 

demand, competitive pricing will help to lower the cost of E-85, further 

increasing its use as well as the demand for FFVs. In 2006, Ford Motor 

Company will produce 250,000 FFVs and by the end of this year will 

have placed a total of nearly 2 million FFVs on the road, including 

America’s best selling vehicle, the Ford F-150. As a whole, U.S. auto 

makers will have produced a total of nearly 6 million vehicles. And if all 

these vehicles were operated on E-85, over 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline 

a year could be displaced. That is like saving a full year of gasoline 

consumption in a State like Missouri or Tennessee. 

And we are not stopping there. Earlier this year, we unveiled the 

Ford Escape hybrid E-85 research vehicle, which marries petroleum 

saving technologies, hybrid electric power and E-85 flex-fuel capability. 

Though there are many technical and cost challenges to address, we 

believe that if just 5 percent of the U.S. fleet were powered by E-85 

HEVs, oil imports could be reduced by about 140 million barrels a year. 

Unfortunately, there is a problem. Even though the volume of E-85 

vehicles continues to grow rapidly, there are less than 700 E-85 fueling 

stations in the U.S. and that is out of over 170,000 retail gasoline fueling 

stations nationwide. For ethanol to compete as a motor fuel in the 

transport sector and play an increasingly significant role addressing our 

Nation’s energy concerns, we need a strong, long-term focus on policies 

that increase U.S. ethanol production and accelerate E-85 infrastructure 

development. 

Ford is also working on advanced light-duty diesel engines. Today, 

clean diesels offer exceptional driveability and can improve fuel 

economy by up to 20 to 25 percent. This technology is already prevalent 

in many markets around the world. Nearly half the new vehicles sold in 

Europe are advanced diesels and Ford continues to accelerate our 

introduction of diesel applications in these markets. 

There are, however, many hurdles that inhibit wide-scale 

introduction of this technology in the U.S. We are working to overcome 

the technical challenges of meeting the extremely stringent Federal and 

California tail pipe emission standards and to address other issues such 

as fuel quality, customer acceptance, and retail fuel availability. 
22

Looking to the future, we are working on what we think is an 

important transitional technology to sustainable transportation: 

hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines. Ford is a leader in this 

technology, and we think it is a bridge to the development of a hydrogen 

infrastructure and ultimately fuel-cell vehicles. And we are in the 

process of developing hydrogen power shuttle buses for a fleet 

demonstration in North America starting later this year. 

Even further down the road, hydrogen-powered fuel cells appear to 

be another promising technology for delivering sustainable 

transportation. Hydrogen can be derived from a wide range of 

feedstocks to increase energy diversity, and fuel cells are highly energy 

efficient and produce no emissions. Our Ford Focus fuel-cell vehicle is a 

state-of-the-art hybridized fuel-cell system, sharing much of the same 

hybrid technology we developed for our Escape hybrid SUV. We have 

already placed a small fleet of these vehicles in three U.S. cities as part 

of the U.S. Department of Energy’s hydrogen demonstration program 

collecting valuable data. 

As you can imagine, the R&D investment that goes with all this 

work is a very big number, certainly in the billions, not the millions, and 

it will only grow in the future. We would like to see more R&D support 

for vehicle technologies and renewable fuels. Government incentives for 

advanced vehicle technologies and E-85 infrastructure can accelerate the 

introduction of these vehicles and fuels into the marketplace. 

Government must play a critical role to promote U.S. innovation and 

can do so by approving a seamless extension of the R&D tax credits and 

enhancing the level of credit for a broad range of energy-efficient 

technologies and energy security initiatives. Consistent implementation 

of an integrated approach will allow us to achieve much more in a 

shorter time frame and at a significantly lower cost than if each 

stakeholder were to pursue its own agenda in isolation, however 

well-intentioned they may be. 

The challenges are considerable, but not insurmountable, and there is 

an enormous amount we can achieve if we act together in an integrated 

manner. Thank you again for this opportunity to address the committee. 

MR. HALL. And we thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Susan M. Cischke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN M. CISCHKE, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT AND 

SAFETY ENGINEERING, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

My name is Susan Cischke and I am the Vice President of Environmental and Safety 

Engineering at Ford Motor Company. Energy security is a significant issue facing our 

nation, and the role of the next generation of vehicles and fuels is of great importance to 

the auto industry. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you Ford Motor Company's 

views on this issue. 
23

Energy is literally the fuel that powers the industrial and manufacturing growth of 

the United States. The energy supply disruptions of last summer, increases in global 

demand, and geopolitical concerns with some of the oil rich regions of the world led to 

significantly higher energy prices and consumer angst at the fuel pump. It's our view that 

action must be taken in all sectors, if we are to meet these challenges as a nation. 

At Ford, we recognize that we have a responsibility to do something to help address 

America's energy security needs, and we are accelerating our efforts to develop 

innovative solutions. As Bill Ford has said, “Ford Motor Company is absolutely 

committed to making innovation a central part of everything we do.” That innovation 

begins with alternative fuels and vehicles. Ford produced the first American hybrid on the 

road today – the Ford Escape Hybrid. We have committed to building up to a quartermillion hybrids a year by 2010 and to continue our leadership in ethanol powered flexible 

fuel vehicles. 

These new product initiatives are a strong commitment for Ford and our customers, 

and they recognize a changing marketplace. But there is a limit to what we can achieve 

on our own. We believe that our nation's energy challenges can only be properly 

addressed by an Integrated Approach: that is, a partnership of all stakeholders which 

includes the automotive industry, the fuel industry, government, and consumers. The 

truth is that we must all accept that these are long-term challenges and that we are all part 

of the solution. 

So let me set out how we at Ford Motor Company believe each stakeholder can play 

its part. I’ll start with the automotive industry itself, because we clearly have a central 

role to play. The industry has taken significant steps in improving the fuel efficiency of 

our products. At Ford Motor Company we see this not only as being socially responsible 

but a business necessity, and we are moving ahead with a range of technological 

solutions simultaneously – because there is simply no single solution, no “silver bullet”. 

We know that when customers consider purchasing a vehicle, they are concerned with 

numerous attributes including price, quality, safety, performance, comfort and utility. 

From our perspective, no one factor can be ignored in the highly competitive U.S. 

marketplace. As a result, we are working to accelerate the commercial application of all 

areas of advanced vehicle technologies, including hybrids, flexible fuel vehicles, 

advanced clean diesels, hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines and fuel cell 

vehicles. 

The portfolio approach that we are taking ensures that we are able to offer 

consumers a range of products that meet their specific needs and circumstances. And 

make no mistake; it will ultimately be the consumers who decide. 

This diversity of customer needs within and across markets is why we are investing 

in a portfolio of solutions. The result is a period of unprecedented technological 

innovation. Innovation – in matters of the energy, renewable fuels, safety and design – is 

the compass by which we are setting our direction for the future. At Ford, we recognize 

that hybrids have an important place within this portfolio of solutions. They deliver 

excellent benefits in lower speed stop/start traffic and offer many customers breakthrough 

improvements in fuel economy – up to 80% in city driving – without compromise. And 

much of this technology is also applicable to our fuel cell and ethanol vehicle 

development efforts. 

In 2004, we launched the world’s first gasoline-electric full hybrid SUV, the Escape 

Hybrid. In 2005, we expanded this technology to the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and have 

announced plans to offer this technology on the Mazda Tribute SUV, and the Ford 

Fusion, Mercury Milan, Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sedans, plus the Ford 

Edge and Lincoln MKX crossover vehicles. Ford's U.S. HEV volume for the 2005 model 

year was over 10,000 units and has almost doubled in 2006, and we have over 130 

hybrid-related U.S. patents issued or pending. 
24

Expansion of our hybrid offering is clearly an important part of our overall 

innovation strategy which embraces our recent commitment to increase our production 

capacity to up to 250,000 hybrids per year by 2010 and to offer hybrids on half of our 

Ford, Lincoln and Mercury products. Nevertheless, a key challenge facing hybrids is the 

incremental costs – both in terms of higher prices for components and engineering 

investments – that must be overcome for this technology to transition from “niche 

markets” to high-volume applications. 

In addition to hybrids, we believe that greater use of renewable fuels like ethanol, a 

domestically produced renewable fuel, will help reduce reliance on foreign oil. We 

applaud Congress' efforts that resulted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as the 

President's recent commitment to address our nation's addiction to oil. 

Ford has been building flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) for over a decade, and we are 

an industry leader in this technology. These “FFVs” are capable of operating on up to 

85% ethanol, or gasoline, or any mixture in between. And all of our gasoline powered 

vehicles are capable of operating on 10% ethanol or “E10”. FFVs are a great alternative 

for our customers because they provide them with an option to choose between E-85 and 

gasoline as they desire. As ethanol production increases, driven by growing availability 

and demand, competitive pricing will help to lower the cost of E-85 further, increasing its 

use as well as demand for FFVs. 

While I'm talking about FFVs, let me clear the air about what it takes to make an 

FFV. We've heard from many people that all it takes to make a FFV is “a little tweak to 

the chip that runs the engine”. I really wish it was that simple – but it's not. Because 

ethanol is a unique fuel with unique properties, fuel tanks with low permeation 

characteristics are required. They also require a special fuel pump and fuel lines to 

deliver the fuel to the engine. Unique injectors introduce the fuel into the engine where 

special calibrations programmed into the on-board computer determine how much 

ethanol is in the fuel and how best to set spark timing and fuel flow. And because there is 

more than one fuel calibration within an FFV, costly development and certification 

testing is doubled. Many of the FFV parts and processes are patented by Ford and are the 

result of innovative ideas by our best engineers, and we're proud of them. Nevertheless, 

making an FFV is a significant investment for auto manufacturers. 

In 2006, Ford Motor Company will produce 250,000 FFVs and by the end of this 

year, we will have placed a total of nearly 2 million FFVs on America's roads, including 

America's best selling vehicle--the (5.4L) Ford F-150. 

As a whole, the U.S. automakers will have produced a total of nearly 6 million 

vehicles. If all of these vehicles were operated on E-85, over 3.6 billion gallons of 

gasoline a year could be displaced. That's like saving a full year of gasoline consumption 

in a state like Missouri or Tennessee. 

And we are not stopping there. Earlier this year we, unveiled the Ford Escape 

Hybrid E-85 research vehicle which marries two petroleum-saving technologies – hybrid 

electric power and E-85 flexible-fuel capability. Though there are many technical and 

cost challenges to address, we believe that if just 5% of the U.S. fleet were powered by E85 HEVs, oil imports could be reduced by about 140 millions barrels a year. 

Unfortunately there is a problem. Even though the volume of E-85 vehicles 

continues to grow rapidly, there are less than 700 E-85 fueling stations in the U.S. – and 

that's out of over 170,000 retail gasoline fueling stations nationwide. For ethanol to 

compete as a motor fuel in the transport sector and play an increasingly significant role 

addressing our nation's energy concerns, we need strong, long-term focus on policies that 

increase U.S. ethanol production and accelerate E-85 infrastructure development. At the 

same time, as the President pointed out in the State of the Union address, we need 

national research efforts to pursue producing ethanol from more energy-efficient 

cellulosic materials like rice straw, corn stover, switch grass, wood chips or forest 

residue. 
25

Ford is also working on advanced light duty diesel engines. Today's clean diesels 

offer exceptional driveability and can improve fuel economy by up to 20-25%. This 

technology is already prevalent in many markets around the world – nearly half of the 

new vehicles sold in Europe are advanced diesels – and Ford continues to accelerate our 

introduction of diesel applications in these markets. There are, however, many hurdles 

that inhibit wide scale introduction of this technology in the U.S. We are working to 

overcome the technical challenges of meeting the extremely stringent Federal and 

California tailpipe emissions standards, and to address other issues such as fuel quality, 

customer acceptance and retail fuel availability. 

Looking to the future, we are working on what we think is an important transitional 

technology to sustainable transportation – hydrogen-powered internal combustion 

engines. Ford is a leader in this technology. We think it's a “bridge” to the development 

of a hydrogen infrastructure and, ultimately, fuel cell vehicles, and we are in the process 

of developing hydrogen powered E450 H2ICE shuttle buses for fleet demonstrations in 

North America starting later this year. 

Even further down the road, hydrogen powered fuel cells appear to be another 

promising technology for delivering sustainable transportation. Hydrogen can be derived 

from a wide range of feedstocks to increase energy diversity, and fuel cells are highly 

energy-efficient and produce no emissions. Our Ford Focus Fuel Cell vehicle is a stateof-the-art, hybridized fuel cell system – sharing much of the same hybrid technology we 

developed for our Escape Hybrid SUV. We have already placed a small fleet of these 

vehicles in three U.S. cities as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's hydrogen 

demonstration program collecting valuable data. 

As you can imagine, the R&D investment that goes with all this work is a very big 

number--certainly in the billions, not the millions--and it will only grow in the future. 

Many of our competitors and suppliers are also investing heavily. But there is only so 

much we can achieve without the help of others outside our industry. We need an 

integrated approach. 

It is clear that the solution to the energy issues associated with road transport will 

need to come from advances in fuels as well as vehicle technology. We need the oil 

industry to endorse an Integrated Approach here in the U.S., just as they are beginning to 

do with automakers and government officials in Europe. We at Ford are clearly excited 

about the potential role of renewable fuels. However, the fact is that without the 

wholehearted involvement of the fuel industry, we cannot move forward far enough or 

fast enough. We obviously need key partners like the oil industry to invest in developing 

and marketing renewable fuels like E-85 – and we need it to do so now and rapidly. We 

fully support government incentives to encourage the industry or others to accelerate this 

investment. 

There is a great deal that policy makers can do at all levels as well. We would like 

to see more R&D support for vehicle technologies and renewable fuels. Government 

incentives for advanced technology vehicles and E-85 infrastructure can accelerate the 

introduction of these vehicles and fuels into the marketplace. Government must play a 

critical role to promote U.S. innovation and can do so by approving a seamless extension 

of the R&D tax credits and enhancing the level of credit for a broad range of energy 

efficient technologies and energy security initiatives. 

We would also like to see greater investment in improved road traffic management 

infrastructure in order to reduce congestion and save fuel. According to the American 

Highway Users Alliance, about 5.7 billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually due to 

congestion. Effective traffic light synchronization is a good example of a change that 

could lead to big reductions. 

There is also a role for government in educating the public on how to drive in an 

energy efficient manner. In the end, it will ultimately be the size of the car park, and 

consumers' choices of vehicles, how many miles they drive, and driving behaviors that 
26

will determine how much motor fuel we consume. A person who drives in an 

energyconscious way – by avoiding excessive idling, unnecessary bursts of acceleration 

and anticipating braking – can enjoy much better fuel consumption today. And 

government can play a key role to raise public awareness. We believe that awareness is a 

simple and effective early step which is why we have introduced driver training programs 

in Europe and recently developed on-line training for all Ford Motor Company 

employees. 

Consistent implementation of an Integrated Approach will allow us to achieve much 

more in a shorter timeframe and at a significantly lower cost than if each stakeholder 

were to pursue its own agenda in isolation, however well-intentioned they might be. The 

challenges are considerable but not insurmountable, and there is an enormous amount we 

can achieve if we act together in an integrated manner. 

We have to ensure that our business is sustainable by making vehicles that continue 

to meet the changing needs of the 21st century. That’s a responsibility we owe to our 

customers, shareholders and our employees. But at another level, all of us have the 

opportunity to do something about energy independence – and that’s a responsibility we 

owe future generations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Committee. 

One Page Summary of Major Points 

• Ford believes that our nation's energy challenges can only be properly addressed by 

an Integrated Approach: that is, a partnership of all stakeholders which includes the 

automotive industry, the fuel industry, government, and consumers. The truth is 

that we must all accept that these are long-term challenges and that we are all part 

of the solution. 

• Ford is working to accelerate the commercial application of all areas of advanced 

vehicle technologies, including hybrids, flexible fuel vehicles, advanced clean 

diesels, hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines and fuel cell vehicles. 

• Ford is the only American auto company with full hybrid vehicles on the road today 

and we plan to increase our production capacity to up to 250,000 hybrids per year 

by the end of the decade. 

• Ford is also leading the way in vehicles operating on renewable ethanol – putting up 

to 250,000 ethanol-capable vehicles on the road this year and working to develop 

ethanol infrastructure. 

• Ford Escape Hybrid E-85 is the world’s first ethanol-fueled hybrid, a research 

project that combines hybrid and FFV technology to provide an innovative solution 

to U.S. national energy concerns. 

• If the nearly 6 million FFVs that will be on the roads by the end of this year were 

operated on E-85, over 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline could be displaced. 

• For ethanol to compete as a motor fuel in the transport sector and play an 

increasingly significant role addressing our nation's energy concerns, we need a 

strong, long-term focus on policies that increase U.S. ethanol production and 

accelerate E-85 infrastructure development. 

• We think hydrogen internal combustion engines are a “bridge” to the development 

of a hydrogen infrastructure and, ultimately, fuel cell vehicles, and we are in the 

process of developing hydrogen powered E450 H2ICE shuttle buses for fleet 

demonstrations in North America starting later this year. 

• Further down the road, hydrogen powered fuel cells appear to be another promising 

technology. Ford has placed a small fleet of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in three 

U.S. cities as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's hydrogen demonstration 

program collecting valuable data. 
27

• Government must play a critical role to promote U.S. innovation and can do so by 

approving a seamless extension of the R&D tax credits and enhancing the level of 

credit for a broad range of energy efficient technologies and energy security 

initiatives. 

MR. HALL. The Chair at this time recognizes Mrs. Deborah 

Morrissett, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, DaimlerChrysler 

Corporation. 

MS. MORRISSETT. Good afternoon. I am Deb Morrissett, Vice 

President for Regulatory Affairs for DamilerChrysler. I want to thank 

you for providing this opportunity to appear today to discuss 

DaimlerChrysler’s involvement in the development of advanced power 

trains and to tell you what we are doing to advance to the next generation 

of vehicles and fuels for America. 

At the Chrysler Group we are committed to producing products that 

customers want to buy and for continuing to innovate in all aspects of 

our business. Reducing fuel consumption is an important part of that 

innovation. We are developing a broad range of advanced propulsion 

technology, including more efficient gasoline engines, clean diesels, 

hybrids, biofuel-capable systems, and, in the longer term, fuel cells. 

We are focused on providing the market with the ability to select the 

propulsion technology that best fits the needs of the individual consumer. 

Today, hydrogen appears to be the eventual successor to fossil fuels 

and a long-term energy solution for our Nation. DaimlerChrysler has 

been working on fuel-cell technology for over 10 years. We have the 

largest worldwide fleet of fuel-cell vehicles, more than a hundred, 

including small passenger cars, delivery vans, and mass transit buses in 

use, and demonstration projects in the United States, Europe, and Asia. 

On the strength of government and industry partnerships, we have 

made good progress in advancing hydrogen fuel-cell technology. These 

partnerships are absolutely vital to providing the significant investment 

necessary to further develop fuel-cell technology and a hydrogen 

infrastructure. 

DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses North America. The Orion 

brand is the leading manufacturer of diesel electric hybrid buses 

worldwide. Compared to standard diesel buses, the hybrid units provide 

significantly better fuel economy while greatly reducing emissions. 

Drivers enjoy faster acceleration and passengers experience a quieter, 

smoother ride compared to conventional buses. 

I would like to focus the remainder of my comments on diesel 

engines and biofuels. Advanced diesel technology offers up to 

30 percent better fuel economy and 20 percent lower CO2 emissions 

when compared to equivalent gasoline engines. The modern clean diesel 
28

is a technology that is available today and can help reduce our Nation’s 

consumption of petroleum. 

Last year the Chrysler Group became the first North American-based 

manufacturer to offer a modern diesel engine in a light-duty vehicle 

market with our Jeep Liberty. Currently, DaimlerChrysler offers three 

models with diesel engines: Jeep Liberty, the Dodge Ram Pickup, and 

the Mercedes-Benz E-320. This fall we will introduce diesels in the 

Mercedes M and R classes. And in the next few weeks we will announce 

another diesel product for the Chrysler Group. 

Also in the 2006 calendar year, DaimlerChrysler will introduce the 

cleanest and most efficient diesel technology in the world, called Blue 

Tech. To give you a benchmark for performance, the Mercedes E-320 

full-size sedan, powered by a 6-cylinder engine, will be the cleanest 

diesel in the world. It delivers the torque of an 8 cylinder, the fuel 

economy of 35 miles per gallon in real-world driving, and has the 

potential to meet emission standards in all 50 States. To meet these fuel 

economy and stringent emission goals, it is essential that the introduction 

of low-sulfur diesel fuel later this year continue on schedule and not be 

delayed. 

While diesel technology and improved gasoline engines can make 

big strides towards helping us to meet our Nation’s energy, environment, 

and security objectives, biofuels represent a huge opportunity to further 

reduce our consumption of petroleum. Every Jeep Liberty diesel leaves 

the assembly plant in Toledo, Ohio, fueled with B-5, a 5 percent 

biodiesel mix derived from locally grown soybeans. Beginning with our 

2007 Dodge Ram, we endorse the use of B-20, a 20 percent biodiesel 

mix, for use in our military, government, and commercial fleet 

customers. We believe that allowing our fleet customers to use fuel 

made to the current military specification will help accelerate the 

development and adoption of a strong national B-20 standard, a standard 

that OEMs and engine manufacturers can endorse for all of their 

vehicles, including the millions of diesel vehicles on the road today. 

Biofuels, including ethanol, reduce life cycle greenhouse gas 

emissions. Biodiesel reduces tail pipe emissions of particulates, carbon 

monoxide, and hydrocarbons compared with conventional diesel fuel. 

Biofuels are proof that at least part of the solution for our energy, 

environment, and national security issues can be home grown. Biofuels 

support the American agricultural economy. Incentives for the 

introduction of biodiesel and E-85 flex-fuel vehicles should continue in 

order to help us reach the critical mass of vehicles on the road required to 

spur fuel infrastructure development. 

At DaimlerChrysler, and all of the other manufacturers represented 

here today, we are doing our part to improve existing technology, to 
29

accelerate the introduction of new technologies, to encourage the use of 

renewable fuels, and to invest in the research necessary to deliver the 

long-term future technologies that America needs. We stand ready to do 

our part, but to achieve our ambitious goals we need action from 

government policymakers, the fuels industry, and ultimately the 

American consumer. Thank you. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Deborah Morrissett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH MORRISSETT, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY 

AFFAIRS, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

Good afternoon. I’m Deb Morrissett, Vice President for Regulatory Affairs for 

DaimlerChrysler. I want to thank the chairs and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality for this opportunity to appear today. 

I am coming before you today to describe our involvement in the development of 

advanced technologies for vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption and what 

DaimlerChrysler is doing to advance the transition to the next generation of vehicles and 

fuels for America. 

Speaking for the Chrysler Group only, we have the most aggressive product plan in 

the history of our company. In 2004 we set a company record for new vehicle launches in 

one year with nine. This year we'll break that record by introducing 10 all-new vehicles, 

among which will be some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles we've ever built. Over the 

next five years we plan to invest $30 billion in our product program. Over the past four 

years we've committed $7.0 billion in total program investments to upgrade the flexibility 

and competitiveness of our manufacturing facilities to world-class levels. 

These investments and our product development are essential to ensure that our 

company and our people can compete against global competition. We are responsible for 

producing products that customers want to buy and for continuing to innovate in all 

aspects of our business. Reducing fuel consumption is an important part of that 

innovation. 

There are several forces shaping energy policy at a national level including “acts of 

God” such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year that exposed the fragile state of 

domestic oil refinement capability. Ultimately, an effective response to all of the 

concerns about petroleum usage includes 1) use less oil; 2) more cleanly and efficiently 

burn the petroleum-based fuels we do use; and, 3) find alternatives. We must do all three 

without adversely affecting the economy or employment in the auto and related 

industries. 

Clearly, the federal government and auto manufacturers have leading roles to play in 

achieving those goals. We stand our best chance of success when we work hand-in-hand 

to achieve them. 

Take the example of fuel cell technology. Today, hydrogen appears to be the 

eventual successor to fossil fuels and a long-term energy solution for our Nation. On the 

strength of government and industry partnerships, we've made good progress in 

advancing hydrogen fuel-cell technology. 

DaimlerChrysler has been working on fuel cell technology for transportation 

utilizing hydrogen for over ten years. We have invested more than $1 Billion in R&D and 

have developed five generations of vehicles (NECAR1, 2, 3, and 4, and the F-Cell). Of 

all manufacturers, we have the largest worldwide fleet of fuel cell vehicles—more than 

100—participating in several international demonstration projects in the United States, 

Europe, and Asia with over 1.2 million miles of accumulated real world experience. As 
30

part of these projects, we are demonstrating the viability of the fuel cell in the entire fleet 

of vehicles—from small passenger cars to delivery vans to large mass transit buses. 

Government-industry fuel cell partnerships are working. These partnerships will 

continue to be absolutely vital to providing a jumpstart to the significant investment 

necessary to develop fuel cell technology and a hydrogen infrastructure. It is clear that we 

can work together toward solving our long-term energy, environmental and national 

security needs. We need to expand this cooperation to find solutions to the problem of 

petroleum consumption in the near term as well. 

DaimlerChrysler is engaged in a broad range of advanced propulsion technologies. 

Fuel cell vehicles are one long term focus of this technology portfolio, which also 

includes more efficient gasoline engines, advanced diesels, and hybrid powertrain 

systems. DaimlerChrysler is focused on providing the market with the ability to select the 

advanced propulsion technology that best fits the needs of the individual customer. 

In October of 2005, DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses North America received a 

contract for 500 Orion VII diesel hybrid-electric buses from New York City transport 

services. This is the largest order for hybrid buses in history. Orion, DaimlerChrysler’s 

North American city bus brand, will begin deliveries in the second quarter of 2006. This 

is the third hybrid order in New York City for Orion complementing the prior orders of 

200 units and 125 units respectively. 

Orion, along with partner BAE Systems, producer of the HybriDrive® series hybrid 

propulsion system, is the leading brand of hybrid buses worldwide with more than 300 

units in revenue service and 700 more units on order for the Toronto Transit 

Commission, San Francisco MUNI and now New York City Transit and MTA Bus. 

Trusted for their significant emissions reductions and fuel savings compared to standard 

diesel buses, Orion Hybrid buses also outperform conventionally powered vehicles. 

Compared to standard diesel buses, the hybrid units will provide significantly better 

fuel economy while greatly reducing emissions: 90 percent less particulate matter, 40 

percent less NOx, and 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases. Drivers will enjoy faster 

acceleration and customers will experience a quieter, smoother ride free of the frequent 

transmission shifts encountered in conventional buses. 

Regarding hybrids for light duty vehicles, DaimlerChrysler, GM and BMW have 

recently combined efforts to develop a two-mode hybrid drive system that surpasses the 

efficiency of today's hybrids. The partnership will cut development and system costs 

while giving customers an affordable hybrid alternative that improves fuel economy. Our 

first use of the system will be in early 2008 with the Dodge Durango. 

DaimlerChrysler has developed and implemented technologies that improve the 

efficiency of the current gasoline propulsion system. We must continue to enhance the 

gasoline combustion propulsion system since it will be the dominant choice in the market 

for many years to come. We offer the Multi-Displacement System (MDS) available in the 

HEMI in seven Chrysler Group vehicles. MDS seamlessly alternates between smooth, 

high fuel economy four-cylinder mode when less power is needed and V-8 mode when 

more power from the 5.7L HEMI engine is in demand. The system yields up to 20 

percent improved fuel economy. We also recently launched a new world engine coupled 

with a continuously variable transmission (CVT) to further improve fuel economy and 

reduce emissions of the all new Dodge Caliber. We will expand the application of this 

technology to several additional new products starting later this year. We are also 

working on further development of gasoline direct-injection which considerably enhances 

fuel economy by closely monitoring fuel atomization. 

Yet another alternative, and the one I wish to focus on in the remainder of my 

testimony, is the diesel engine. Modern diesels are only beginning to make inroads in the 

light duty fleet in the U.S. Meanwhile, diesels account for nearly 50 percent of the new 

car market in Europe and about two-thirds of the Chrysler and Jeep® vehicles sold in 

Europe in 2005. Advanced diesel technology offers up to 30 percent better fuel economy 
31

and 20 percent lower CO2 emissions when compared to equivalent gasoline engines. 

Modern, clean diesels are a technology that is available today and can help reduce our 

nation's consumption of petroleum based fuels. 

According to the EPA, if we had a light-duty vehicle population that was one-third 

diesel, we'd save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day in the U.S. That's the amount of 

oil the U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia. If Chrysler Group's diesel mix in the 

U.S. were the same as it is in Europe, our CAFE would improve by three miles per 

gallon! 

Last year the Chrysler Group became the first North American-based manufacturer 

to offer a modern diesel engine in the light duty vehicle market with our Jeep Liberty. By 

the way, customer demand for the diesel Liberty exceeded our expectations. Sales are 

almost twice our initial target. 

Our sister company, Mercedes-Benz, and our competitor, Volkswagen, also offer 

diesels here. We expect to see other manufacturers offering diesels in the U.S. in the not 

too distant future as well. For 2006, DaimlerChrysler currently offers 5 models with 

diesel engines—the Jeep Liberty, Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 pickups, and MercedesBenz E-320, ML-320, and R-320. In the next few weeks we will announce yet another 

diesel product for the Chrysler Group. 

Also in the 2006 calendar year, DaimlerChrysler will bring to this market the 

cleanest and most fuel-efficient diesel technology in the world, called BLUETEC. We 

introduced it in a Mercedes E-Class at the North American International Auto Show in 

Detroit in January. 

To give you a benchmark for performance, the Mercedes E320 full-size sedan, 

powered by a six-cylinder diesel engine, will be the cleanest diesel in the world. It 

delivers the torque of an eight-cylinder, 35 miles-per-gallon in real-world driving, and 

has the potential to meet emissions standards in all 50 states. To meet these fuel economy 

and stringent emission goals, it is essential that the low sulfur requirements for diesel fuel 

set to become effective later this year, be maintained and not delayed. 

While diesel technology alone can make big strides toward helping us meet our 

national energy, environment, and security objectives, when you add biodiesel and other 

biofuels, it gets really interesting. Biofuels represent a huge opportunity to reduce our 

consumption of conventional petroleum-based fuel. 

Designing more engines to run on biodiesel is a current objective at 

DaimlerChrysler. Biodiesel fuel reduces emissions of diesel vehicles and lowers 

petroleum consumption. Every Jeep Liberty diesel we build leaves the assembly plant in 

Toledo, Ohio, fueled with B5 - a renewable fuel with a 5 percent biodiesel mix derived 

from locally-grown soy beans. Beginning with our 2007 model year Dodge Ram, we will 

endorse the use of B20—a 20 percent biodiesel mix—for use by our military, government 

and commercial fleet customers. We believe that allowing our fleet customers to use fuel 

made to the current military specification will help accelerate the development and 

adoption of a national B20 specification for general use. 

Biofuels reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, because the plants from which 

they're derived absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during growth. Biofuels also 

reduce tailpipe emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons compared 

with conventional diesel fuel. Biofuels also support the American agricultural economy. 

To support this effort, we have teamed up with the Detroit-based nonprofit 

NextEnergy, the nation's largest chain of biodiesel refiners, industry-leading suppliers, 

and local universities to conduct much needed research and field testing. We even plan to 

study the use of biodiesel crops as possible tools to remediate old brownfield sites. 

One of the key enablers to broad acceptance of biodiesel is the establishment of a 

national high quality B20 fuel specification. In order for manufacturers to produce, sell, 

and warranty diesel vehicles for operation on biodiesel, we feel a national B20 standard is 

critical to us and our customers. This standard is needed, and must be designed, to allow 
32

manufacturers to endorse B20 for all of their vehicles, including the millions of diesel 

vehicles already on the road as well as the ones that will be built in the future. 

Gas-ethanol flex-fuel is another option we need to revisit. Since 1998 the Chrysler 

Group has provided to customers about 1.5 million minivans, cars, SUVs and pickup 

trucks that are E-85 flex-fuel (a gas-ethanol mix) capable. Unfortunately, in the past, 

virtually all of those vehicles ran on pure gasoline, due to the lack of an E-85 fuel 

infrastructure. But flex-fuels can work, when government policy gets behind them and 

encourages infrastructure development. 

Our current product plan commits us to producing, by the 2008 model year, just 

under 500,000 flexible fuel vehicles annually for our U.S. fleet. That's roughly 25 percent 

of our production. If all of them operated on E-85 instead of gasoline, it would save 250 

million gallons of petroleum per year—roughly the amount of oil we import from Libya 

each year. In the same timeframe we will produce over 150 thousand diesels annually 

that could operate on biodiesel if we have a suitable national B20 specification. 

Incentives for the introduction of biofuels and E-85 FFVs should continue to help 

reach the “critical mass” of vehicles on the road required to help spur the necessary fuel 

infrastructure development. Biofuels are proof that at least part of the solution to our 

energy, environment and national security issues can be homegrown. 

We at DaimlerChrysler, and all of the other manufacturers represented here today, 

are doing our part to improve existing technology, to accelerate the introduction of new 

technologies, and to invest in the research necessary to deliver the long-term future 

technologies America needs. However, the solution rests not just with auto industry 

action. We need action from government policy makers, the fuels industry and ultimately 

the American consumer. According to our computer models, full deployment of FFVs 

operating on E-85, 10 percent ethanol in all conventional gasoline vehicles and full 

penetration of 20 percent biodiesel, in both the light and heavy duty diesel fleets, would 

lead to a reduction in U.S. demand for petroleum of 3.6 million barrels per day. We stand 

ready to do our part. 

Thank you for your attention; I would be pleased to answer any questions the 

Subcommittee has. 

MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. William Reinert, National 

Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Toyota Motor Sales, USA. 

MR. REINERT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name 

is Bill Reinert, and I am National Manager, Advanced Technology for 

Toyota. I want to thank you for inviting Toyota to participate in this 

hearing and to provide our perspective on future technological 

advancements for automobiles. Today, I will emphasize hybrid electric 

and plug-in hybrid power trains. 

Toyota recognizes that the competing priorities of energy security, 

environmental concerns, and emerging fuels may reshape the 

transportation and fuels market and may one day change customer 

perspectives on vehicle choice. As you can see from the slide above, 

today, we are seeing the emerging markets for biodiesel and tremendous 

expansion of corn-based ethanol production. We are also beginning to 

see previously overlooked hydrocarbon supplies such as tar sands and 

very heavy crude products making significant impacts in the market. In 

the coming years, our tremendous natural gas and coal reserve can be 
33

brought to the market from the Fischer-Tropsch process providing zero 

sulfur diesel or gasoline. 

We feel that our investments in hybrid development give us the 

opportunity to use these new fuels and maximize their benefits. Toyota 

believes there is no single fuel or technology that can solve all of 

transportation’s needs. Simply put, there is no single silver bullet. That 

is why we are pursuing multiple technology paths in our continuing quest 

to reduce the impact of the automobile on society. 

Key to our efforts is the ability to apply hybrid systems to any type 

of power train without constraint from the type of fuel or propulsion 

technology used. In other words, hybrids are a core technology for 

Toyota. By combining battery energy storage with conventional power 

trains, Toyota hybrid systems have the ability to greatly increase and in 

some cases double the efficiency of any propulsion system, while 

significantly reducing smog-forming emissions. 

Some have characterized hybrid technology as an interim approach, 

a bridge to fuel cells. In our view, this underestimates the value of the 

hybrid system. The fuel cells we are now testing in the United States are 

hybrid designs and in fact use many of the same components that are 

found in today’s Prius. Since our introduction of the Prius in 1997, 

Toyota’s cumulative global hybrid sales have exceeded 600,000 units. 

Of this total, over 300,000 have been sold in the United States. Clearly 

the American market is a key to our plans to expand our hybrid 

technology. Currently, we offer five different hybrid models for sale in 

the United States, with one additional model scheduled for launch in 

2007. All auto manufacturers try to find the right combination of 

features such as fuel economy, emissions, and power at the customer’s 

value. But no matter how brilliant or appealing a product may be, it will 

not succeed in the marketplace unless it is better in every respect than the 

product it seeks to replace. That is why Toyota hybrid products reflect 

customers’ preferences in each market segment in which they compete. 

For instance, the Prius maximizes fuel economy while achieving 

class average performance. The Lexus LS 600h will provide 12-cylinder 

performance and class leading V8 fuel economy. And the 4-cylinder 

Camry hybrid offers a combined EPA fuel economy value of 39 MPG, 

while at the same time achieving V-6 performance. Importantly, hybrids 

are saving fuel today using infrastructure. The application of hybrid 

technology takes on different forms, and not all offer the same range of 

benefits. Toyota designs are known as full or strong hybrid. This means 

the battery and power electronic components of our design are the 

primary influences on system efficiency and provide the benefits of 

motor-assist and an all-electric EV range. 
34

We believe that as future technologies are developed, the benefits of 

a strong hybrid approach will become even more pronounced. Evidence 

of Toyota’s continuous development philosophy is the improvement in 

Prius performance. During the 6 years since it was launched, fuel 

economy has increased by over 30 percent. Our 0-to-60 mile-per-hour 

acceleration time has dropped by 4.4 seconds, and already low emissions 

were reduced even lower. These enhancements were primarily the result 

of weight and size reductions in electrical components and steady 

improvement in battery technology. We can foresee a time when we 

offer a hybrid in every segment in which we compete. Over time the 

cost and complexity of hybrid systems will be improved to the point that 

a hybrid becomes a normal check-the-box power train option, just like 4, 

6, and 8 cylinders are today. It is reasonable to expect that Toyota’s 

global hybrid production could exceed 1 million units per year sometime 

in the next decade. 

Particularly interesting is the continuation of the lithium ion battery 

technology. We hope that this will lead to low-cost lightweight batteries 

with high-energy densities increasing the all electric range and the 

efficiency of hybrid products even further. 

We are aware of the enthusiasm in some quarters for plug-in hybrid 

technology, and Toyota is investigating the idea of plug-in hybrid 

designs because this type of approach may have merit in the future. We 

believe that plug-in hybrids’ ability to successfully compete in the 

marketplace to a large extent depends on the development of battery 

technology that is lightweight, inexpensive, and durable. Many current 

plug-in hybrid designs use deep-charge discharge cycles to improve their 

all electric range. The data demonstrate that battery life is adversely 

impacted by large swings in the state of charge. Battery management 

systems in the Prius restrict state-of-charge swings to a carefully defined 

level that is consistent with its long battery life. Successful plug-in 

hybrid designs must carefully balance the desire for longer all-electric 

range with cost and weight targets and the need to extend the lifetime of 

the battery systems. And ultimately, as I said earlier, customers must 

want the vehicle. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

MR. HALL. All right. Thank you sir. 

[The prepared statement of William Reinert follows:] 
35

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM REINERT, NATIONAL MANAGER, ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY GROUP, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. 
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

MR. HALL. The Chair now recognizes Elizabeth Lowery, Vice 

President, Public Policy Center, General Motors. You are recognized 

you for 5 minutes. 

MS. LOWERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, my 

name is Elizabeth Lowery and I am Vice President for Environment and 

Energy for General Motors. I am pleased to be able to speak to you 

today regarding GM’S near and longer-term plans for development and 

implementation of advanced technologies into our future vehicles. 
48

GM has always been a leader in the development and use of 

technologies in vehicles. From the move away from hand-cranked 

starters, to the highly successful catalytic controls for vehicle emissions, 

to efforts to produce an innovative electric vehicle in the 1990s, GM has 

been instrumental in implementation of advanced technologies. Today, 

we are continuing to focus on ways to advance vehicle fuel economy, 

safety, and emissions. And GM is leading in all of these activities. We 

have a plan to address both the needs of our customers and the critical 

public policy issues facing us. This plan includes near-term steps, such 

as continuing to make improvements to today’s internal combustion 

engines and transmissions and increased E-85 flex-fuel capability; 

mid-term steps, such as more affordable and flexible hybridization of 

vehicles; and long-term steps such as fuel cells powered by hydrogen. 

The answer to today’s energy issues is not simple. And we believe 

that all of these technologies play an important role in America’s energy 

future. 

Today I am here to speak about our work in two particular areas, 

E-85 capable vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. GM is leading the effort 

on flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on gasoline or E-85 ethanol. 

These vehicles offer a choice to consumers, a choice that has significant 

energy and economic benefits. Ethanol is renewable and, in high 

concentration blends, helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As E-85 it 

helps reduce U.S. dependence on petroleum, diversifies our sources of 

transportation fuel, and reduces smog-forming emissions. 

Ethanol usage provides great opportunity for the domestic 

agriculture industry and should help spur new job growth in other areas. 

Until last fall, there was limited interest in the development of ethanol as 

an alternative fuel, but when gasoline prices spiked in the aftermath of 

the hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast, ethanol became more 

visible, and GM recognized an opportunity to become part of the 

solution. 

Earlier this year, General Motors launched a national advertising 

campaign beginning with the very visible 2006 Super Bowl hosted in our 

own home city of Detroit. After the Super Bowl we continued through 

the 2006 Winter Olympics, including launching our “Live Green, Go 

Yellow” Web site. Traffic to that Web site quickly rose to the millions 

as consumers wanted to know more about E-85, GM flex-fuel vehicles, 

and station location. But that was just the beginning. 

With nearly 2 million E-85 capable vehicles already on the road and 

a plan to offer 14 separate E-85 capable models in 2007, we wanted to 

make sure our customers knew when they were getting this flex-fuel 

capability. So GM launched a labeling effort that included an external 

badge on the vehicle, noting its flex-fuel capability and a yellow gas cap 
49

to remind customers that their vehicle is capable of running on E-85 

ethanol. We have also embarked upon several significant partnerships to 

increase the availability of the ethanol fueling infrastructure. 

Most recently, GM partnered with Meijer, Clean Fuel USA, the State 

of Michigan, and the State of Indiana to work toward approximately 40 

new retail outlets. We have previously announced similar partnerships in 

California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Texas, working with a variety of 

energy companies, State agencies, and distribution outlets. For the U.S., 

the growth of the ethanol industry raises enormous potential for 

displacing gasoline consumption in the transportation sector. If all of the 

5 to 6 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road today were fueled using 

E-85, the U.S. could offset the need for 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline 

annually. And for the individual consumer, regularly filling a 2007 

Chevrolet Tahoe with E-85 would displace the use of over 600 gallons of 

gasoline each year. These are impressive numbers so they need to find 

ways to increase availability of E-85 in the marketplace. 

Looking to the long term, General Motors has placed very high 

priority on fuel cells and hydrogen as a power source and energy carrier 

for automobiles. To accomplish this, GM’s fuel-cell program has 

focused on lowering costs, and increasing reliability of the fuel-cell 

stacks. Demonstrating the promise of the technology through validation 

programs and collaborating with other parties on the infrastructure issues 

that need to be addressed. We have made significant progress in several 

of these areas. 

In the last 6 years, we have improved fuel-cell power density by a 

factor of 7, while enhancing efficiency and reducing the size of our 

fuel-cell stack. We have significantly increased fuel-cell durability, 

reliability, and cold-start capability. We have developed safe hydrogen 

storage systems that approach the range of today’s vehicles. We have 

made significant progress on cost reductions through technology 

improvements and system simplification. With respect to collaboration, 

we are working with key partners on virtually every aspect of fuel-cell 

and infrastructure technology. 

The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, managed through the U.S. 

Department of Energy, has proven to be an important forum for 

addressing these issues and challenges. Clearly, huge challenges remain. 

Reliability of the fuel-cell stacks and storage of the hydrogen on board 

the vehicle must be resolved to draw American consumers to these 

vehicles. And the fueling infrastructure must be available so the owners 

of these vehicles have no concerns about where to get the hydrogen. 

In conclusion, there is no one single solution to the challenges we 

face. We are concentrating our energies on a number of different fronts 

and believe that many of these technologies will coexist in the 
50

marketplace. General Motors has a rational advanced technology plan 

that goes from near term, focused on alternative fuels like E-85 ethanol, 

to long-term hydrogen-powered fuel cells. We are executing that plan. 

All of these will help to simultaneously reduce U.S. energy dependence, 

remove the automobile from the environmental debate and stimulate 

economic and jobs growth. 

Thank you for your attention and I am happy to answer questions. 

MR. HALL. Thank you Ms. Lowery. 

[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Lowery follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH LOWERY, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY CENTER,

GENERAL MOTORS

Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Lowery and I am Vice President for 

Environment and Energy in the GM Public Policy Center. I am pleased to be able to 

speak to you today regarding GM’s near and longer term plans for development and 

implementation of advanced technologies into our future vehicles. 

GM has always been a leader in the development and use of technologies in 

vehicles. From the move away from hand-cranked starters--to the highly successful 

catalytic control technology for vehicle emissions--to efforts to produce an innovative 

electric vehicle in the 1990s, GM has been instrumental in the implementation of 

advanced technologies. 

Today, we are continuing to focus on ways to advance vehicle fuel economy, safety 

and emissions. And GM is leading in all of these activities. We have a plan to address 

both the needs of our customers and the critical public policy issues facing us. This plan 

includes near term steps, such as continuing to make improvements to today’s internal 

combustion engines and transmissions and increased E-85 flexfuel capability; mid-term 

steps, such as more affordable and flexible hybridization of vehicles; and long-term steps, 

such as fuel cells powered by hydrogen. The answer to today’s energy issues is not 

simple, and we believe that all of these technologies will play an important role in 

America’s energy future. 

Today, I am here to speak about our work in two particular areas – E-85 capable 

vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. 

GM is leading the effort on flexfueled vehicles capable of running on gasoline or E85 ethanol. These vehicles offer a choice to consumers--a choice that has significant 

energy and economic benefits. Ethanol is renewable and, in high concentration blends, 

helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions; as E-85 it helps reduce U.S. dependence on 

petroleum, diversifies our sources of transportation fuel, and reduces smog-forming 

emissions. Ethanol usage provides great opportunities for the domestic agriculture 

industry and should help spur new job growth in other areas. 

Until last fall there was limited interest in the development of ethanol as an 

alternative fuel. But when gasoline prices spiked in the aftermath of the hurricanes that 

devastated the Gulf Coast, ethanol became more visible and GM recognized an 

opportunity to become part of the solution. Earlier this year, General Motors launched a 

national advertising campaign, beginning with the very visible 2006 Super Bowl, hosted 

in our own home city of Detroit. After the Super Bowl, we continued through the 2006 

Winter Olympics, including launching our “Live Green, Go Yellow” website. Traffic to 

that website quickly rose to the millions--as consumers wanted to know more about E-85, 

GM flexfuel vehicles and station locations. 

But that was just the beginning. With nearly two million E-85 capable vehicles 

already on the road and a plan to offer 14 separate E-85 capable models in 2007, we 
51

wanted to make sure our customers knew when they were getting this flexfuel capability. 

So, GM launched a labeling effort that included an external badge on the vehicle noting 

its flexfuel capability and a yellow gas cap to remind customers that their vehicle is 

capable of running on E-85. 

We have also embarked upon several significant partnerships to increase the 

availability of the ethanol fueling infrastructure. Most recently, GM partnered with 

Meijer, CleanFuelUSA, the State of Michigan and the State of Indiana to work toward 

approximately forty new retail outlets. We have previously announced similar 

partnerships in California, Illinois, Minnesota and Texas--working with a variety of 

energy companies, state agencies, and distribution outlets. 

For the U.S., the growth of the ethanol industry raises enormous potential for 

displacing gasoline consumption in the transportation sector. If all of the 5 million 

flexfueled vehicles on the road today were fueled using E-85, the U.S. could offset the 

need for 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline annually. And for the individual consumer, 

regularly filling a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe with E-85 would displace the use of over 600 

gallons of gasoline each year. These are impressive numbers, so we need to find ways to 

increase availability of E-85 in the marketplace. 

Looking to the long-term, General Motors has placed very high priority on fuel cells 

and hydrogen as the power source and energy carrier for automobiles. To accomplish 

this, GM’s fuel cell program is focused on lowering cost and increasing reliability of the 

fuel cell stacks, demonstrating the promise of the technology through validation programs 

and collaborating with other parties on the infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. 

We have made significant progress in several of these areas: 

• In the last six years, we have improved fuel cell power density by a factor of 

seven, while enhancing the efficiency and reducing the size of our fuel cell 

stack. 

• We have significantly increased fuel cell durability, reliability, and cold start 

capability. 

• We have developed safe hydrogen storage systems that approach the range of 

today’s vehicles. 

• We have made significant progress on cost reduction through technology 

improvements and system simplification. 

With respect to collaboration, we are working with key partners on virtually every 

aspect of fuel cell and infrastructure technology. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, 

managed through the U.S. Department of Energy, has proven to be an important forum 

for addressing these issues and challenges. 

Clearly huge challenges remain. Reliability of the fuel cell stacks and storage of the 

hydrogen on board the vehicle must be resolved to draw American consumers to these 

vehicles. And the fueling infrastructure must be available so that owners of these 

vehicles have no concerns about where to get the hydrogen. 

In conclusion, there is no one single solution to the challenges we face. We are 

concentrating our energies on a number of different fronts, and believe that many of these 

technologies will coexist in the marketplace. General Motors has a rational advanced 

technology plan that goes from near term, focused on alternative fuels like E-85 ethanol, 

to the long term hydrogen-powered fuel cells. We are executing that plan. All of these 

will help to simultaneously reduce U.S. energy dependence, remove the automobile from 

the environmental debate, and stimulate economic and jobs growth. 

MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes the presence of a long-time 

Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Dingell. 

Would you care to make an opening statement, or do you want to put one 

in the record? 
52

MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, you are most gracious. Thank you. I 

would just like to welcome the distinguished panel here. Thank you for 

being here. This is very helpful to us. It is a privilege to see you. I have 

a number of friends down there in the well and I am delighted that they 

are here with us. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HALL. All right. The Chair notes that there is a vote on the 

floor, we have two votes. What do you think? 

MR. SHIMKUS. We can get two people done. 

MR. HALL. Okay. All right. 

With that, I will ask some questions then. Thank you. 

I, along with Chairman Barton, am interested in this question, and I 

am sure Gene Green, if he is here--most of us from Texas--and the 

Ranking Member here, Mr. Ross, who has great interest in Texas as his 

neighbor from Arkansas. But Texas has a unique confluence of 

automobile manufacturers, petrochemical industry infrastructure, oil and 

natural gas reserves, recoverable oil reserves, with the potential for 

carbon sequestration, nuclear power production, windfalls, and, 

importantly, 1,000 miles of existing hydrogen pipeline. And I 

understand that there is a coalition working toward the goal of 

large-scale hydrogen production, but there are no DOE hydrogen 

products that I am aware of in the State of Texas. 

So, Secretary Karsner, can you tell me why DOE has not chosen to 

take advantage of the natural resources and infrastructure we have got in 

Texas? Doesn’t it make sense to focus R&D efforts in the areas that can 

best support them? It is kind of a pro-Texas question. 

MR. KARSNER. Mr. Chairman, as someone who has spent most of 

his life growing up in Texas, I don’t have the answer to that, but I can 

assure you I will find out ambitiously. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. Talk to Mr. Bodman about it. He is a great 

Secretary of Energy, and just sensible and kind and generous. I know he 

is probably going to put one in Texas, and we want one there. 

MR. KARSNER. I know that would make my folks happy. I will do 

that. 

MR. HALL. All right. Let’s see. Again, to Mr. Karsner. I know that 

DOE is involved in pushing flex-fuel vehicles and the rollout of fuels 

that can run those vehicles, including E-85. Are you getting the support 

you need from the automakers on the rollout of the flex-fuel vehicles? 

MR. KARSNER. Mr. Chairman, I have only been in this job for about 

6 weeks and I can tell you that very few things occupy my time more 

than dialoguing with the automakers on that question. Secretary Bodman 

has tasked me quite deliberately on that issue, and, in fact, my first trip 

within 24 hours of joining DOE was to Detroit to put out that message 

and call for cooperation. I am happy to report that for the most part, we 
53

are receiving good response from the automakers, particularly the 

members of the U.S. Car and FreedomCAR Coalition. We received that 

cooperation in varying degrees at various levels at various times, but it is 

proceeding forward and we do believe on a voluntary basis the 

automakers are taking their responsibilities quite seriously and engaging 

the Administration on ways that they could accelerate the rate of market 

penetration for flex fuel. 

MR. HALL. And you are encouraging them. 

MR. KARSNER. We are encouraging them. 

MR. HALL. You are pushing them. 

MR. KARSNER. I think that would be accurate to characterize it that 

way, sir. 

MR. HALL. All right. Ms. Lowery, what is the future for fuel-cell 

vehicles? How do you see them evolving over the next 5 years, and the 

next 10 years? 

MS. LOWERY. Well, I think there is a bright future for fuel-cell 

vehicles. There is a lot of work that needs to be done with respect to the 

hydrogen infrastructure, as well as the work that is being done through 

FreedomCAR and Freedom Fuel. We have an aggressive goal at General 

Motors to get the fuel-cell stack competitive with the internal combustion 

engine with respect to durability and reliability and all the important 

features of today’s engines. And we have that in the 2010 time frame. 

And then in the next decade after that, we will look at production and the 

volume, with the development of the hydrogen economy. 

MR. HALL. I thank you. At this time I will let the Ranking Member 

ask questions, if you like, Mr. Ross. 

MR. ROSS. I have got quite a few, so you may want to tell me when 

we need to go vote, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HALL. When I go like that. 

MR. ROSS. We will be back, I take it, after votes, Mr. Karsner, is 

that right? 

MR. KARSNER. Yes, sir. 

MR. ROSS. At the beginning of your testimony today, you 

mentioned the President’s biofuels initiative and its goal to make 

cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by--what? 2012? 

MR. KARSNER. Correct, sir. 

MR. ROSS. Can you elaborate on the specific details within this 

initiative and how you plan to achieve that goal? 

MR. KARSNER. Right now, cellulosic ethanol at today’s prices, some 

could argue at the point of production, might be competitive. It is $2.25 

and some odd cents. The program itself is designed to bring that number 

down by more than half, and it has a targeted goal of $1.07. In fact, 
54

arguably, depending on the work that is done with the various feed 

stocks, it could be brought down more than that. 

What really needs to occur between now and 2012 and what we are 

seeking to do at the fastest possible rate is to put up commercial-scale 

facilities and to measure how these interactions will work in real time. 

To that end, a solicitation for a cost share, as stipulated in the EPACT, 

has been put out by the Department; and the office has received in excess 

of 60 responses by private-sector participants and consortia seeking to be 

involved in putting up a commercial-scale facility based on different feed 

stocks in different geographic locations. 

We are also seeking to work with those partners to see what their 

eligibility might be for financially structuring loan guarantee programs 

for those commercial facilities. 

So that is what needs to occur in order to bring down the cost by 

2012. 

MR. ROSS. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established an integrated 

biorefinery demonstration grant program. 

MR. KARSNER. Correct. 

MR. ROSS. I believe for the next 12 months for all of America, there 

is going to be a hundred million dollars in grant money available. 

MR. KARSNER. That is right. 

MR. ROSS. Roughly a third of what we spend in the next 24 hours in 

Iraq. 

MR. KARSNER. I don’t know about that. 

MR. ROSS. Yeah, well it is $279 million a day that goes to Iraq, and 

we are going to spend a hundred million over the next 365 days basically 

for, you know, basically to fund a biorefinery demonstration grant 

program. So, basically, what we spend in Iraq in 8 hours is what we are 

going to spend in the next 365 days, trying to advance biorefinery. So 

we do a lot of talk in this town about alternative renewable fuels, but we 

really don’t put our money where our mouth is. 

My deal is this, that the program was created, as I understand it, to 

spur the development and implementation of a multifunctional 

commercial scale biorefinery. Legislation didn’t specifically state that it 

needed to be built in Arkansas, but it does. I understand that the 

Department of Energy has released a notice of public interest in OPI and 

begun receiving applications from interested parties, such as Potlatch. 

Can you tell me the status of this program, what other programs or 

initiatives is DOE pursuing to develop biorefineries in the United States? 

MR. KARSNER. The status of that program is, as I referred to in an 

earlier answer, that we have received in excess of 60 responses that are 

currently being evaluated and that I believe the next significant milestone 

is August 10, which is the deadline for submissions. 
55

I could report back with fuller details of what would happen 

procedurally after those initial submissions on August 10, but what I can 

tell you in the short time since I have been aboard is that we are also 

looking with those same partners who have made submissions to see 

whether we could save them from having to create the same workload 

twice and expand our efforts to reach them with the loan guarantee 

programs that are also available in the EPACT. 

MR. ROSS. I would be very interested in personally following up 

with you after the August-- 

MR. KARSNER. Happy to do that. 

MR. ROSS. --date that you mentioned, and I appreciate you doing 

that. 

MR. KARSNER. Thank you so much, sir. 

MR. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have 31 seconds left. Do we need to go 

vote or what do you want me to do here? 

MR. HALL. I think we might recess for 15 minutes. You think we 

can be back in that time? 

All right. At ease for 15 minutes. We will be back. 

You know, used to be a store in my hometown that had--during the 

Depression, when he couldn’t afford to miss a sale, he had a sign on his 

door when he would go for coffee, said “Going across to the cafe for a 

coffee, be back in 5 minutes. Been gone 3.” That is one way of doing it. 

[Recess.] 

MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding.] If I can have folks take their seats. And 

for their time and our time, we will get started. 

Really, it is in the best interest of all of us that we move 

expeditiously, because you never know votes around here, never know 

how long they will keep you waiting. So Members can get their 

questions when everybody is around. We appreciate your patience, and I 

will begin to recognize myself for 5 minutes or until someone else comes 

back. Maybe I will have longer, pretty good deal. 

Mr. Karsner, my understanding is that your office has conducted 

important research showing that vehicles burning biodiesel fuel blends 

generate lower levels of the other pollutant NOx, nitrous oxide--nitrogen 

oxide, excuse me--than vehicles burning exclusively petroleum diesel. 

You mentioned this in your testimony. Have you discussed the research 

with EPA policymakers? 

MR. KARSNER. I am sorry. Have we discussed the--forgive me. 

MR. SHIMKUS. This research and your numbers with our friends at 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

MR. KARSNER. Yes, sir, we have. In fact, we are collaborating with 

the EPA now to clarify the differences with the respective findings. 
56

Fundamentally, we believe that the differences are related to 

differences in testing protocols; and, thus far, our conversations had led 

us and the EPA to believe that the future certification testing ought to be 

done more in the fashion that is being conducted in our national 

laboratories in real time, with the engines inside the trucks themselves, as 

opposed to outside of them on the bed. 

MR. SHIMKUS. So it is your impression the two agencies will come 

to some agreement on how we do this testing and what is really the base? 

MR. KARSNER. Yes, sir. I believe the collaboration is moving that 

way. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Also, on the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, I know that is your arena, but I would be interested 

to hear your thoughts on coal-to-liquids--as I said in my opening 

statement--technology and what the Department might be doing for the 

advancement of its use. 

MR. KARSNER. I appreciate that, sir. 

As you mentioned, it actually belongs to my colleague, Jeff Jarrett, 

in the Office of Fossil Energy, but personally I can tell you that we in the 

Department--across the Department encourage the use of coal-to-liquids 

use and, in fact, anything that can cleanly accelerate the domestic 

installation of alternative fuel production capacity. 

Specifically in my office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

we conduct testing of how those fuels might burn and burn well into the 

engines and into the fleet. So that is very promising; and it is a 

promising fuel that, in fact, enhances the cetane, is sulfur free, and can 

blend readily with conventional diesel. So we are encouraging its use 

and its acceleration as an alternative domestic fuel. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

And the great thing about the technology--and technology, as you all 

know in your business, can increase over the years, but the basic premise 

of this refinery technique was developed in the late 1920s, and so you 

have workable refineries out there now. So it is building on that. It is 

not inventing a whole new process from the bench top all the way up, 

and that is why I am very excited about it with our great coal reserves in 

this country. 

For the car manufacturer folks, I am pleased with where we have 

progressed on the flexible fuel vehicles from--and now the major 

marketing campaigns that you all are involved with I think is great. 

I do drive a Ford Explorer in my district. We do have 20 fueling 

stations in my district alone; and, of course, Illinois is a big ethanol State, 

as Iowa and those were their first showing, showing up. 

Can you tell me what you are trying to do and encouraging and 

maybe investing on the facilities? I know, Ms. Cischke, you mentioned 
57

fueling stations, fueling stations and inability in a lot of parts of the 

country to have it. Is there any focus you all are doing to try to 

encourage retail locations? 

MS. CISCHKE. Yes. We have partnered with VeraSun Energy, 

which is the number two ethanol producer in the country, and we are 

working on developing a corridor in the Midwest to increase the number 

of fueling stations so somebody could drive from Chicago to St. Louis 

and on without having to do anything but fuel with E-85. 

So we think that there is a real focus on putting it in the Midwest 

where there is a lot of the corn and other things. So we can heighten 

people’s awareness as we are working with our partners, BP and other oil 

companies, to encourage them to also invest. We do think this is going 

to take the oil industry’s support as well as the ethanol producers. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Does anyone else want to add? Ms. Lowery? 

MS. LOWERY. Sure. We have what is called the West-East Coast 

strategy, working on different State initiatives to encourage more fueling 

stations in different locations. So we have a project in California, we 

have a project in Illinois with Gas City and VeraSun, and we have 

decided that each of the States, if we can get some competition and grow 

the gas stations beyond just in the Midwest, E-85 ethanol will have a lot 

more success. So we are doing our part to encourage that with marketing 

efforts and bringing people to the stable. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

We have been tricked. So they just called me back to vote. I am 

going to ask a few more of my questions and then I will--unless someone 

jumps in back, we will recess and--I told you. You have to get it when 

you can. 

I want to just make this point clear, and there is a lot of debate about 

the cost of E-85 refueling stations, and I know that people are looking for 

a lot of investment credits or help from the Federal government. I am 

telling you, the stations that we have employed in my district are mostly 

independent stations, and you know what the cost is? Zero. 

Because what they do is they take the low-selling tank that they have 

in place right now, and most of that is 10 percent ethanol, and they drain 

it. They fill it with E-85, and they slap a sticker on the pump, and, voila, 

they are selling E-85 fuel out of a retail location. 

So I get a little frustrated with some of the folks--especially the 

major energy refinery companies--that are moaning and groaning about 

the cost of--actually, the retail location. I personally say it is a bunch of 

hogwash, and they need to step up to the plate because of all the great 

benefits that you are doing now and what is being done on the refinery 

end. 
58

So, with that, if I hope to make this vote, I had better start walking 

over, so I recess this hearing. 

[Recess.] 

MR. HALL. [Presiding.] They had a little mix-up. They didn’t just 

have one vote over there. They had two votes. 

I am watching the floor right now to see what they are doing and 

what they are going to do. They start making speeches again, and as 

soon as we get someone else in here, there will be others that will 

probably want to ask you something. I hate to hold you, but give them 

about another 10 minutes, and I think they will amble in here. 

[Recess.] 

MR. HALL. Okay. I know the questions that a lot of the others are 

going to ask. When they get in here, I will yield them time, and then I 

will take it away from them. 

Mr. Reinert, what is the breakthrough technology we have been 

waiting for when it comes to batteries? 

MR. REINERT. Well, I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that it is 

lithium ion batteries. They have the ability to be very lightweight. 

Obviously, we have a materials problem with nickel. It is very high 

on the commodity markets. So we hope lithium ion technology is going 

to be a near and a mid-term solution. There are obviously some issues 

with lithium. It is a substance of concern, and we are not quite there with 

our cost targets and our PHEV targets, but we are fairly confident this 

will be very rapidly developed. 

MR. HALL. I thank you. 

Ms. Morrissett, what is the future for diesel and lean-burned diesel 

machines in vehicles? How do you see them evolving over the next 5 

years or maybe the next 10 years? 

MS. MORRISSETT. DaimlerChrysler, we see large growth in diesels 

and, in particular, biodiesels in the next 5 to 10 years. I announced to 

you today a few of the additional vehicles that we are adding, with some 

announcements coming in the next few weeks, but we see the growth 

over years. 

Today, almost 50 percent of the market in Europe is diesel, and 

Chrysler products are two-thirds diesels in Europe. As you see fuel 

prices increasing, as you see customer demands for smaller engines, like 

you have in Europe, the things that you see are diesels that offer good 

performance in small packages. They have the torque and the towing 

capabilities in a smaller engine than you would see in gasoline. 

If you look at J.D. Power numbers, J.D. Power predicts that we are 

going to go from about 4 percent of the products you see today to 7 to 

15 percent in 2015. 
59

That is just, you know, somebody else’s thoughts. I really can’t 

predict beyond that. 

MR. HALL. Okay. I can’t tell you who wants these questions asked, 

but they are questions that various members of the group had marked to 

ask, and I have got the gauge here. 

So, Ms. Lowery, this is a very interesting question, and I don’t know 

why I didn’t think of it. I used to be in the aluminum business that sold 

parts for aviation. The goal was to have stronger material with less 

weight for the vehicle. If you could knock off some weight, well, you 

had really a breakthrough. So utilizing some materials such as carbon 

fiber seems to be an excellent way to reduce the weight of a car without 

compromising safety. Ms. Lowery, how expensive is it to create a car 

from carbon fiber materials, and how would that translate to the cost of 

the vehicle? 

MS. LOWERY. Well, your reference to aviation is a legitimate one, 

given that a lot of the lightweight materials are in the aviation business. 

The automobile business is a little more robust with respect to all the 

different requirements and all the vehicles on the roads with respect to 

safety issues. So GM is looking at a lot of the lightweight materials. We 

have some of the leading experts in the business, and we are also 

working with a lot of the research institutes on lightweight materials. 

I don’t know the specifics with respect to the costs. I just know 

those materials are more expensive, but we are all looking at those kinds 

of materials in order to be able to get better fuel economy and not do 

anything with respect to safety issues. 

MR. HALL. That is a real good subject for them to be upgrading, 

though, because it makes so much sense. 

Mr. Karsner, do you think legislation is necessary to direct the 

Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research development 

demonstration and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles and electric drive transportation technology? 

MR. KARSNER. I am not sure about the content of any new 

legislation. I think we have sufficient legislation on the books to move 

us that way, and it is integral to the President’s Advanced Energy 

Initiative and the programming currently under way at the Department of 

Energy. 

So plug-in hybrids are at the center of our agenda of research and 

development as was alluded to in the earlier answer, particularly with the 

focus on enhancing and bringing to market at a more rapid rate lithium 

ion technology. 

MR. HALL. Well, what is the soonest we will have the infrastructure 

in place to support large fleets of hydrogen-powered vehicles? 
60

MR. KARSNER. I am sorry. Did your earlier question ask about 

hydrogen or plug-in-- 

MR. HALL. If it wasn’t, I didn’t know it. 

MR. KARSNER. What is the soonest we will have in place a fleet of--

forgive me. 

MR. HALL. Go ahead. 

MR. KARSNER. I don’t think, from the Federal standpoint, we are 

prepared to talk in terms of when we would have a fleet of hydrogen 

vehicles in place, depending on what you would characterize that fleet to 

be. We tend to leave the idea, dates, and timings of commercialization, 

i.e., the timing in which production would be economically and 

technically feasible, to the automotive companies. 

So, under present planning, dates have been thrown around in the 

time range between 2015 and 2020 as to when initial production might 

be ready, based on technology readiness. We feel that it is really the 

automotive companies that would have to talk about what manufacturing 

transformation might be necessary for them to manufacture en masse to 

provide fleets. 

MR. HALL. I notice in your testimony that the cost of fuel cells has 

diminished over the last 3 years. How much further does the price of 

fuel cells need to drop before they can be manufactured for 

commercialization? 

MR. KARSNER. Well, that is, again, I think a subject for much debate 

and speculation. I have heard really on an order of magnitude of 10 

times as much as where the total price adjustments need to fall. I would 

think that the auto manufacturers have different calculations themselves 

internally as to where that needs to be for them to put the capital costs 

into a manufacturing facility that would allow them to produce them en 

masse, but, fundamentally, all the research towards technology readiness 

is really about driving down that cost, and I think right now the price 

point we use is getting to a tenth of the current cost. 

MR. HALL. Mr. Ross, would you like to ask questions, or would you 

like to get under way with the next panel? 

MR. ROSS. I have a few questions. 

MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Ross for anywhere between 3 

to 5 minutes, somewhere in there. Whatever you want. 

MR. ROSS. That is better. 

For, I guess, any of you that are automobile manufacturers on the 

panel, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I would like to discuss 

the hybrid, the vehicle tax credit as it relates to each of the manufacturers 

here today in an effort to continue and possibly provide additional 

incentives to consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles. Do you believe--

and I would like to get an answer, I guess a short answer--from each of 
61

you. Do you believe waiving the--or increasing the 60,000-unit cap is a 

viable option to consider? 

And the reason I ask that, as we all know, the cost for a hybrid is 

somewhat more than for a nonhybrid vehicle. But, with the tax credit, it 

pretty much gets the hybrid on a level playing field. And until we are 

able to get the price of hybrid technology down, do you believe this tax 

credit is important to encourage people, consumers to buy these hybrid 

cars? And should we waive or raise the 60,000-unit cap in order to 

accomplish that? 

MS. CISCHKE. I would like to just comment that we do know that 

incentives like that do help pull advanced technology. There are certain 

people that buy these advanced-technology vehicles without a lot of 

encouragement, but the vast majority of people are influenced by cost 

savings there. 

I know that there is a limit on the resources for the Government in 

terms of being able to do this type of thing, but we would support 

increasing that. Maybe even doubling it would be appropriate. 

MR. ROSS. Again, let me just point out that you mention that there is 

a limit to what the Government can do on this. Again, it is about 

priorities. 

MS. CISCHKE. Sure. 

MR. ROSS. It is about are we going to spend $279 million a day in 

Iraq, $57 million a day in Afghanistan, pass another $90 billion in tax 

cuts primarily for those earning over $500,000 a year, or are we going to 

invest in biorefineries and alternative renewable energy to reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil? So it is really about priorities. 

I would like to get a response to the original question, before my 

little tirade there, from the rest of you that are in the car business. 

MS. LOWERY. Incentives are important for the uptakers of advanced 

technology. There is no doubt about it. 

I think with respect to the prioritization through the Energy Policy 

Act, there was a decision made with respect to prioritization and figuring 

out the economics of the entire bill. So I think it has to be looked at as a 

whole, and I also think that we have spent a lot of time now really 

looking at incentives for biofuels, which is an immediate response to 

some of the issues we are facing. So I think it has to be looked at in the 

whole package, not one piece. 

MR. ROSS. And Toyota. 

MR. REINERT. The situation is, we have had the Prius, which is 

probably the most popular hybrid on the road, for 6 years, and we are 

selling about a little over a hundred thousand cars per year in a 17 

million-car market. Obviously, we are doing the best we can at 

preparing society for these cars. I believe that the tax credit does help 
62

people become aware of the options under the hybrids and does help the 

market penetration greatly. 

MR. ROSS. When I was out driving this hydrogen fuel cell car this 

morning--I won’t mention the brand since none of you all are 

representing that one--but the point they made was this is a million and a 

half dollar car, and in 3, 4 years from now it may be a car that is 

affordable. So I think we are going to see a lot of changes in the 

technology and in the mass production that allows the cost of these 

things to come down, that really can reduce our dependence on foreign 

oil. 

One of the things noted to me this morning was, with the hydrogen 

fuel cell if you do the math on it, it comes out to what we would know as 

about $2.75 a gallon for the fuel, and that would run you about 25 miles. 

So it is not that we are going to see that much savings in terms of what 

consumers are paying today, at least early on in some of these 

technologies, but it seems to me that these technologies could go a long 

way to reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and, hopefully, as we 

mass produce and end up with, hopefully, millions of these things on the 

road someday then that will, in fact, lower the price we pay at the pump, 

or whatever they call it for a hydrogen fuel-cell car. 

I am still learning some of this, but I was really impressed with the 

technology and all the components that I have read about and studied. 

But actually to experience it this morning was quite fascinating. 

Mr. Chairman, if you could indulge me, I have one other thing that I 

think is really important I would like to ask. 

MR. HALL. Only if you tell us what kind of car it was in. 

MR. ROSS. It was Honda. It was a Honda hydrogen fuel-cell car. 

And I don’t know, some of y’all may be doing that now, too. Are you? 

MS. LOWERY. Yes. 

MR. ROSS. I want to give equal representation. I would love to ride 

in y’all’s, too. Get it on up here, and I will ride in y’all’s, too. It was 

pretty impressive. I guess I was kind of expecting something to go like a 

golf car goes, but it doesn’t. It gets up and goes. 

But, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me for this question. 

The formula--because I think this is something that we do need to 

revisit--that is found in the energy policy that passed last year, the 

formula used to calculate the amount of the tax credit for hybrid cars 

applies a city fuel economy metric. Now it is my understanding that 

different hybrid technologies perform differently in city versus highway 

situations. So would changing this formula to use a combined city and 

highway fuel economy metric to calculate the credit provide a significant 

increase in the credit that consumers receive? And depending on which 
63

manufacturer you are with may depend on how you answer that because 

of the technology and what you have invested in up until now. 

The other part of that is, should Congress try to stay away from 

specifying city and highway and even the word hybrid and just leave it 

open for any alternative renewable energy forms out there to try to 

encourage development rather than limiting it to what we actually get 

specific with in the law? 

I would like to get your thought on that as, I guess, a second part or 

follow-up to that question. I would love to get y’all’s thoughts on that. 

MS. CISCHKE. I would like to just comment a bit on the hybrid 

comment regarding the metric that you use for the benefit. 

One of the challenges we all have in the industry is that we use 

hybrid technology to describe a lot of different things. So there are full 

hybrids, there are mid hybrids, there are hybrids that can run totally on 

electric engine, and there are others that coexist. That is why in the 

Energy Policy Act there was a metric that tried to define and classify the 

degree of hybridization, so to speak. So I think you do have to have 

some kind of measure. Otherwise, if they are all the same, I think you 

are not really pushing the technology along as far. 

So that would just be one comment I would like to share. 

MR. REINERT. I agree 100 percent with my colleague from Ford that 

there are a wide variety of approaches to hybrid technologies, and some 

of them have more and some of them have less benefit overall. So I do 

think we need to take a look, and I think we are addressing that or 

attempting to in the Energy Policy Act and do take a look at the 

performance of the cars. 

MR. ROSS. Any thoughts on whether we ought to get away from the 

city and go to a combined city and highway fuel economy metric? 

MS. MORRISSETT. If we go to a combined city and highway metric, 

what we do is we become more technology neutral. If you look at city, it 

favors certain types of technologies. If you look at highway, it favors 

others. So if you did a combination, it is more technology neutral. 

MR. ROSS. Would you agree that we need to stay away from 

specifying technologies in laws and allow the private sector to compete 

with those technologies to get the most fuel economy and to reduce our 

dependence the most on foreign oil or do we, in the future, need to be 

specifying things like hybrid or hydrogen or leave the technology to y’all 

and put the incentives in for whatever fits within a broader scope? 

MS. MORRISSETT. My position would be I just as soon that you did 

not dictate to us what the technology is. There are new emerging 

technologies every day, and you really don’t want to limit that. Our 

customers are telling us what they require and what they need. 
64

Back to your question on credits with hybrids before, my response 

would be I would prefer to have credits for any advanced technologies if 

we started talking about the biofuels, biodiesels, things that also 

accomplish some of the things that we are trying to do with energy 

security. 

MR. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence; and next 

time I am introducing you in Texarkana, I will give you a favorable 

introduction. 

MR. HALL. Okay. All right. You have been an informative and 

affable group. Thank you very much. We are going to release you at 

this time. We will have the second panel. Thank you for the time you 

have given us and the time preparing, the time of travel. Have a good, 

safe trip back to your office, and we thank all of you. 

Okay. We are going to get under way. We don’t have a full group, 

but they are on their way. 

 

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL A. PACHECO, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL BIOENERGY CENTER, NATIONAL 

RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY; JON A. WARZEL, 

VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND 

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, SYNTROLEUM 

CORPORATION; SCOTT HUGHES, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL BIODIESEL 

BOARD; AND MITCHELL PRATT, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, CLEAN ENERGY 

MR. HALL. At this time, I recognize Mr. Pacheco, Director of the 

National Bioenergy Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and 

ask you to kindly just give us a synopsis of your testimony, and then we 

will ask you questions about it. Try to stay as close to 5 minutes as you 

can. You have been so patient and tolerant, go over if you need to, and I 

recognize you at this time. 

MR. PACHECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss how biofuels 

can provide our Nation with an abundant and renewable source of energy 

and, in particular, to help us reduce our dependence on imported oil. 

I am the Director of the National Bioenergy Center at the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. NREL is the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s primary laboratory for renewable energy and 

energy efficiency. I am honored to be here today and to be able to speak 

with you. 

The committee is to be commended on your hearings on new 

technologies. The director of NREL, Dr. Dan Arvizu, came before you 
65

last week to address the entire range of renewable energy technologies. 

Given the seriousness of our energy challenges, there is a lengthy list of 

renewable and conventional energy options that must be pursued. 

If we narrow our focus to just those things that can reduce our 

addiction to oil, then our choices become more limited. Developing an 

industry to produce biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel must be a priority, 

because biomass is the only renewable option that we have for liquid 

transportation fuels. 

The biomass resource in this country is huge. A recent study by 

USDA and DOE found that the U.S. could annually produce 1.3 billion 

tons of biomass for fuels. This amount of biomass holds as much energy 

as 3 1⁄2 billion barrels of oil. This equals the energy in 60 percent of all 

the oil that we consume in a year. It also equates to the most oil the 

United States has ever produced in a year. We envision that every State 

in the Nation can benefit economically from an expanding biofuels 

industry. 

The U.S. currently produces more than 4 billion gallons a year of 

ethanol almost exclusively from corn grain, and this industry is growing 

30 percent annually. To move the ethanol industry where we need it to 

be, we have to go beyond corn grain as the primary resource. 

One of the most abundant potential resources we have is corn stover, 

the nonfood parts of the corn plant, includes the stalks, the leaves, and 

the husks. Other resources include forest thinnings to reduce fire 

hazards, residues from the forestry and agricultural operations, and 

eventually even energy crops like fast-growing trees and hardy grasses, 

like switchgrass. 

Given this full range of resources, biofuels could supply at least 

30 percent of what we use today. However, to use all of these resources 

and to maximize the impact ethanol can have, we need to perfect the 

technologies that convert cellulosic biomass. We need to reduce the cost 

of the technology and we need to improve its conversion efficiency. 

With the President’s biofuels initiative, we are on course to do just 

that. Our goal, as Mr. Karsner has said, is to make cellulosic ethanol as 

cheap as corn ethanol in the next 6 years. We have made very good 

progress over the past 4 years; and with the President’s initiative we have 

established detailed R&D plans to reach the goal of $1.07 by 2012, while 

still shooting for the longer-term cost target of about 60 cents a gallon. 

Inviting me here today, you asked me to talk about the energy 

efficiency of ethanol. The ethanol industry is much more efficient today 

than it was 20 years ago. Today, the energy benefits of fuel ethanol are 

clear and considerable. Corn ethanol delivers about 60 percent of the 

total energy that we use in order to make that ethanol. Most of the 

energy that we use is renewable energy in the form of the corn itself. 
66

The energy actually delivered to the customer in the fuel ethanol is about 

1.4 times greater than the fossil energy put into the process, and it is 

about 10 times greater than the petroleum energy input. Cellulosic 

ethanol will yield 45 percent of the total energy used to make it, and 

nearly all of the energy input can come in the form of biomass itself. 

The take-away message is that ethanol can replace about 10 times the 

amount of petroleum that we use to make the ethanol. This is true for 

both corn and cellulosic ethanol. 

In conclusion, biomass is our only renewable option for liquid 

transportation fuels. U.S. resources can supply a large portion of the 

transportation fuel that we need, and the energy balance is actually very 

good for such a young technology. Biofuels can come from resources in 

every region in the country and can stimulate rural economies. Ongoing 

research will reveal ways to expand our resource base, improve the 

conversion efficiency and create new fuels that go beyond ethanol and 

biodiesel. 

As the Director of this Nation’s National Bioenergy Center, I can 

assure you that a sustained high-level investment for basic biofuels 

research will provide sustainable benefits for all future generations. 

Biofuels are an environmentally and economically beneficial way for us 

to bridge the gap between rising energy demand and peaking oil 

production, while reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Michael A. Pacheco follows:] 
67

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL A. PACHECO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BIOENERGY 

CENTER, NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
68
69
70
71
72

MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Jon A. Warzel, Vice 

President, Business Development Government Programs, Syntroleum 

Corporation, for 5 minutes or whatever it takes you to give it. 
73

MR. WARZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and 

guests. My name is Jon Warzel, and I am the Vice President of Business 

Development and Government Programs for Syntroleum Corporation. 

Syntroleum is a publicly held company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

focused on the application of its proprietary Fischer-Tropsch technology 

for the conversion of natural gas and coal to liquid hydrocarbon 

transportation fuels. 

We would like to recognize the efforts of Congressmen John 

Sullivan and Don Young and Senators Jim Inhofe and Conrad Burns as 

champions for domestic alternative fuels in the use by our Nation’s 

military. 

Syntroleum has over 20 years of comprehensive technology 

development. Currently, Syntroleum has the only fully integrated 

Fischer-Tropsch plant capable of producing a finished transportation fuel 

in North America and will be providing the Department of Defense with 

a hundred thousand gallons of product for their Assured Fuels Initiative 

later this summer. This program aimed at certifying Fischer-Tropsch 

product for military use is a critical step in reducing our Nation’s 

dependence on crude oil and providing alternative energy resources. 

As part of the military’s program, a flight test in a B-52 will take 

place later this year using Syntroleum’s alternative fuel. Currently, 

military operations consume in excess of 350,000 barrels a day of jet 

fuel, predominantly derived from crude oil. 

My objective today is to provide you with a background and 

understanding of Fischer-Tropsch’s history, technology, and the products 

produced by this process. 

Syntroleum was founded by our current chairman, Mr. Ken Agee, in 

the mid-1980s. By the mid-1990s, the company was in a position to 

expand from a research lab to construction of a pilot plant for further 

testing. 

In 2002, Syntroleum, in conjunction with the participation of 

Integrated Concepts Research Corporation, ICRC, and Marathon Oil 

Company, built the demonstration plant at the Port of Catoosa near 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. This effort was partially funded by the Department of 

Energy’s Ultra Clean Fuels Program under a subcontract with ICRC. 

Finished fuels production for the nominal 70-barrel-per-day 

demonstration plant occurred in March of 2004. 

Based on information from the Air Force, Syntroleum is the only 

company to date that has delivered sufficient quantities of 100 percent 

FT product to the U.S. military to perform extensive tests, including jet 

engine emissions testing. 

The Fischer-Tropsch’s chemistry and process was developed by two 

German scientists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, in the 1920s. The 
74

basic reaction chemistry is the combining of carbon monoxide and 

hydrogen to form long chain hydrocarbon molecules. The initial German 

efforts were to provide the country, which lacked indigenous oil 

resources, a means of supporting chemical feedstock and military 

operation requirements. Due to the oil price collapse of the 1950s, 

synthetic fuel development essentially halted for the next 20 years or so, 

except for the development efforts in South Africa. 

In 1950, the South African Coal, Oil Gas, and Gas Corporation, 

known as Sasol, was formed. First FT production by Sasol in 1955 was 

based on coal-driven synthesis gas at their Sasolburg facility. The 

Government-funded efforts continued, culminating in the start-up of 

additional plants in the 1980s. Currently, Sasol produces 150 to 160,000 

gallons a day--or barrels a day--of FT products from coal. 

From a chemistry standpoint, Fischer-Tropsch is the reaction of 

carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst, typically 

iron or cobalt. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen split and formed 

together to make a hydrogen product and a water product. The reaction 

requires a specific hydrogen-to-carbon-monoxide ratio and produces 

approximately a barrel of water for each barrel of FT product, essentially 

reducing water consumption requirements in the coal gasification 

process. The key concept for FT is that the synthesis gas can be 

produced from almost any carbon-bearing substance, the most abundant 

source being natural gas and coal. 

In CTL, or coal to liquids, the application requires a number of steps 

required to convert the solid coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. 

The coal is mined, prepared for gasification, gasified, adjusted for the 

hydrogen-to-carbon-monoxide ratio and, finally, cleaned prior to the 

delivery to the Fischer-Tropsch’s reactor. The component of the 

synthesis gas is to remove the carbon dioxide, which allows for 

sequestration or enhanced oil recovery opportunities. Upon final 

cleanup, the synthesis gas enters the reactors for conversion of the 

hydrocarbon product. Due to the size and complexity of these processes, 

there are only a few companies worldwide that have the experience of 

building these type of plants. 

The Air Force results of the testing of Syntroleum’s fuels have 

shown 90 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions, in excess of 

50 percent reduction compared to low sulfur diesel fuel for hydrocarbon 

emissions and particulate matter and diesel running machines. 

As far as industry status, there are a limited number of companies 

that have developed Fischer-Tropsch’s technologies to the point of 

constructing commercial-scale plants. The FT industry is predominantly 

focused on natural-gas-based plants. In Qatar, at the moment, this effort 

is being led by the likes of Sasol, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, 
75

and Marathon Oil, which have all announced in excess of 

hundred-thousand-barrel-per-day plants. 

In conclusion, the technology to convert the Nation’s vast coal 

resources to ultra-clean fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process exists 

today. I believe it is accurate to say Sasol, based on the development 

under a government program, has demonstrated large-scale 

Fischer-Tropsch plants using coal as a feedstock. Based upon 2003 

Energy Information Administration data, the U.S. has a demonstrated 

coal reserve base of 496 billion tons. At a conservative conversion rate 

of 1.5 barrels of Fischer-Tropsch’s product for each ton of coal, the 

potential for domestically produced CTL is approximately 750 billion 

barrels of product, greater than the estimated crude oil reserves of the 

Middle East. 

It is our view that funding of loan guarantees specific to the CTL 

initiative and long-term offtake agreements by the Department of 

Defense are critical to moving forward with the domestic initiative, 

specifically for those smaller companies that do not have the balance 

sheets of the super major integrated energy companies at this time. 

Finally, thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee 

on this important issue as industry and government work towards making 

CTL a reality in the United States. 

MR. HALL. We thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Jon A. Warzel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON A. WARZEL, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND 

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, SYNTROLEUM CORPORATION

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Representatives, and guests, my name is 

Jon Warzel and I am the Vice President of Business Development and Government 

Programs for Syntroleum Corporation. Syntroleum is a publicly held company based in 

Tulsa, Oklahoma focused on the application of its proprietary Fischer-Tropsch (“FT”) 

technology for the conversion of natural gas and coal to liquid hydrocarbon transportation 

fuels and other specialty products, such as lubricating oils. Syntroleum has over 20 years 

of comprehensive technology development, with a combined 127 US and foreign patent 

applications pending and issued. Currently, Syntroleum has the only fully integrated FT 

plant capable of producing a finished transportation fuel in North America. My objective 

today is to provide you with a background and understanding of Fischer-Tropsch history, 

technology, and the products produced by this process. 

Syntroleum Background

Syntroleum was founded by our current Chairman, Mr. Ken Agee in the mid 1980’s. 

Mr. Agee focused on the application of the FT chemistry for conversion of natural gas. 

Initial efforts were directed at the research and development of a suitable catalyst. By the 

mid 1990’s the company was in a position to expand from the research lab to 

construction of a pilot plant for further testing of its proprietary cobalt catalyst and begin 

developing plant design details. By 2002, Syntroleum had advanced its technology to the 

next development stage, construction and operation of a demonstration scale plant. 
76

In early 2000, Syntroleum in conjunction with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) 

operated a demonstration plant at ARCO’s Cherry Point refinery. In 2002 upon British 

Petroleum’s acquisition of ARCO, Syntroleum, in conjunction the participation of 

Integrated Concepts Research Corporation (ICRC) and Marathon Oil Company, moved 

this demonstration plant from Cherry Point, Washington to the Port of Catoosa near 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. This effort was partially funded by the Department of Energy Ultra 

Clean Fuels Program under a subcontract with ICRC, allowing for the expansion of the 

demonstration plant to a fully integrated plant capable of producing a finished 

transportation fuels. Groundbreaking for the Catoosa Demonstration Facility (“CDF”) 

took place in August 2002 and first finished fuels production for the nominal 70 barrel 

per day plant occurred in March of 2004. 

Syntroleum continues to own and operate its facilities for the development of a 

commercial scale FT plant. Syntroleum’s fully integrated plant has over 18,000 hours of 

runtime and has produced over 300,000 gallons of FT product. These fuels have been 

extensively tested by transit fleets, engine testing labs, product testing labs, universities, 

and specifically the Air Force and Army. 

Based on information from the Air Force, Syntroleum is the only company to date 

that has delivered sufficient quantities of 100% FT product to the U.S. military to 

perform extensive tests, including turbine emissions testing. Recently, our plant was 

chosen to produce the initial fuels for the Department of Defense Assured Fuels 

Initiative. As part of the Assured Fuels Initiative, the Air Force is scheduled to test 

Syntroleum’s product in a B-52 flight test this fall. 

The History of Fischer-Tropsch

The Fischer-Tropsch chemistry and process was developed by two German 

scientists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in the 1920’s, with the first German patent 

being issued in 1925. The basic reaction chemistry is known as a hydro-polymerization 

of carbon monoxide. Essentially, this is the combining of carbon monoxide (“CO”) and 

hydrogen (“H2”) to form a long chain hydrocarbon molecule. The initial German efforts 

were to provide the country, which lacked indigenous oil resources, a means of 

supporting chemical feedstock requirements and military operations. Germany’s first 

two FT plants, approximately 1,500 barrels per day of capacity, utilized cobalt based FT 

catalyst and generated the required feedstock (synthesis gas), a mixture of CO and H2, 

from coal and coke. History reflect that the initial startup of these plants occurred in the 

1935 - 1936 timeframe. 

During the World War II years, a total of 13 FT plants were constructed, nine of 

which were located in Germany. All plants utilized cobalt catalyst in a fixed bed reactor 

system with coal or coke derived synthesis gas. Germany reached a maximum 

production of approximately 16,000 barrels per day in 1944; all based on their cobalt 

catalyst FT process. Significant research and development efforts were initiated on iron 

based FT catalyst due to the scarcity of cobalt in Germany and the desire to produce a 

high octane gasoline. The efforts on iron based FT catalyst research were not 

commercialized by the Germans. Additionally, development of large scale slurry 

reactors capable of producing more FT product were initiated, but never completed due to 

war related problems. Copies of the original German documents and their translation are 

available at the www.fischer-tropsch.org website. 

Post World War II, extensive FT catalyst and process patents were issue primarily to 

US companies. Under the US Synthetic Fuels Act (1944 – 1955) the US Bureau of 

Mines constructed a nominal 50 barrel per day iron based FT plant located in Louisiana, 

Missouri. This plant produced approximately 1.5 million gallons of gasoline which was 

fleet tested by the Armed Services. A second US plant was constructed and operated in 

the 1947 to 1957 timeframe in Brownsville, Texas. This approximately 8,000 barrel per 

day plant employed iron based catalyst and utilized natural gas as the feedstock, making 
77

it the first “gas-to-liquids” plant in the world. Technical difficulties and the oil price 

collapse in the mid 1950’s rendered the plant uneconomic. 

Due to the oil price collapse of the 1950’s, synthetic fuel development essentially 

halted for the next 20 years or so except for development efforts in South Africa and 

German plants which were moved into Russia or areas controlled by Russia. Three 

plants were located within the Russian security zone (2 in East Germany and 1 in current 

day Poland). At least 1 and maybe 2nd German FT plants were relocated to the USSR and 

in operation during the 1952 – 1954 timeframe. Little is known about these plants, but 

Russian technical teams were active post WWII. 

In 1950, the South African Coal, Oil Gas and Gas Corporation (Sasol) was formed. 

First FT production by Sasol in 1955 was based on coal derived synthesis gas (“CTL”) 

utilizing iron based catalyst at their Sasolburg facility. The plant was built to operate 

both low and high temperature reactors initially producing gasoline and later switching to 

chemicals production. Capacity for the initial plant was approximately 8,000 barrels per 

day. The government funded efforts continued, culminating in startup of Sasol Two and 

Three at their Secunda facility in the 1980’s. Currently, Sasol produces 150,000 to 

160,000 barrels per day of FT product from coal derived synthesis gas with an iron based 

catalyst. Additional facilities are operated to provide required research and development 

activities for their natural gas and cobalt catalyst based FT applications. 

Since 1990, three large scale FT plants have been constructed all utilizing natural 

gas as a feedstock. Mossgas, now PetroSA, built as part of a government project, 

operates a 30,000 barrel per day facility built in 1992 to produce bulk fuel by licensing 

the Sasol technology. In 1993, Shell completed a nominal 12,000 barrel per day facility 

utilizing Shell’s fixed bed process (Shell “Middle Distillate Synthesis” – MDS). 

Currently in start-up is the Sasol Oryx plant located in Qatar. This nominal 34,000 barrel 

per day plant utilizes a cobalt based FT catalyst for the primary purpose of producing 

diesel fuel and possibly synthetic lubricants with the primary market being Europe. 

Industry Status

Sasol clearly has the most experience in FT technology and operations, in part to the 

early efforts of the South African government program. Public information indicates 

Sasol is currently working to expand the Oryx (Qatar) project by 66,000 barrels per day 

and develop an additional fully integrated GTL project in Qatar with their partner, 

Chevron, of 130,000 barrels per day. Additional work is proceeding on their 34,000 

barrel per day GTL plant in Nigeria and a significant expansion (30-40%) of their South 

African facilities. Additional business development efforts include feasibility studies for 

two nominal 80,000 barrel per day coal to liquids plants in China and reported interest in 

Indian projects with India Oil Company. Sasol has recently discussed their potential 

interest in US based CTL projects in addition to the announced WMPI project in 

Pennsylvania. 

Syntroleum continues to operate their nominal 70 barrel per day facility located near 

Tulsa, Oklahoma in support of technology enhancement and to provide FT product to the 

US Department of Defense. Business development efforts are focused on deploying 

Syntroleum’s marine and land based FT technology and the potential development of 

several domestic CTL projects. 

Shell continues operation of their GTL plant in Malaysia providing FT diesel to the 

Far East and European markets focused on reduction of air emissions. Shell has 

announced a 70,000 – 140,000 barrel per day GTL plant in Qatar, but the current project 

status is unknown. To date, Shell has not announced any additional projects. 

Statoil-PetroSA continues to operate the 1,000 barrel per day GTL demonstration 

plant located at Mossel Bay, South Africa. To date, no definitive commercial projects 

have been announced. 
78

ExxonMobil has announced a 150,000 barrel per day GTL plant to be located in 

Qatar. The current status of the project is unknown, but it appears this project will not be 

delayed by the Qatar government upon completion of commercial arrangements. 

ExxonMobil technology is based on cobalt catalyst and associated operating experience 

from their 200 barrel per day demonstration plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana which was 

operated in the 1990 – 1993 timeframe. ExxonMobil would appear to be the leader in FT 

patents with over 3,500 patents assigned to it. In 2004, Syntroleum signed a worldwide 

license with ExxonMobil for access to their Gas to Liquids (GTL) patents to produce and 

sell fuels from natural gas or other carbonaceous substances such as coal. 

ConocoPhillips also utilizes a cobalt based FT process and operated a 400 barrel per 

day demonstration plant at their Ponca City, Oklahoma facility from 2003 to 2005. Their 

announced 80,000 to 160,000 barrel per day GTL plant in Qatar has been put on hold by 

the Qatar government. BP and Institut Francais du Petrole (IFP) / Agip continue the 

development of their respective technologies with no known announcements of 

commercial projects. BP continues to operate their FT demonstration plant in Nikiski, 

Alaska which is not currently capable of producing a finished product. Rentech 

continues development of their proposed conversion of a natural gas based fertilizer plant 

in Illinois to a nominal 5,800 barrel per day CTL plant. Additional proposed projects that 

have been announced are a 10,000 barrel per day CTL plant in Natchez, Mississippi and a 

license for DKRW’s proposed 40,000 barrel per day plant in Wyoming and construction 

of a 10 barrel per day demonstration plant in Colorado. 

Fischer-Tropsch Technology and Products 

From a chemistry standpoint, the Fischer-Tropsch reaction is the hydropolymerization of carbon monoxide. In essence, a synthesis gas stream consisting 

predominantly of carbon monoxide (CO) and Hydrogen (H2) is reacted in the presence of 

a FT catalyst. The CO molecule splits into carbon and oxygen and a hydrogen molecule 

attaches to each resulting in production of a stream containing hydrocarbon compounds 

and water. The reaction requires a H2/CO ratio of in the range of 2.1 – 2.15 for 

production of transportation fuels and produces approximately 1.1 barrels of water for 

each barrel of FT product. The hydrocarbons produced by the FT reaction prior to 

product upgrading, range in carbon number from C1 (methane) to C100+ . The typical 

carbon number range for a diesel fuel is C8 thru C20. 

The key concept for FT is that the synthesis gas can be produced from almost any 

carbon containing substance, the most abundant sources being natural gas and coal. 

Additional carbon sources such as petroleum coke or biomass (wood, farming waste, 

grasses, sewage) could also be utilized as a feedstock with the appropriate technology for 

conversion to a synthesis gas. In a CTL application a number of steps are required to 

convert the solid coal into a CO and H2 synthesis gas stream. The coal is mined, 

prepared for gasification, gasified, water-gas shifted to adjust the H2/CO ratio, and finally 

cleaned prior to delivery to a FT reactor for conversion to a hydrocarbon product. A 

component of the synthesis gas clean-up process is to remove the carbon dioxide prior to 

the FT reactor. Removal and capture of the CO2 allows for sequestration or enhanced oil 

recovery opportunities. 

Individual companies have developed specific FT catalysts, but iron and cobalt 

based catalyst are the predominate formulations utilized currently. Each catalyst type has 

specific attributes, but the current commercial project developments in Qatar all utilize a 

cobalt based catalyst. Cobalt based FT catalysts have been shown to be more selective 

towards the production of mid-distillate range hydrocarbon product, which is the range 

for diesel and aviation finished fuels. Additionally, cobalt catalysts are more active, and 

as a result produce more barrels of FT product per lb of FT catalyst, which equates to 

smaller FT reactors for equivalent FT production. Iron based FT catalyst is more suited 
79

to the production of chemical feedstock due to their inherent selectivity towards 

producing olefins and aromatics at high temperature operation. 

The primary issue with using a cobalt based FT catalyst in a CTL plant is the ability 

to clean the synthesis gas to acceptable impurity levels. It is believed that through the use 

of Lurgi’s Rectisol process and subsequent synthesis gas clean-up processes, such as 

charcoal beds, levels required for economic use of a cobalt catalyst can be achieved. For 

example, Eastman Chemical Company has been producing methanol from a coal derived 

synthesis gas for approximately 20 years. Although the catalyst is different, the methanol 

stream Eastman produces is utilized for a variety of end products and healthcare 

feedstock where high quality synthesis gas is a requirement. 

Upon final clean-up, the synthesis gas enters the FT reactor for conversion to a raw 

hydrocarbon product. For a commercial scale GTL facility, 17,000 to 20,000 barrel per 

day, a single FT reactor is approximately 34 feet in diameter and 180 feet tall. These 

vessels can weigh in the range of 2,000 tons each. As a reference point, the new MIA2 

tank weighs about 68 tons, so a single GTL FT reactor can approximate the weight of 30 

MIA2 tanks. The FT reaction is a vigorous reaction which produces significant heat 

which must be removed. In addition to the basic reactor shell, the FT reactor internals are 

essentially a piping system to evenly distribute the synthesis gas within the reactor and a 

set of heat transfer tubes to remove excess heat. Due to the size and complexity of these 

reactors, only a limited number of companies can construct FT reactors. For CTL 

projects, due to the potential transportation, logistical, and safety issues associated with 

moving a vessel of this size, on-site construction may be required. 

The raw hydrocarbon product is further processed / upgraded to enhance the 

properties of the finished fuels, chemical feedstock, or waxes. For the transportation 

market, typical FT finished diesel contains non-detectable levels of sulfur, aromatics and 

has a cetane index of 74+. Syntroleum has been working with and supplied the Air 

Force, Army, and Navy FT product. Based on our understanding from discussions with 

the Air Force, Syntroleum’s FT product is the only fuel that has been extensively tested 

to date with respect to emissions reduction. The Air Force results, dependent upon 

equipment and operating conditions, have shown in excess of 90% reduction in 

particulate matter emissions. Testing performed by the Army – National Automotive 

Center, has shown particulate matter and hydrocarbon emission reductions of 50+% and 

60+% respectively compared with low sulfur diesel fuel. 

The testing performed on Syntroleum’s FT fuels by the Air Force, Army, and Navy 

has shown that FT fuels also provide a number of other performance benefits, such as 

increased thermal stability and cold performance properties. Currently, FT fuels are not 

fully certified for use in aircraft. Our understanding based on meetings with the 

Department of Defense, is that a component of the Assured Fuels Initiative is to certify 

the use of FT fuels for turbine applications which would eventually crossover to the 

commercial sector. 

In conclusion, the technology to convert the nation’s vast coal resources to ultraclean fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process exists today. The capital cost associated with 

a CTL plant have been estimated in the $80,000 to $100,000 per barrel range with 70% to 

75% associated with the gasification and clean-up process required to produce a synthesis 

gas. As an example, a 20,000 barrel per day plant is estimated to cost between $1.6 and 

$2.0 billion. Based upon 2003 Energy Information Agency data, the US has a 

demonstrated coal reserve base of 496 billion tons. At a conservative conversion rate of 

1.5 barrels of FT product for each ton of coal the potential for domestically produced 

CTL is 744 Billion barrels of product, essentially equal to the crude oil reserves of the 

Middle East. 

Finally, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on this important 

issue as industry and government work towards making CTL a reality in the United 

States. 
80

MR. HALL. The Chair recognizes the Director of Government 

Affairs, National Biodiesel Board, Mr. Scott Hughes, for 5 minutes. 

MR. HUGHES. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. We appreciate the 

opportunity to be here and come before you today on this important 

issue. 

I would like to focus my comments today on providing you with 

some background about biodiesel, our industry, as well as an overview of 

the collaborative work between the biodiesel industry, engine and 

automakers, and the role that we see biodiesel having in the national 

energy pool. 

Biodiesel is the name of a cleaner burning, alternative fuel produced 

from renewable resources such as animal fats and cooking oils. 

Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with 

petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. Biodiesel blends can 

be used in any compression, ignition engine or i.e., a diesel engine with 

no major modifications. Biodiesel in its pure form is simple to use, 

readily biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and 

aromatics. 

In chemical terms, biodiesel has a composition similar to that of 

conventional diesel fuel. It is what is called an alkyl ester, where 

conventional diesel fuel is a hydrocarbon, the difference being that 

biodiesel alkyl ester contains oxygen in addition to carbon and hydrogen, 

about 11 percent by weight, where conventional diesel fuel contains no 

oxygen. 

Biodiesel is produced using a chemical reaction. A fat or an oil is 

reacted with an alcohol such as methanol and the presence of a catalyst 

to produce two products, glycerin or methyl esters or biodiesel. The 

glycerin is removed in the production process, and it is then further 

refined and marketed as a value-added product. Everything that goes 

into the production process of biodiesel comes out. 

Soybeans are the largest oilseed crop grown in the U.S., and, as a 

result, soybean oil makes up about half the raw material available to 

make biodiesel. The other half consists of all other vegetable oils, 

recycled cooking oils, and animal fats. But approximately 90 percent of 

the biodiesel that is produced today in the U.S. is made from soybean oil. 

As the industry has developed, we have made it a priority to work 

with automakers, engine makers, and the petroleum industry to develop a 

fuel specification for biodiesel, just as they have for diesel and gasoline. 

This collaborative effort has resulted in the adoption of an ASTM 

standard for biodiesel. 

Additionally, we recognize the importance of fuel quality to the 

consumer and our stakeholders. As a result, industry has developed a 
81

comprehensive QAQC program called BQ9000. This program is aimed 

at assuring that biodiesel fuel is produced and maintained at the industry 

standard, which is ASTM D6751. 

The biodiesel industry has shown slow but steady growth since the 

early 1990s. However, in the past 2 years, its growth has gone up 

exponentially. A critical contributing element to the strong growth has 

been the implementation of the volumetric biodiesel fuels tax credit that 

you passed in 2004. 

Back in 2004, there were approximately 25 million gallons of 

biodiesel sales. That increased to 75 million gallons in 2005, and we are 

currently on track to exceed 150 million gallons this year. 

Likewise, capacity has also increased significantly. The industry 

went from 22 biodiesel plants in 2004 to more than 60 biodiesel plants in 

operation today, and there are over 40 more plants currently under 

construction. Production facilities are located and being located in just 

about every region of the country from coast to coast. 

Biodiesel is primarily marketed as a blended product with 

conventional diesel fuel typically in concentrations up to 20 percent. It is 

distributed utilizing the existing fuel distribution infrastructure with 

blending most commonly occurring with what we call “below the rack” 

by fuel jobbers. Biodiesel is beginning to be distributed through the 

petroleum terminal system. To date, biodiesel has positions in 

approximately 25 terminals around the country, and we anticipate this 

trend to increase. 

Historically, biodiesel’s primary markets have been regulated fleets 

for EPAct or various other Executive Order requirements for petroleum 

reduction, as well as the agricultural industry. However, biodiesel is 

increasingly being introduced into private-sector fleets, home heating oil, 

light duty diesel vehicles, marine applications, and even some electrical 

generation. All of these markets represent significant volume 

opportunities for our industry. 

The American Trucking Associations has endorsed the use of B5--it 

is the 5 percent blend--as a way to supplement our Nation’s energy 

supply. Likewise, Sysco Corporation, the largest private truck fleet in 

the Nation, has begun using B5 in its trucks. So, today, the biodiesel 

industry has worked diligently through the development of a national 

fuel standard, interaction with stakeholders, and a focus on fuel quality to 

establish a solid foundation to support our industry’s future growth. 

Looking ahead, recent regulatory changes aimed at improving the 

emission profile of diesel engines and improving air quality require 

significant advancement in engine and emission control technologies. 

Auto and engine makers are stepping up to meet the challenges presented 

by these standards which will take effect in model years 2007 to 2010. 
82

A critical element in meeting these standards will be the fuel that is 

used. Biodiesel will be used in these engines, and consumers are ever 

increasing their demand for biodiesel both in fleet applications and light 

duty markets. 

The biodiesel and OAM industries are working collaboratively in 

this area. The biodiesel industry has spent about $1.4 million to date, 

with an additional $700,000 committed for fiscal year 2007. Automakers 

and engine makers are also committing significant time and resources 

towards this effort. 

We foresee strong growth for biodiesel and it becoming further 

integrated into the national fuel distribution system and energy pool. 

The President has laid out a vision of significantly reducing our 

Nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil. Biodiesel can be one of 

the first tools used to begin reaching that goal, because it is a liquid 

renewable fuel that is available right now, ready for blending into our 

existing fuel supply and use in existing vehicles. 

So, in short, biodiesel has many benefits for the consumer Nation as 

a whole. It is a viable tool in our toolbox of available options to enhance 

our Nation’s energy security as it, one, adds to the distillate fuel pool; 

two, adds to U.S. refining capacity; three, directly replaces imported 

finished diesel fuel; and, finally, utilizes domestic agricultural products. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude welcome my remarks. 

MR. HALL. Mr. Hughes, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Scott Hughes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT HUGHES, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,

NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Boucher, and committee members. 

It is a pleasure to be here today. We appreciate the committee holding this hearing and 

providing the opportunity to examine this important issue. 

My name is Scott Hughes, Director-Governmental Affairs, with the National 

Biodiesel Board (NBB). The NBB is the national not-for-profit trade association 

representing the commercial biodiesel industry as the coordinating body for research and 

development in the US. State soybean commodity groups who were funding biodiesel 

research and development programs, founded NBB in 1992. Since that time, the NBB 

has developed into a comprehensive industry association, which coordinates and interacts 

with a broad range of stakeholders including industry, government, and academia. NBB's 

membership is comprised of state, national, and international feedstock and feedstock 

processor organizations, biodiesel suppliers, fuel marketers and distributors, and 

technology providers. 

In examining vehicle and fuels technology with a focus on the future, I would like to 

focus my comments on providing background about biodiesel, the industry, as well as an 

overview of the collaborative work between the biodiesel and engine/automakers, and the 

role we see biodiesel having in the national energy pool. 
83

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a cleaner burning, renewable diesel fuel replacement made from 

agricultural fats and oils meeting a specific commercial fuel definition and specification. 

Soybeans are the primary oilseed crop grown in the United States, and soybean oil makes 

up about half of the raw material available to make biodiesel. The other half consists of 

all other vegetable oils and animal fats. Biodiesel is made utilizing a chemical reaction 

process where the oil/fat is reacted with an alcohol to remove the glycerin in order to 

meet specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 

Biodiesel is one of the best-tested alternative fuels in the country and the only alternative 

fuel to meet all of the testing requirements of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air act. 

Industry Background & Overview

In the early 1990’s, soybean farmers struggled to maintain profitability because of 

high energy prices and low commodity prices. Investment in the development of a 

biodiesel industry was a priority to farmers eager to contribute to our energy supply, 

while finding ways to add value to their crops. Farmers have invested more than $50 

million of their check-off dollars to date to conduct research and development on 

biodiesel. Much of that effort has focused on the testing of biodiesel to ensure 

performance, establish quality standards, and gain acceptance by engine and equipment 

manufacturers. 

The biodiesel industry has shown slow but steady growth since the early 90’s, 

however, in the past two years, it has grown exponentially. In 2004 there was 

approximately 25 million gallons of biodiesel sales. That increased to 75 million gallons 

in 2005. We are currently on track to exceed 150 million gallons in 2006. Likewise, we 

went from 22 biodiesel plants in 2004 to more than 60 biodiesel plants currently (395 

million gallons of production capacity). There are over 40 more plants currently under 

construction (estimated additional 713 million gallons of production capacity), with 

another 30 projects in pre-construction. 

Biodiesel is primarily marketed as a blended product with conventional diesel fuel 

typically in concentrations up to 20%. It is distributed utilizing the existing fuel 

distribution infrastructure with blending most commonly occurring “below the rack” by 

fuel jobbers. Biodiesel is beginning to be distributed through the petroleum terminal 

system. To date, biodiesel has positions in approximately 25 terminals. We anticipate 

this trend to increase. 

Three major factors are contributing to the industry’s current strong growth: 

relatively stable feedstock prices, crude oil prices, and public policy (federal and state). 

The combination of these drivers has made biodiesel priced more competitive in the 

market. As a result, we are starting to see biodiesel entering several new price sensitive 

markets. 

Historically biodiesel’s primary markets have been regulated fleets (alternative fuel 

use/petroleum reduction—EPAct, Executive Order 13149) and the agricultural industry. 

However, biodiesel is increasingly being introduced into private sector fleets, home 

heating oil, light duty diesel vehicles, marine applications, and even some electrical 

generation. These markets all represent significant volume opportunities for industry. 

The industry’s early investment in technical research; pursuit of an ASTM standard; 

public education efforts; outreach to automakers, engine and component makers, and the 

petroleum industry are allowing us to maximize our growth potential under current 

market dynamics. 

Regulatory and Policy Impacts 

The need for increased use of biofuels has never been more pressing with diesel fuel 

prices at an all-time high. As crude oil prices continue to rise, America’s trade deficit 

continues to balloon. America relies on imports for 60 percent of its petroleum needs. 
84

Imported petroleum makes up the single largest component of our national trade deficit 

amounting to approximately one third of the total. Every gallon of domestic, renewable 

biodiesel that is used to replace diesel fuel refined from imported crude reduces the need 

for imported crude and finished fuel, extends the diesel supply, and expands domestic 

refining capacity. Even a small reduction in demand has a positive effect on straining 

price pressures. 

The majority of diesel fuel in this country is used in over-the-road trucks. The 

trucking industry serves as a critical part of our economy, and impacts every industry, 

business, and consumer in America. Virtually every product that we use everyday is 

brought to us by a diesel-powered truck. Fuel is the single largest operational cost in the 

trucking industry. Average diesel fuel prices have nearly doubled over the past four 

years. This dramatic increase in operational cost offers enormous challenges to the 

trucking industry, and will be felt throughout our entire economy. 

The American Trucking Association (ATA) has endorsed the use of B5 as a way to 

supplement our nation’s energy supply. Likewise, Sysco Corporation, the largest private 

truck fleet in the nation has begun using B5 it its trucks. Truckers often become 

interested in biodiesel because they would rather rely more on farmers for their fuel and 

less on the Middle East. However, after they begin using it, they are most often 

impressed by its premium fuel characteristics. Biodiesel contains oxygen so it burns 

cleaner, reduces smoke and smell, increases cetane, and improves lubricity. As ultra-low 

sulfur diesel (USLD) fuel gets phased in beginning in June of this year through June of 

2007, biodiesel is well positioned to replace the lubricity that will be lost in ULSD. 

Diesel fuel injection systems rely on the lubricating characteristic of fuel to keep them 

functioning properly. Just 2 percent biodiesel can improve lubricity by as much as 65 

percent. 

Recent regulatory changes aimed at improving the emission profile of diesel engines 

and improving air quality requires significant advancement in engine and emission 

control technologies. Auto and engine-makers are stepping up to meet the challenges 

presented by these regulatory standards which take effect in model years 2007/2010. 

A critical element in meeting these standards will be the fuel that is used in 

advanced engine and emission control technologies. Biodiesel will be a fuel used in 

these engines and consumers are ever increasing their demand for biodiesel both in fleet 

applications and light-duty passenger markets. It is therefore imperative the necessary 

research is conducted to demonstrate biodiesel’s compatibility with new engine 

technologies to meet this growing demand. 

The biodiesel and OEM industries are committing significant resources toward this 

effort. The biodiesel industry has spent $1.4 million dollars to date with an additional 

$700,000 committed for fiscal year 2007. Automakers and engine makers are also 

committing significant time and resources toward this effort. 

Additionally, three federal policy measures have been extraordinarily effective in 

stimulating biodiesel’s increased production and use. Because of these three policy 

measures, biodiesel is beginning to make a small but significant impact on our nation’s 

energy supply. These three measures are all working extraordinarily well, but are soon 

scheduled to expire, and must be continued in order to keep the growth in biodiesel going 

strong. 

First, the biodiesel blenders tax credit, which was part of the restructured Volumetric 

Ethanol Excise Tax credit or “VEETC” legislation in the JOBS Act of 2004. The new 

blender’s tax credit for biodiesel went into effect in January of 2005. It functions 

similarly to the ethanol tax credit, and it has been extraordinarily effective incenting the 

blending of biodiesel into the nation’s diesel fuel supply. It has been the primary 

stimulant in 2005 for the dramatic increase in new plants, jobs, and local investment in 

biodiesel, bringing economic opportunity to both rural and urban areas. 
85

The second policy measure that has been very effective in energizing biodiesel’s 

growth is the Bioenergy Program. The program was initiated by the USDA in 2000 to 

stimulate the use of crop surpluses for energy needs. It was memorialized as part of the 

2002 Farm Bill. However, the program is set to expire in July of this year. This program 

provides a production incentive which has been highly effective in the growth of the 

biodiesel industry. A 2005 OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool or “PART” 

evaluation reported that the program did an excellent job of stimulating biodiesel growth, 

and indicated that the program could continue to be effective for the emerging biodiesel 

industry. The report stated, “Increases in the production of biodiesel indicate a rise in the 

supply of domestically produced renewable fuels. It’s also an indicator of the viability of 

the biodiesel industry and its expanded consumption of agricultural commodities.” 

The third program that has greatly contributed to biodiesel’s success is the USDA’s 

Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. This program was a part of the energy title of the 

2002 Farm Bill. The program provides educational funding to support increased fuel 

quality measures, increased acceptance of biodiesel by engine and equipment 

manufacturers, petroleum partners, users, and the general public. The USDA has done a 

superb job in implementing this program and it has been a key ingredient to biodiesel’s 

recent growth. A recent survey done to benchmark the program’s progress showed that 

the public’s awareness of biodiesel rose from 27 percent in August 2004 to 41 percent in 

December of 2005. To impact the American public’s awareness that significantly on any 

given issue is remarkable. In addition to greater awareness from the general public, 

market research shows familiarity among trucking executives increased from 27 in 2004 

to 53 in 2005. Also of note: 

• Four-in-five consumers continue to support a tax incentive that would make 

biodiesel cost-competitive with regular diesel fuel. 

• 88 percent of environmental group leaders and 84 percent of health 

organization leaders support biodiesel as a transitional fuel, because biodiesel 

can make an immediate impact on reducing emissions until zero emissions 

technology is developed. 

 

Looking Ahead

We foresee strong growth for biodiesel and it becoming further integrated into the 

national fuel distribution system and energy pool. 

During the 2006 State of the Union speech, President Bush outlined his Advanced 

Energy Initiative, which stated the goal of reducing petroleum imports from the Middle 

East by 75 percent by the year 2025. Biodiesel and ethanol can be the first tools used to 

begin reaching that goal, because they are liquid renewable fuels that are available right 

now, ready for blending into our existing fuel supply and used in our existing vehicles. 

As an illustration of how biodiesel can play a role in that effort, please note that Iraq is 

the second largest provider of crude oil into the United States from the Persian Gulf 

region. Of the crude that comes from Iraq, approximately 1.85 billion gallons of diesel 

fuel is refined for the US market. If long-term, America was to replace just 5 percent of 

its 37 billion gallons of on-road diesel fuel with biodiesel, it would equal 1.85 billion 

gallons – the same amount of diesel fuel that we get from Iraq. 

In addition to the significant benefits that biodiesel offers to increase our domestic 

refining capacity and overall energy supply, biodiesel offers enormous benefits to our 

agricultural sector. Biodiesel does much more than just utilize surplus agricultural 

commodities; it adds multiple layers of value to agricultural economics. There have been 

5 major comprehensive economic studies evaluating biodiesel in the last 4 years. All of 

these studies, using different economic models, had similar conclusions: that increased 

utilization of fats and oils for biodiesel increases the value that farmers receive for their 

crops, while making protein meal cheaper as a feed for our domestic livestock producers 

and more competitive in international protein markets for food and feed. Not only does 
86

this allow farmers to more profitably supply global food markets, it may have the effect 

of increasing agricultural processing in the United States. Additional biodiesel 

production further increases domestic chemical processing from renewable by-products. 

Conclusion

Rising crude oil prices and political uncertainties in strategically sensitive regions of 

the world are focusing the public’s attention on the need to enhance our nation’s energy 

security. Biofuels are a viable option to begin re-taking control of our energy future. 

There are many market dynamics that are working in favor of the biofuels industry today 

and which if continue into the future, as anticipated, will provide a bright future not only 

for the industry but the nation overall. 

Biodiesel is and will continue to be a strong player and partner in the growth of the 

biofuels industry. Biodiesel can be a substantial tool in the nation’s overall move toward 

energy security as it: 

• Adds to the distillate fuel pool; 

• Adds to U.S. “refining” capacity; 

• Directly replaces imported finished diesel fuel; 

• Utilizes domestic agricultural products; 

• Stimulates rural and urban economies and creates jobs; and 

• Helps potentially create new chemical industry jobs and activity. 

Mr. Chairman, members, we appreciate the opportunity to come before you today on 

this most critical issue. On behalf of the biodiesel industry, I want to thank you for all of 

the support you have given not only to the biodiesel industry, but the development of the 

biofuels industry overall. We look forward to continue working with you in this 

important endeavor. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

MR. HALL. Mr. Pratt. 

MR. PRATT. Good afternoon, Chairman Hall and members of the 

committee. 

My name is Mitchell Pratt. I am before you today representing 

Clean Energy, North America’s leader in clean transportation, and as the 

company’s Senior Vice President of Operations in Governmental Affairs. 

Clean Energy provides fueling daily for over 30,000 vehicles with 

clean, affordable, and domestically produced natural gas. Our company 

has over 160 fueling stations and is on track to sell 73 million gallons of 

natural gas this year. We at Clean Energy strongly believe that natural 

gas has an important role to play in providing an immediate solution to 

help combat our rising fuel prices, foreign oil dependency, urban air 

pollution challenges, and offers the purest and cleanest bridge to a 

hydrogen future. Natural gas as a transportation fuel is the best untold 

story and is a solution today that will remain so well into the future. 

I would like to quickly highlight several main points to demonstrate 

the immediate feasibility of launching a natural gas national program. 

First, fuel supply. We have over 70 years of current reserves, 30 

more than oil, with no accounting for biomethane or other new sources 

and supplies, including the long-range hope of methane hydrates. 
87

Next, price. How would you like to pay substantially less today for 

the fuel you are burning? With all the costs rolled in, capital recovery 

and placed on an energy equivalent cost per gallon of natural gas today, 

it is approximately $1.82 per gasoline gallon or $2.02 per diesel gallon 

equivalent, a substantial savings that is critical for the fleets that we serve 

and those that are serving the backbone of our economy in moving goods 

and services today. 

On to emissions. Natural gas is and will remain substantially cleaner 

than gasoline and diesel. In 2007, while diesel engines struggled to 

achieve the new standards, natural gas will be at the 2010 emissions 

standard, over 80 percent cleaner. 

On to the critical piece you all have talked about and heard about 

today. The critical component of launching any new alternative fuel is 

infrastructure. We have found through an anchor tenant cost model and 

through public-private partnerships that we can and will cost-effectively 

finance and build the infrastructure necessary to rapidly expand the 

market. Also, with a newly introduced home refueling appliance that 

simply plugs in at your house, this will allow consumers greater 

convenience to fill up at home overnight, and it is helping to provide 

confidence as the public station network grows. 

Now to vehicles. We have targeted the introduction of natural gases, 

viable fuel through fleet applications, systematically building 

infrastructure to support that and the growing product line. With 

thousands of NGVs in operation, they have proven to be safe and 

reliable, with many success stories like Los Angeles’ MTA, the transit 

property with over 2,000 natural gas buses in operation daily. In fact, 

there are nearly 9,000 transit buses running on natural gas. Nearly one in 

four new transit buses on order are specified to run on natural gas. More 

than 25 airports around the country are using buses, shuttles, runway 

sweepers, dump plows, security, and maintenance vehicles that also run 

on natural gas. 

Refuse is one of the fastest-growing areas for NGVs, with more than 

2,500 vehicles in use today and more than 500 being added each year. 

More than 140 school districts across the country are using natural 

gas buses and shuttles as well as deploying light-duty NGVs in white 

fleets for maintenance personnel. And there are dozens of short haul and 

port application fleets that make great sense. Just think of all the 

vehicles that pull into a 7-Eleven each morning. Snack foods, bakeries, 

soda and water, dairy distributors, etc., all great applications for natural 

gas. 

Unfortunately, the growth in the U.S. has been slow. Globally, 

between August 2003, and January 2006, NGVs grew by more than 

65 percent, to more than 4.6 million vehicles, and stations grew by more 
88

than 40 percent. Many automakers offer tremendous selection of fully 

integrated natural gas vehicle products throughout Europe and other 

countries but have pulled back here at home. More action is required to 

have these bio fuel and dedicated natural gas vehicles made available to 

U.S. consumers. 

Finally, natural gas is the best bridge to a hydrogen future. The road 

to a hydrogen future has many challenges, and the greatest is creating an 

infrastructure that enables society to utilize gaseous fuels. Natural gas 

provides this critical experience for society, and the stations can be 

modified to sell natural gas, blended natural gas, hydrogen, and pure 

hydrogen. With these blends, near zero emissions can be achieved much 

more cost effectively than with pure hydrogen. 

So, in conclusion, as you can see, natural gas vehicles have had a 

wide experience of applications, truly successful applications, and are the 

best untold story, ready for immediate and tremendous growth in all 

light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicle applications. Federal and State 

fleet NGV purchase priority directives and DOE RD&D funding are 

needed to encourage new product development and introduce those 

foreign available OEM, NGV products here at home. 

As we scan and consider all the feasible alternative fuels that are out 

there, natural gas makes the most sense commercially for all types of 

vehicles. With greater support, NGVs can provide an immediate and 

important solution to our urban air pollution issues. Foreign oil security 

challenges create a bridge to a hydrogen future, all in an excellent fuel 

price, thereby preventing the economic train wreck which can be caused 

from spiraling oil prices. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Michael Pratt follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PRATT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CLEAN ENERGY

Natural Gas is an Immediate Solution 

• Natural gas provides an immediate solution to our foreign oil dependency, 

urban air pollution challenges, and serves as the clearest bridge to a hydrogen 

future. 

• World demand-production gap could be as high as 30 million barrels/day by 

2020. 

• Natural gas is a domestic energy source (over 97 percent of current U.S. use 

comes from North America) today with over 70 years of additional supply. 

• 11,000,000 light-duty vehicles, or 5 percent of the existing U.S. light-duty fleet, 

if powered by natural gas, would only account for 4 percent of the country’s 

current natural gas usage. 

Natural Gas is Clean 

• Natural gas vehicles meet near-zero emissions levels for light-duty 

applications, already meet or exceed 2007 heavy-duty emission standards, and 
89

are targeted to certify to the 2010 heavy-duty standards for the 2007 model 

year. 

Natural Gas is Economic 

• Natural gas is priced very competitively at a $1.82 gasoline gallon equivalent 

or a $2.02 diesel gallon equivalent versus today’s national average price of a 

gasoline gallon at $2.88 and a diesel gallon at $2.89. 

• Clean Energy can guarantee a long term fixed price for vehicle fleets for up to 

5 years under today’s gasoline and diesel prices. 

Natural Gas Infrastructure 

• Natural gas, unlike other alternative fuels, enjoys the advantage of a vast 

nationwide network of existing pipelines capable of delivering natural gas 

product to nearly every American community. 

• Strategic use of public-private partnerships has lead to an extensive network of 

natural gas fueling stations in key national markets. 

Natural Gas Vehicles 

• Natural gas vehicles are currently used in transit, refuse, shuttle, taxi, police, 

airport, and municipal fleet applications throughout the United States. 

• American and foreign auto manufacturers produce a wide range of natural gas 

vehicle offerings in Europe and elsewhere to combat high oil prices at the 

pump. 

Natural Gas is the Bridge to Hydrogen 

• Natural gas as a transportation fuel introduces gaseous fuel vehicles, fueling 

stations, and the societal experience necessary to make hydrogen fuel a reality. 

Conclusion 

• The country needs more national policies to help natural gas and other 

alternative fuels penetrate the marketplace and provide consumers with real 

options beyond oil. 

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Hall and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Air Quality. My name is Mitchell W. Pratt and I am before you today 

representing Clean Energy, North America’s leading clean transportation fuel provider, 

as the company’s Senior Vice President of Operations and Government Affairs. Clean 

Energy provides fueling daily for over thirty thousand vehicles nationwide with clean, 

affordable, and domestically produced natural gas. Our company has over 160 fueling 

stations and is on track to sell approximately 73 million gallons of natural gas this year. 

We, at Clean Energy, strongly believe that natural gas has an important role to play in 

providing an immediate solution to our foreign oil dependency, urban air pollution 

challenges, and the clearest bridge to a hydrogen future. Natural gas as a transportation 

fuel is a solution today and will remain so well into the future. 

Global Oil Supply 

Some believe that the current run up in oil prices is a blip and that by 2010 we will 

be awash in oil. We are in the opposite camp. We believe we are looking at a looming 

supply-demand problem. Oil is a finite and dwindling resource and the world’s demand 
90

for it keeps growing. That is why we believe that the world will continue to face 

stubbornly high prices for the long term. 

Let’s take a look at the facts. In the Arab embargo back in the 70s, we were 

importing approximately 25 percent of our oil. In the first Gulf War, we were importing 

42 percent of our oil. Today we are importing 57 percent. By 2010, we will be over 60 

percent oil imports. We’ve been pumping oil out of the ground since 1859. The last time 

a world class oil field was found was in the Caspian Sea in the late 1990s. The easy oil 

has been found. There are no surprises out there. We’ve either peaked as far as oil 

production goes, or it’s right around the corner. 

Demand is growing globally. For example, ten years ago China used 3.4 million 

barrels of oil per day. Today they are using 6.5 million barrels per day. There are 

forecasts showing them using 11 million barrels per day a decade from now. Wait until 

they really start buying automobiles. We are using more than 30 billion barrels of oil a 

year worldwide. The last time we found as much oil in a year as we consumed was about 

1985. Production worldwide is 84-85 million barrels a day. Current demand is about 85 

million barrels a day and demand projections for 2007 are easily north of that given 

China and India’s increasing demand. 

The treadmill is getting faster and faster. The decline curve for oil production is 

steady. Saudis say they can produce 10.5 million barrels per day, but they’re only 

producing 9.5 million barrels per day. We all heard talk two years ago of Iraq production 

reaching 3 million barrels per day. They are producing less than 2 million barrels. To 

make matters worse, we’ve also got some serious geopolitical problems: Iran, 

Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. They are all wild cards. The Alaskan pipeline used to 

be full, running at 2 million barrels per day. It now carries less than half of that or 

800,000 barrels per day. Further, because there are pipeline constraints, opening up 

ANWAR will not solve the problem because almost half the pipeline’s capacity is 

already in use. 

Alternatives to Oil 

We must look at all solutions and we need to get serious about fuel diversity. We 

have known an oil shortage was coming for some time. Clean Energy believes that 

ethanol, biodiesel, and natural gas - as transportation fuels - each have a role to play. In 

fact, even if you assume biofuels achieve their greatest forecasted production targets, we 

believe demand will still outstrip supply by 3 million barrels per day by 2020. Over time, 

we believe that natural gas will be moved out of the power generation business by coal 

and nuclear, increasing the availability of domestic natural gas supplies for our country’s 

transportation needs. Even assuming optimistic new production sources coming on line, 

balanced with estimated production decline curves, the demand-production gap could be 

as high as 30 million barrels per day in 2020. This gap requires federal actions 

supporting alternatives today. 

Natural Gas is Domestic 

Natural gas is a domestic source of transportation fuel with an estimated 77 years of 

additional supply or 30 years extra supply over oil. Over 97 percent of our current use of 

natural gas is produced in North America, which helps protect us from unstable 

international political situations which increases our energy independence by not 

importing as much foreign oil. To put natural gas and transportation fuel use into 

perspective, if we powered 11,000,000 light-duty vehicles or 5 percent of the U.S. lightduty fleet with natural gas today, it would only account for 4 percent of the country’s 

current natural gas fuel usage. 
91

Natural Gas is Clean 

Natural gas is a clean and efficient fuel. Natural gas vehicles (light duty, medium 

and heavy duty trucks) are all cleaner than gasoline or diesel vehicles. Natural gas 

vehicles meet near-zero emission levels for light-duty applications and already meet or 

exceed 2007 heavy-duty emission standards with some engines targeted to certify to the 

2010 standard as early as next year (2007). Natural gas is inherently cleaner than 

gasoline or diesel and will continue to offer this benefit well into the future. 

Natural Gas is Economic

Natural gas is economic. The price for natural gas as a transportation fuel is very 

competitive with today’s gasoline or diesel fuels. In fact, natural gas was very 

competitive with oil at $30 a barrel, let alone at the market’s current price of $70 a barrel. 

Clean Energy views natural gas as a commodity tracking at a discount to oil, especially 

when compared to diesel. For example, if you assume a natural gas price at $7.20 per 

million cubic feet and 92 cents to cover transport, compression, taxes, and capital 

recovery costs, you can achieve a very competitive $1.82 gasoline gallon equivalent or a 

$2.02 diesel gallon equivalent. Today diesel ranges between $2.90 to $3.24 per gallon. 

We further believe that when ultra low sulfur diesel fuel hits the market later this 

year, it will be an additional 25 to 30 cents, putting it in the $3.50 range. This assumes 

the overall oil market stays stable even though, historically, the market has suffered over 

a dozen global oil supply disruptions over the past half century lasting 1 to 44 months in 

duration with supply shortfalls of one to 14 percent of world demand. Despite the reality 

of volatile oil prices and unlike any energy provider we know, our company is able to 

guarantee a fixed price per gallon of natural gas to light, medium and heavy-duty fleet 

customers below today’s gasoline and diesel prices for up to five years on a energy 

equivalent gallon basis. 

In addition to the comparatively low cost of natural gas as a transportation fuel, 

Congress took an important step in passing the energy and highway bills last year. As the 

cost of uncertain diesel technology increases in an effort to meet new federal clean air 

emission standards, the energy bill provides up to a $32,000 tax credit for a class 8 

natural gas truck. This will certainly help narrow the incremental cost differential 

between diesel and natural gas vehicles. When fuel price and operational maintenance 

savings are factored in, natural gas vehicles become even more cost-effective than their 

diesel counterparts. Because some of the incentives put in place are going to take awhile 

to have a real impact, we need Congress to continue to provide long-range policies that 

promote alternative fuels in the marketplace. 

Natural Gas Infrastructure 

Perhaps the greatest challenge for any alternative to oil is the ability to distribute 

product to the end user. Natural gas, unlike other alternative fuels, enjoys the advantage 

of possessing a vast nationwide network of existing gas pipelines capable of delivering 

natural gas product to nearly every American community. Clean Energy has developed a 

strategic business model enabling the cost-effective development of a natural gas station 

network. This revolutionary approach creates on secondary station infrastructure to 

gasoline and diesel by leveraging private and public-private partnerships to create an 

extensive network. These turn-key partnerships enable high-volume fleet users to benefit 

from privately financed refueling stations while providing smaller volume users with 

public access at these stations. Further, consumers can immediately take advantage of 

natural gas as a transportation fuel with the simple installation of a low cost home 

refueling system that is currently on the market. Moreover, natural gas stations can 

provide an early introduction of hydrogen by using a 10 to 30 percent blend, reducing the 

immediate need for high-cost fuel cells to achieve near-zero air emissions. 
92

Natural Gas Vehicle Availability 

Natural gas vehicles are currently available, proven, and tested in transit, refuse, 

shuttle, taxi, police, airport and municipal fleet applications throughout the United States. 

These applications were primarily driven by the clean air benefits inherently derived from 

the use of natural gas. However, for years American and foreign auto manufacturers 

have produced an ever increasing selection of natural gas vehicle products in Europe, and 

elsewhere, – both dedicated and bi fuel – for natural gas vehicles to address concerns 

over high oil prices. These OEM produced vehicles are fully integrated providing 

consumers the mileage range and conveniences of gasoline vehicles. Congress should 

follow Europe’s lead by strongly encouraging auto manufacturers through incentives or 

mandates to produce a greater range of natural gas vehicles for the American consumer. 

Natural Gas Bridge to Hydrogen

Natural gas is also viewed as a bridge fuel to hydrogen as it continues to be the most 

cost-effective way to produce hydrogen, provides invaluable experience and knowledge 

to users on how to handle gaseous fuels, and natural gas infrastructure can be leveraged 

to provide hydrogen as well as blended hydrogen/natural gas dispersing. In fact, the 

blending of hydrogen and natural gas provide even lower near zero emission 

performance. With fully integrated OEM produced natural gas vehicles, these vehicles 

can be enabled to operate natural gas, hydrogen, and blended hydrogen/natural gas fuels. 

Conclusions 

Natural gas vehicles offer a proven solution in light, medium, and heavy duty 

vehicles that are ready for wide-scale implementation today. Our resources of natural gas 

can play a critical role in diversifying our nation’s transportation fuel needs. Natural gas 

is clean, inexpensive and domestically produced, and excellent fuel formula. In 

leveraging natural gas as a transfer fuel we not only support the creation of a secondary 

infrastructure but also foster more vehicle production. The societal experience of 

operating a natural gas vehicle is likely the only realistic approach to achieving a 

hydrogen future. That being said, we need more national policies like the 2005 energy 

and highway bills to help natural gas and other alternative fuels penetrate the marketplace 

and be available to the public. Without the firm support of the Congress, our nation’s 

ability to free itself from it’s current oil dependence will most certainly put our nation’s 

economy, security, and overall public health at risk. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. We will ask some questions here now, Mr. 

Pratt, on natural gas. I have been a great believer in natural gas. That 

may be the fuel of the future. It may be accidental that we have an 

abundance of it in my State, my area, but, in the late 1970s the President 

passed some terrible legislation, Fuel Use Act, a lot of that stuff. It took 

us 2 or 3 years to get them off the books by the time we got here. And I 

have a school district that adjoins my hometown school district that uses 

natural gas completely for their school buses. And they have saved 

maybe 30 percent over the years. And one of the questions that was 

always asked initially, because that is our school children was how 

dangerous was it. Have there been any accidents or fatalities associated 

with natural gas refueling stations or consumers filling up on their own 

tanks or on the school buses or anything that you know of? 

MR. PRATT. Not that I know of. 
93

MR. HALL. That really speaks well because it has been at least 

20 years that they have been doing that; 15 that I know of right there 

close to me. How much energy is in a gallon of natural gas as compared 

with a gallon of gasoline? 

MR. PRATT. The prices that I quoted in my testimony are all on an 

energy equivalent basis. So the $1.82 is on a gasoline gallon energy 

equivalent basis, and the $2.02 is on a diesel equivalent gallon basis. 

MR. HALL. How long does it take to install natural gas refueling 

stations? 

MR. PRATT. Depending on the size of the station, it can take 

anywhere from 6 months to a year. 

MR. HALL. How long does the permitting cycle take? 

MR. PRATT. That is included in that same timeframe. 

MR. HALL. You know, Chairman Barton and his energy bill that we 

passed some several months ago had provisions there where if a Federal 

entity didn’t answer the way, a lot of times the way they would hold it up 

is just not give you an answer. And you can’t appeal unless you have a 

final answer from an entity. He set a provision in there that I think is just 

simply great to anybody that wants to build and be productive in solving 

our energy problem. That if they make an application to them and in 

60 days it is not either denied or granted, it is granted. And I think that is 

a boon to those that want to build. Along that line, I would ask you, 

what permits are required for a natural gas refueling station or pump? 

MR. PRATT. We have local city permits. All the building and safety 

inspection requirements, fire department inspections are required for 

constructing a station. Much like building anything at your home or a 

home addition, you have to go through all those standard permits. For 

natural gas there is nothing unique. And as there are so many stations 

that have been built, there is a lot of experience and our Fire Department 

officials are usually the most challenged in coming up to speed on it, but 

they have grown tremendously comfortable with natural gas stations. 

MR. HALL. About what does it cost to install a natural gas pump? 

MR. PRATT. Natural gas stations, again, it depends on size. A home 

refueling unit that you can install in your garage wall and fill up 

overnight is a little over $1,000 dollars. To a transit property that can 

handle hundreds of buses every night in a 6 to 8-hour window can be 

upwards between $1.5 and $3 million. Our typical station that we build 

for a gasoline station is in the neighborhood of about $750,000. We 

compare this, the ability to deliver natural gas just like you would a 

gasoline station, vehicle after vehicle with multiple dispensers for 

$750,000 investment, versus a hydrogen station, today that, with one 

reformer producing only 100 gallons is over a million, $1.2 million. 
94

The economics and feasibility of natural gas is there today, and these 

stations can be equipped for that hydrogen future. 

MR. HALL. I thank you very much. Quickly, Dr. Pacheco, could 

you tell me, what are the best types of plant material to make cellulosic 

biomass ethanol? Can you give me that answer in about 30 seconds? 

MR. PACHECO. Mr. Chairman, many forms of biomass can be used 

to make ethanol. Switchgrass and corn stover and hardwoods are among 

some of the easiest feed stocks to use. 

MR. HALL. Gosh. I have got 18 seconds left. I have heard that the 

energy balance for ethanol from corn is about 1.4 units of energy output 

for each unit of energy input. But for cellulosic biomass the ratio is 

much better, on the order of five or six times the units of output for each 

unit of input. Why is cellulosic biomass so much higher than ethanol 

from corn? 

MR. PACHECO. The main reason for that is that in cellulosic biomass 

there is a component referred to as a lignin that doesn’t exist in the corn 

feedstock. That lignin some people refer to sometimes as like a young 

coal. It is actually used for heat and power within the biorefinery so that 

the coal and natural gas that is currently used to provide heat and power 

for a corn ethanol mill is not required. And that is shown in the third 

figure in my written testimony. 

MR. HALL. All right. I thank you. My time is expired, and I 

recognize the gentleman from Arkansas. 

MR. ROSS. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas. Thank you all 

for being here today. And my first question is for Mr. Hughes. I am 

impressed by the amount of growth in your industry from 22 biodiesel 

plants in 2004 to 60 plants now. Hopefully soon, two more, one in 

McGee and one in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and over 40 plants currently 

under construction. I don’t believe my area is unique in the talk about 

moving toward this technology and the jobs that it creates. We are 

seeing it all over the country. Is there any reason to believe that these 

plants are not meeting current environmental requirements? 

MR. HUGHES. No, sir, there is not. We have not run into any kind of 

calls or situations that I am aware of in that respect. 

MR. ROSS. So I would be correct in assuming that State and local 

permitting authorities are issuing these plants whatever air and other 

environmental permits they need. 

MR. HUGHES. That is my understanding. 

MR. ROSS. There haven’t been any governmental regulations at the 

local State or Federal level that it have served as an obstacle or slowed 

the development of these type plants? 
95

MR. HUGHES. Not that I am aware of, and I have actually had some 

conversations with a few plants in that regard, and they have not 

indicated that is an issue. 

MR. ROSS. Good. My next two questions are targeted for Mr. 

Warzel. You mentioned in your testimony that Fischer-Tropsch fuels are 

not fully certified for use in aircraft. I know there is a great deal of 

interest by both the Department of Defense and the private aircraft 

industry in the use of coal to liquids as a source of jet fuel. Can you 

speak to the current status of this certification? And if so, what needs to 

be done before these fuels are ready for aircraft use? 

MR. WARZEL. Okay. Yes. Currently it is not certified. Diesel fuel 

that you can also make from the Fischer-Tropsch process meets all the 

ASTM guidelines and requirements. So it is fully fungible in today’s 

market. On the jet fuel, it really becomes an issue of OEM certification 

because of the amount of money spent on the infrastructure. The Air 

Force has a very detailed plan put in place for certification which, 

depending on the best mechanism and blending that they look at, could 

be anywhere from a 3 to a 6-year process. 

To give you an idea, the last time they certified a new fuel or an 

additive to a new fuel, they have not certified a new fuel in decades, it 

took about 8 years. The main component is going to be having supply of 

fuel for them to begin their work. 

MR. ROSS. Follow up to that. It has been widely discussed that 

while the coal-to-liquids technology has been proven throughout the 

world, that its intense capital cost and lack of deployment in the United 

States are still barriers that must be addressed in order to gain the 

financing necessary to make the facilities more commercially viable for 

widespread use domestically. What do you think is needed in order to 

further the use of coal, CTL technologies? 

MR. WARZEL. Let’s kind of rephrase that. There is a lot of coal 

gasification to different types of liquids. There is only one plan as such 

now, Sasol, that does coal to liquid via Fischer-Tropsch. What is needed 

in our opinion is from a U.S. perspective, let’s move the military away 

from crude oil-based fuels, and move them in off-take agreements for the 

military. That alone will provide a major impetus to the commercial 

sector to bring funding with long-term off-take agreements for the plants. 

MR. ROSS. Let me ask a question, probably for Mr. Pratt, but any of 

you that feel qualified can answer it. I know there is some movement 

toward, and this is not really anything new, but automobiles that are 

operating today off of natural gas, and I guess the new component would 

be the fact that more people are now able to refuel at home in the 

evening while they sleep. I think one of the challenges, especially for a 
96

rural district like mine, it is my understanding a typical car with natural 

gas can go like 225 miles, is that pretty accurate? 

MR. PRATT. That is for the product that is available today. 

MR. ROSS. And so in a district like mine I can get halfway to where 

I am going, but I can’t get the rest of the way, and I can’t get back home 

unless, and so it is the same issue that we run into with a lot of other 

things. I applaud the efforts to get it to where you can refuel it at home 

at night. But yet we still have the challenge when we move away from 

home, especially in rural areas to be able to have the infrastructure in 

place to be able to refuel, number one. Number two, do we really want 

to go in this direction given that this is just another fossil fuel? And then 

finally, given the cost of natural gas today, has it really become 

somewhat cost prohibitive compared to back when natural gas was 

running $2 to $4. Now it is $10 to $14 or $15, or whatever it may be 

today. 

MR. PRATT. Sure. The first question on vehicle types. In Europe, 

they make over, I think it is, 22 different OEMs are making something in 

the magnitude of over 100 different vehicle types, maybe a little bit off 

on that, but it is a wide selection of natural gas vehicles. And they make 

both dedicated and bifuel. And in those vehicles, both dedicated and 

bifuel, they get much greater range than what we have experienced, the 

200 miles, 225 that you talked about. The bifuel vehicle allows you to 

operate both on gasoline and natural gas, so that you can fill in the gap of 

the infrastructure. The infrastructure development for any alternative 

fuel here in the U.S., we believe we have figured out the right model to 

do that. And that is focusing on the large fleets that allow you to expand 

rapidly the infrastructure, all your trash haulers, your transit bus fleets, 

your school bus fleets, your municipalities, all can create an 

infrastructure to help you get around your State and manage your 

transportation on a dedicated fuel, let alone a bifuel vehicle. 

I think, of the other questions, the most important was fuel price. 

And let me just walk you through that. Now, today, natural gas is below 

$7 an MCF. But even using $7.50 MCF, total rolled in capital cost 

recovery, profit, and operations is less than $2 a gallon. So when you 

talk about fuel price supply, natural gas can be offered to you at less than 

$2 a gallon. I think that is pretty price competitive, even as you talk 

about peaking, the last summers or last winters or winter before last, the 

peaking natural gas prices, we were still selling our customers fuel at $2 

and a little bit more because we buy long-term contracts to manage that 

fuel supply. 

MR. ROSS. But 6 years ago, that would have been more equal to 

what, 50 cents a gallon. 
97

MR. PRATT. It would have been equal to probably less than that. 

But today’s reality is that the price of natural gas provides you, even 

including building the stations, provides you a tremendous economic 

opportunity on fuel price, over and above anything else that we have and 

better than gasoline. And for fuel supply, we have over 70 years of 

supply here. We have renewable sources that they are doing in Europe 

that we haven’t begun to tap here in biomethane well recovery and 

capturing, and then looking at methane hydrates as a long-term fuel 

supply that has more energy in it than all of the energy sources 

combined. 

MR. ROSS. Well, I want to thank you and I want to thank you all for 

what you do. I mean, I have a strong conviction and believe that if we 

can put a man on the moon, if we can shoot a four wheeler on a rocket to 

Mars and control it from NASA in Houston, I mean, this is America, and 

I know we have got the technology and the people here that can help us 

develop alternative and renewable fuels that can really let us become 

self-sufficient and reduce our dependence, hopefully totally someday on 

this foreign oil. So I want to thank you for all of the things that you are 

doing to try and see that dream become a reality, and certainly want to 

continue to work with you. And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your gracious indulgence. 

MR. HALL. I thank you sir. Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from 

Illinois. 

MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

here. I am sorry that I have been bouncing in and out. But let me ask a 

question to the entire panel. It may not apply, and it may, I don’t know, 

to the natural gas side. But in SAFETEA-LU we passed an alternate 

fuels excise tax credit that expires in 2009, which I think is, I personally 

think is an important provision. We dropped--hopefully, again, I will use 

this opportunity to encourage my colleagues to get on the bill--yesterday, 

with Rick Boucher and myself and eight other members from five 

different committees, an extension of that to 2020. Would that be helpful 

and why? Why don’t we go to Mr. Warzel first because this is really an 

industry question. 

MR. WARZEL. With regard to coal to liquids, there are specific coal 

to liquids, yes. The move is incredibly helpful due to the plain and 

simple fact that if you look at the gas to liquids plant, which is an easier 

process to build and construct and operate than a coal to liquids plant in 

Qatar, which is much more favorable to construction because of 

regulatory issues, took about 7 years from the start of project till the time 

it starts operating. That is the best that you could expect to do from now, 

if you had the money to, say, start building a plant would be 7 to 8 years. 

MR. SHIMKUS. And the money is about, what is the capital? 
98

MR. WARZEL. Right now, because there have been very few of them 

built, our best estimates for coal to liquids, and this has also been 

reiterated by Sasol, is about $80,000 to $100,000 depending on location 

per barrel. So a nominal 20,000 barrel-a-day plant is about $1.6 billion. 

We have looked at DOE work on lignite coal in particular, and some of 

the sub bituminous coals. That achieves at $35 to $40 barrel crude, not 

looking at all the tax incentives, about a 15 to 18 percent rate of return 

project. 

MR. SHIMKUS. So if you are about an 80,000 barrel facility, you are 

talking about $7 billion and a 7-year delivery. So if the current excise 

tax credit expires in 2009, you are not going to take advantage of it. 

There is no incentive. 

MR. WARZEL. There is no incentive. 

MR. SHIMKUS. So if some incredibly smart Members of Congress 

decided to extend that to 2020, do you think that would provide some 

incentives for industry to deploy coal to liquid and other technologies? 

MR. WARZEL. It is helpful, but the real constraint is the companies 

that have the monies, i.e., the ExxonMobils and Shells that have 

announced their $7, $8 billion plants in Qatar are not coming to the U.S. 

right now for CTL. What we view as being a smaller, small business is 

that for us to do it, we need an off-take agreement, and that is why we 

pushed so hard for the military. That is an after-the-fact incentive. It 

doesn’t allow me-- 

MR. SHIMKUS. I think my colleague from Arkansas addressed some 

of the DOD issues and the research, and I think that is step two. I have 

been trying to follow this debate a lot, and I concur that there are two 

things that we need to do, one is extension of the excise tax credit and the 

other one is to look at a long-term purchasing agreement with a buyer. 

The interesting thing we had about the slide, and if you notice what we 

did, but this is really, why does South Africa have coal to liquid 

technology? Because the Government invested to help take on the risk 

because of the cost of doing this. 

And at today’s price per barrel, it is now doable. But if you look at 

the slide, you have got the coal and it goes, look at there, you have got 

the military base for aviation fuel. You are not constrained by the sea 

traffic of oil tankers that could be shut down. We do have a strategic 

petroleum reserve to help address our national security concerns, but that 

is really small. But if you are able to use our great coal reserves, then 

you have a current feed stock for in my case the war machines. That is 

why we were very successful in getting Ike Skelton, the Ranking 

Member of the Armed Services Committee on our extension bill, and 

Duncan Hunter. 
99

We hope to have continuing discussions about this process of longterm contracts by which will be the second step in ensuring deployment 

of coal to liquid. Yes, sir. Mr. Pratt. 

MR. PRATT. I would just like to add that if you are looking at 

extending the excise tax, and last August that was expanded to--for the 

fuel tax credits that were available--include natural gas. And I would 

welcome that being extended for a longer period of time. In doing so, we 

hopefully can encourage the automakers to bring those foreign available 

natural gas vehicles here to the U.S., be invested in the technology they 

are exporting and not bringing here. I would welcome them to bring that 

back, and we can create the longer term proposition for them, for transit 

properties or refuse fleets to all go with cleaner fuels. 

MR. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate that. And I will be honest with you. 

Natural gas is always a confusing thing for a lot of us, because it is 

defined as an alternate fuel. I mean, we know it is a fossil fuel. We 

know it is above a lot of the crude oil, so sometimes a lot of us have 

trouble defining what that is especially as an alternate fuel. I do know 

that we do have great concerns with additional users and the escalating 

price of natural gas, my farmers in the field, and that is a concern. 

Manufacturers have grave concerns about the escalating cost of natural 

gas. I believe in the market. Everybody gets to the table, everybody 

competes, competition brings lower prices. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, my time has long expired. I yield back. 

MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

MR. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I like what I have 

been hearing today. It is very important when we are going to talk about 

energy policy and the future of energy in this country it is great to see 

people like you exploring different alternatives like we need to be doing. 

And it is good to see John Warzel with Syantroleum, which is based in 

my district, the heart of my district, Tulsa, Oklahoma. And Mr. Pratt, I 

don’t know if you know it, but we have some of yours in our district too, 

Tom Sewell, I don’t know if you know who he is or not. But this it 

great. 

And you know what is interesting is I always show people, and 

Congressman Shimkus has one too, bigger than mine, a thing like this, I 

mean. You have got to be careful when you say things like that. But this 

fuel is pretty interesting looking. It looks like water. I was telling the 

girls back here, you could probably drink it and it wouldn’t kill you. 

And it doesn’t smell like anything. It is running in some buses even here 

in Washington, D.C., and it is very interesting. 

And I was just going to ask you, John, if you could kind of explain 

the process of this and how you make the gasoline diesel jet fuel out of it 
100

and maybe the Department of Defense application of a one battle field 

fuel that has been talked about, a fuel that could be used actually in a 

tank as well as a jet. 

MR. WARZEL. In essence, as previously discussed, you are just 

reacting a carbon monoxide hydrogen stream to create a fuel. The fuel is 

very similar to candle wax. It is what they call a normal paraffin. You 

then upgrade it and convert that a little bit to get the coal properties that 

the military is interested in. Why we have focused so much attention on 

military applications is they have tested this fuel, and this is a quote from 

the senior researcher at the Air Force, and he has made it publicly and 

said, it is by far the best fuel they have ever tested in the military. 

And he has been doing this for 20-plus years. The reason is simply 

the fact that it has gotten phenomenal cold properties, meaning that when 

airplanes go up to the higher and higher altitudes such as the former 

SR-71, it doesn’t freeze. Conventional crude oil-based fuel will actually 

solidify, and that is never a good thing when you are 100,000 feet off the 

ground. Second, it burns cleaner. So therefore, you have less 

temperature in your exhaust, which reduces the maintenance cost to the 

military. When they start looking at long-term impact, maintenance 

costs of their engines is one of the biggest cash drains. Third to that is it 

reduces pollutants: 90-plus percent reduction in particulate matter. Two 

aspects of that particulate matter is becoming one of the larger long-term 

health problems in congested cities such as L.A. or New York or 

Chicago. 

Also, and they didn’t go into much detail, and I guess I understand 

why, is that particulate matter is a carbon material. It is soot like you see 

come off a candle. That is what retains heat. Heat is what planes have, 

or radars detect the planes by. So they didn’t go into much detail, but it 

is being looked at for something like the F-35 joint strike fighter. They 

have contacted us. We have had the Navy come in to Tulsa and a lot of 

Air Force and Army for those specific military applications. 

MR. SULLIVAN. I think that is really--can you imagine, so on a 

battlefield, for example, we could some day have a mobile refinery, let’s 

say, out on the battlefield. Could that happen? 

MR. WARZEL. Depending on the location and how quickly. There is 

still work moving in that area. 

MR. SULLIVAN. And it could be used to fuel a jet or a tank? 

MR. WARZEL. Yes. 

MR. SULLIVAN. I think that is amazing. And also, Mr. Pratt, 

compressed natural gas in vehicles, I used to sell gasoline and diesel fuel, 

and we were talking about getting an infrastructure in place for that, and 

it was in Oklahoma and a lot of people, the consumer would think, well, 

it kind of went like that when they pulled it off. It scared them. They 
101

thought they would blow up. But isn’t it true that you--let’s say an 

accident occurred with a gas vehicle, it occurred with a natural gas 

vehicle, wouldn’t it be less dangerous because it would dissipate and 

wouldn’t pool on the ground? 

MR. PRATT. Yes, sir. That is the case. The State of New York has 

some great anecdotal stories of a Honda Civic GX that was rear ended by 

none other than a gasoline tanker and drove the back tanks all the way up 

into the back seat. And the safety investigator said if it wasn’t for the 

natural gas tanks and the construction of that vehicle, the passengers 

would have been dead. The safety protocols around natural gas are very 

high, well proven, and very safe. I don’t know if I could take a moment 

to address the fuel supply just one second. 

MR. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

MR. PRATT. Thank you. Just to put it in perspective for everyone, if 

you took 11 million vehicles today, which is about 5 percent of our 

vehicle fleet, that would only equate to about 4 percent of the natural gas 

sent out annually. It is a very small percentage to have a very big 

impact. And as we look at electric generation today, natural gas is being 

market driven out of natural gas generation because it is the highest 

priced fuel over coal and nuclear, and so we look at that supply long term 

as potentially displacing up to 20 percent of both the gasoline and diesel 

available in the marketplace. Thank you. 

MR. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much. 

MR. HALL. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich. 

MR. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my question 

is going to be for you, Mr. Pacheco, but anybody else who wants to 

answer it. I am from California and represent a large farming area. It is 

about $35 billion, largest industry in California is specialty agriculture. 

And in California, we have got about three ethanol plants that are starting 

to go in, which I think is good news, and even though there is limited 

amounts of corn grown in California the costs of production are so high, 

we are getting it from the Midwest to be brought in to fuel these ethanol 

plants, which is good news for my friend John over here. 

But to tell you a story about California agriculture, about 5 years 

ago, the price of grapes that are grown quite extensively in the valley 

went in the tank. And usually, there is a place to sell, if you grow grapes 

you can sell it in the wine market, you can sell it in the juice concentrate 

market, or you can sell it as raisins. And all three of them were just flat 

as a pancake. And it would have been nice to have that other alternative 

to be able to sell it for some type of fuel afterwards. 

So I am wondering, I guess my question is, and I think this is a 

methanol, as much as I know about this. When are we going to be able 

to, in California have the option of selling some of these 250 crops or 
102

byproducts from crops to be able to have that fuel option for the 

California ag industry? And is it methanol? And maybe you can educate 

me on that. 

MR. PACHECO. No, you would be referring to ethanol in that case. 

MR. RADANOVICH. It would be ethanol? 

MR. PACHECO. Yes. And most of those food products, the sugar 

that is in them is fermentable directly. So it could be a lot like what the 

Brazilians are doing with sugar cane, and what we do with corn so it 

doesn’t face the hurdles that the cellulosic ethanol faces. Also, in your 

State, you have a big rice industry, and the rice straw faces the same 

challenges that corn stover faces and that wood resources face, the cost 

of the technology to go from that cellulosic material. A good way to 

separate it is if you can eat the biomass, then it is probably fermentable 

and would be cost effective. And there are companies today that are 

taking waste from the food industry and producing fuel ethanol from 

them. 

MR. RADANOVICH. So for grapes, for the actual grape product you 

could, you are not too far away from, in the technology, being able to 

make ethanol from grapes, but it would be prunings and things out of the 

orchards or vineyards that are cellulose or lignin based, cellulose, those 

are the tougher ones to get energy out of, right? 

MR. PACHECO. Exactly. In fact, I understand Europeans face the 

same issue, and some years when the wine is in true excess, the same 

technology that is used to make wine is, in fact, the technology that is 

used to make fuel ethanol, things like corn grain or potatoes or waste 

grapes. 

MR. RADANOVICH. That is interesting. Thank you. Mr. Pratt, real 

quick question. You had mentioned the natural gas infrastructure is more 

suitable, or would be a step toward a hydrogen-based economy. Is that 

because you can mix the fuels in the same tank, or why is that for natural 

gas and not for anything else? 

MR. PRATT. Good question. There are several layers to that. First, 

building the infrastructure is very similar to building a pure hydrogen 

station infrastructure. So it gets all of our city officials and fire 

departments with longstanding experience in natural gas familiar with 

permitting natural gas stations and then that carries over to hydrogen. 

Second, for societal experiences, as we heard from Mr. Sullivan, the 

experience on filling a vehicle up or filling a bus or refuse truck up on 

natural gas is handling a gaseous fuel. Now, it is all very safe. It is a 

quick connect type of connection on to your vehicle. But that is a 

different fueling experience than gasoline. In fact, some people who fill 

with natural gas for a long period of time, I drive a natural gas vehicle 

every day and have been since 1998, after you go to a gasoline station, 
103

the most notable thing is you can smell the gasoline. You don’t smell 

anything with natural gas. That experience carries over into all the rest 

of the societal experiences of body mechanics, auto parts maintenance, 

all of that has to become familiar with gaseous fuels to get to a hydrogen 

future. 

And finally, on the station itself, the stations can be accommodated 

with booster compressors to include delivery of blended natural gas, a 

20 percent blend of hydrogen into natural gas by volume will reduce 

emissions by 50 percent. So it takes any car, or bus, or truck and makes 

it even cleaner. And then you can also sell pure hydrogen as well. So 

the stations have multi-level societal experiences that are important to 

continuing over, carrying over the hydrogen experience. 

MR. RADANOVICH. Thank you. And real quickly if I might, just one 

more brief question. You had mentioned that it takes about what, 

9 months to a year to convert a station or to add natural gas to a regular 

facility, petroleum facility. Is that just because it is the normal course of 

constructing, probably take just as long to add a gasoline station to a 

particular site, right? 

MR. PRATT. That is correct. And when we have compressors in 

stock, and we have some of our pre-packaged skids in stock, we can 

install it in 6 months. And that is pretty much the permitting process and 

getting out the contracts all agreed to. 

MR. RADANOVICH. I see. Okay. Thank you. 

MR. PRATT. Thank you. 

MR. HALL. Well, thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I know 

you all have had quite an interesting and informative hearing, and I 

apologize very much for not being here earlier. But I did have a few 

questions I would like to ask certainly, Mr. Hughes, with the National 

Biodiesel Board. Certainly, at this time, with the energy prices being 

what they are, all of us are focusing on alternative fuel sources and 

certainly biodiesel is one of those. But Mr. Hughes, does the President 

appoint the members of the National Biodiesel Board? How is it 

determined who sits on that board? 

MR. HUGHES. The National Biodiesel Board is a membership 

organization, so anybody who is a dues-paying member is a member of 

the National Biodiesel Board. And then they have an election process 

for their governing board which is voted on by the full membership. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now it is my understanding that the ASTM 

standards became effective because of the American Job Creation Act of 

2004. Is that correct? Or is that not correct? 
104

MR. HUGHES. No, the ASTM process, we actually started back in 

the late 1990s working with the engine makers, automakers who saw 

biodiesel starting to grow and becoming more prevalent in the 

marketplace, and they wanted to make sure that there was a national 

standard in place for kind of uniformity for a product. And that started, 

like I said, in the late 1990s. They put in a provisional spec, I believe it 

was in 1999. December of 2001, I believe, that was when the ASTM 

standard D 6751 was actually adopted and put into place. It was in 2001. 

MR. WHITFIELD. It was adopted by the board or was it adopted by-- 

MR. HUGHES. No, the National Biodiesel Board does not develop 

the ASTM standard. That is the American Society of Testing and 

Materials that does the ASTM standard. They developed that. We work 

with stakeholders, and ASTM for development of a standard. 

MR. WHITFIELD. But is it a part of Federal statute today? 

MR. HUGHES. It is, yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And that was adopted in which Act? 

MR. HUGHES. That was included in the Jobs Act. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So it became a Federal statute, those standards, in 

the Job Creation Act of 2004? 

MR. HUGHES. It became, it was included, it has actually been 

included, I believe, in other places, but that was the one that comes to 

mind. It was in the Jobs Act as one of the requirements that must be met 

in order for a fuel biodiesel to be eligible for the fuels tax credit, the 

blenders tax credit. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And of course the board, which I certainly 

understand, will support only those technologies that meet those 

standards, the ASTM 6751 standard, of course, but there are, I am aware 

of more than one biodiesel producer who has come up with a fuel that, 

from at least the scientific evidence that I have seen, is actually cleaner 

burning with more BTUs, but because it doesn’t meet that standard, 

cannot be approved. And it seems to me that at a time when we are 

trying to do everything possible to encourage more development, that 

being very rigid on this standard can be counterproductive at times. 

Would you agree with that or not agree with that? 

MR. HUGHES. Well, the National Biodiesel Board absolutely, 100 

percent supports domestic fuels, renewable, and other domestic fuels. 

The automakers and engine makers and components manufacturers, 

when it comes to biodiesel, they wanted to have a very specific standard 

for what is biodiesel, so when people are selling biodiesel, there is 

uniformity in the marketplace about what this is. We absolutely support 

any kind of a domestic fuel that has gone through the health effects 

testing, that has gone through an ASTM process and those kind of things, 

absolutely, sir. 
105

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance 

of my time. I do think that this matter is so important that, while this 

legislation that has formalized the standard was adopted in the Job 

Creation Act, I do think that may be something that maybe our Energy 

Committee could look at as well, because I think we have a vested 

interest in this issue. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony 

today and the great leadership you are providing. Thank you. 

MR. HALL. Thank you. The gentleman said it all. We appreciate 

you. We thank you for your time and thank you for your ability to give 

us information on which to base good legislation. You are dismissed. 

The subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
106

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY SUSAN M. CISCHKE, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT AND 

SAFETY ENGINEERING, FORD MOTOR COMPANY
107

Questions for the Record 

To Susan M. Cischke 

From The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

1. On June 7, 2005, eleven national science academies issued a joint statement entitled 

“Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change.” The joint 

statement was issued by the science academies of the United States, Brazil, Canada, 

China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. It can 

be reviewed online at the National Academy of Sciences website: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. The statement begins: 

Climate change is real

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the 

world's climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant global 

warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of 

rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from 

phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, 

and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of 

the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 

2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate. 

The statement proceeds to state: 

We urge all nations ... to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate 

change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant 

national and international strategies. 

As the joint statement makes clear, climate change is clearly an issue of great 

importance to every nation on the planet. Given the substantial greenhouse gas 

emissions attributable to the transportation sector, climate change should clearly be 

a major factor in any discussion about the next generation of vehicles and fuels. 

Unfortunately, climate change was not meaningfully discussed at the May 24, 2006 

hearing. Accordingly, please provide answers to the following questions: 

a. Does Ford Motor Company agree that the joint statement represents the 

prevailing scientific views on climate change? 

Ford Motor Company has publicly stated and published in our Climate 

Change Report our view on climate change. We recognize that some key 

conclusions have earned widespread support by scientists, policy makers and 

business leaders and therefore define the assumptions underpinning our 

approach to climate change. These conclusions are compelling enough to serve 

as a framework for our analysis and planning. For example: 

• The growing weight of evidence holds that man-made greenhouse gas 

emissions are starting to influence significantly the world's climate in ways 

that affect all parts of the globe. 

• Many scientists, businesses and governmental agencies have concluded that 

stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration at around 550 parts per 

million may help forestall or substantially delay the most disruptive aspects 

of global climate change. 
108

It is in the interest of society and business to reduce the uncertainty and 

increase the predictability of policy frameworks and market conditions around 

the issue of climate change. Ford Motor Company is committed to 

participating in a dialogue on energy policy and greenhouse gas emissions that 

promotes more energy security and lower GHG emissions across the entire 

economy, while ensuring stable economic growth and the viability of our 

business. 

b. Does Ford Motor Company agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that 

“the threat of climate change is clear and increasing”? 

See answer to 1a. 

c. Does Ford Motor Company agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that 

“there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring”? 

See answer to 1a. 

d. Does Ford Motor Company agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that 

“most of the warming ... can be attributed to human activities”? 

See answer to 1a. 

e. If Ford Motor Company disagrees with the joint statement, or a portion of the 

joint statement, based on a scientific disagreement, please identify the portion 

of the statement with which Ford Motor Company disagrees and explain the 

scientific basis for the disagreement. Please provide references to any 

published, peer-reviewed studies that form the basis for Ford Motor 

Company's disagreement. 

See answer to 1a. 

2. The joint statement referenced in question 1 also recommends taking action to 

reduce the causes of climate change. It states: 

The scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently clear to justify 

nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective 

steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. 

It goes on to state: 

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

recognizes, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate 

change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a 

reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the 

climate system. 

Fortunately, the scientific academies report that “there are many potentially costeffective technological options that could contribute to stabilizing greenhouse gas 
109

concentrations.” They also warn that “failure to implement significant reductions in 

net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.” 

In order to understand Ford Motor Company's views on reducing the causes of 

climate change, please provide answers to the following questions. 

a. Does Ford Motor Company agree that current scientific understanding of 

climate change justifies nations “taking prompt action”? 

In June 2005, Ford Motor Company participated in the G8 Climate Change 

Roundtable. Among other assertions, this group stated “We agree that science 

is sufficiently compelling to warrant action by both the private and public 

sector, and we acknowledge that, because of the cumulative nature and long 

residence time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, action must be initiated 

now.” 

Ford Motor Company published the industry's first report dedicated to the 

issue of climate change and its effect on our business as well as the automotive 

industry as a whole. The report can be found at 

www.ford.com/en/company/about/sustainability). In this report, we describe 

our approach to GHG stabilization, which is based on four key principles: 

• First, technical, economic and policy approaches to climate change need to 

recognize that all CO2 molecules (or GHG equivalents) produced by human 

activity make the same contribution to the atmosphere's concentration of 

greenhouse gases. The cost of mitigating those emissions, however, varies 

significantly depending on their source, and economically efficient decisions 

about how to reduce emissions depend on transparent cost signals. 

The relatively high costs of emission reduction make it important that 

control policies be as efficient as possible, which implies that the marginal 

costs of compliance be equalized across all sectors. A pure pro-rata 

assignment of burden for reducing GHG emissions across individual sectors 

without the ability to trade-off costs and benefits may not be the most 

appropriate response. 

• Second, the auto industry represents a closely interdependent system, 

characterized by the equation: fuel + vehicle + driver = GHG emissions. 

Each link in this chain depends on the other. Automakers can produce a 

range of products to use fuels with varying carbon content; however, 

operating those vehicles on alternative fuels will require energy providers to 

bring the fuels to market and consumers to demand the vehicle and fuel. In 

a system in which no single player controls all inputs, changes in output – in 

this case GHG emissions – will require unprecedented coordination across 

all sectors. 

• Third, the future developments of technologies, markets and political 

expectations are all uncertain. Accordingly, the business strategies we 

implement – and the public policies that we encourage – must be based on 

the flexibility to meet a range of potential scenarios. We know that almost 

any scenario will call for reduced GHG emissions, but inside that broad 

directional expectation lie a host of conflicting possibilities. For example, 

will hydrogen, bio-fuels, battery electricity, diesel or some combination 
110

emerge as the powertrain technology of choice? Will the emerging markets 

of China and India pursue a unique path toward lower GHG emissions in 

their road transport sectors? 

• Finally, Ford supports taking early affordable steps to reduce GHG 

emissions. Lack of agreement on long-term solutions cannot be used as an 

excuse to avoid reasonable near term actions that provide the flexibility to 

account for a range of potential technological, market and political 

outcomes. 

b. Does Ford Motor Company agree that it is “vital” that all nations “identify 

cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and 

long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? 

Yes, see response to 2a. 

c. Does Ford Motor Company agree that “a lack of full scientific certainty about 

some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate 

response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic 

interference with the climate system”? 

Yes, see response to 2a. 

d. Does Ford Motor Company agree that “failure to implement significant 

reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much 

harder in the future”? 

Yes, see response to 2a. 

e. What actions can be taken now “to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? What actions does Ford 

Motor Company anticipate can be taken in 5 years? How about 10 years? 

Ford Motor Company is participating fully in the larger public dialogue on 

actions required by governments, businesses and individuals to address climate 

change. 

We believe that policies that put constraints on carbon need to focus on all 

sectors of the economy. They should encourage conservation and the 

introduction of lower-carbon and renewable-carbon fuels and energy sources, 

while increasing the demand for more energy efficient products across all 

sectors at the lowest possible social cost and at a pace consistent with 

technology maturation, consumer demand and economic viability. These 

policies need to be implemented in ways that mitigate any related transitions to 

avoid economic disruptions and unnecessary costs, with incentives playing a 

key role. 

Future reduction programs should be based on upstream carbon trading 

systems that gradually reduce the limits on carbon introduced into the 

economy. In addition, they must include a safety valve that is based on 

economic/energy indicators that would allow for the release of additional 

emission allowances at reasonable prices to avoid unintended constraints on 

economic growth, maintain price stability and protect vital economic growth 
111

and social development needed to help spur demand for more efficient 

products and support long-term investment, research and innovation. 

f. What actions can be taken now in the transportation sector “to contribute to 

substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? 

What actions does Ford Motor Company anticipate can be taken in that sector 

in 5 years? How about 10 years? 

Within the transportation sector, vehicle, fuels and fuel-use must be addressed 

as a system. Policies need to encourage the use of lower-carbon and 

renewable-carbon fuels and energy (e.g., bio-ethanol fuels and blends) through 

favorable market signals and incentives, as well as encourage energy efficiency, 

carbon sequestration initiatives, offsets, and credits across all phases of the 

energy value chain. 

A properly structured, upstream system would allow all sectors of the economy 

to respond to the market signals and pursue the most cost-effective solutions to 

improve energy conservation and energy efficiency. From a transportation 

point of view, an effective system would require gradual but substantial 

changes in our product and technology mix to remain consistent with shifting 

consumer demand for more efficient products. 

Initial policies can provide a foundation to help reduce GHGs. For example, 

educating consumers on their role – through programs like eco-driving 

training – will be a very important part of a comprehensive and consistent 

market-based solution. A person who drives in an energy-conscious way – by 

avoiding excessive idling, unnecessary bursts of acceleration and anticipating 

braking – can enjoy much better fuel consumption today. Government can 

play a key role in raising public awareness. Public awareness is a simple and 

effective early step to reduce GHGs, which is why we have introduced driver 

training programs in Europe and developed on-line training for all Ford 

Motor Company employees. 

We also must focus on vehicle performance through advanced technology 

research and development, as well as manufacturing incentives and 

investments that reach to suppliers and OEMs. Finally, we must continue to 

pursue policies that improve road transport and infrastructure (e.g. mass 

transit) by reducing congestion and fuel consumption through improved traffic 

flow. An early step that can be taken already by municipal governments is 

traffic light synchronization to reduce overall vehicle idle time. 

g. What actions can be taken now by Ford Motor Company “to contribute to 

substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? 

What actions does Ford Motor Company anticipate can be taken in 5 years? 

How about 10 years? 

There are no simple solutions, and open debate among all the diverse 

stakeholders is necessary. A long-term solution will take time to evolve, but we 

also believe that early foundational policies can help reduce GHGs. 

Ford Motor Company has announced publicly several product actions that will 

increase the number of higher fuel economy, lower GHG emissions vehicles 
112

available to our customers. For example, we have announced plans to continue 

our leadership in ethanol powered flexible fuel vehicles. 

We are also expanding the application of existing technologies that deliver fuel 

economy benefits including variable valve timing, fuel shut off, direct injection 

gasoline engines, clean diesel and six-speed transmissions. Additionally, we are 

increasing our investment in a portfolio of technologies that deliver improved 

fuel economy and lower GHG emissions, including: 

• Weight stabilization and reduction 

• Expanded FFV vehicles and partnerships with fuel providers to increase 

infrastructure 

• Gasoline engine downsizing, combined with Direct Injection Spark 

Ignition (DISI) and pressure charging 

• Hybrid gasoline powerpacks, shared among the brands 

• Clean diesels and the technology to allow them to run on bio-diesel 

above 5% blends 

• Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) demonstration fleets 

• Hydrogen fuel cell research and demonstration fleets. 

h. As an international business entity, please explain how your approach to 

climate change varies by the nation in which you are operating? For example, 

compare your approach in the European Union to the United States, and the 

United State to China. 

The issue of climate change is closely related to the equally pressing issues of 

energy security and fuel prices (which drive market behavior). GHG emissions 

are a common currency for all of these issues; however, international 

approaches to customer and policy priorities differ around the world. 

 

Ford Motor Company recognizes these differing customer and policy priorities 

and varies our approaches accordingly. For example, our voluntary 

agreement as part of ACEA in Europe has been focused directly on CO2 

reduction. Our aggressive investment in hybrid production in the U.S. has 

been driven, in part, by consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicle 

choices and innovative technologies. Our support for an expanded bio-ethanol 

infrastructure in the U.S. is underpinned by the call for less dependence on 

imported oil. China has adopted weight-based fuel consumption standards for 

2005 with more stringent requirements set for 2008 vehicles. Each of these 

initiatives results in lower CO2 emissions, but emerges from different market 

and policy priorities. 

3. About 20% of the United States' greenhouse gas emissions are emitted by light duty 

vehicles. 

a. Does Ford Motor Company believe that the United States government should 

act to require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from light duty 

vehicles? 

Ford Motor Company believes that government support is needed with nearterm actions, such as consumer education on eco-driving and incentives to 

increase E-85 infrastructure. 
113

 Longer-term, government action on GHGs must include all sectors of the 

economy, including the other 80% of the contributors. Even a substantial 

reduction of GHGs from the gasoline sector would have minimal impact on 

GHGs without including emissions from other fuel sources. Beyond the auto 

industry, producers of natural gas, coal and even other petroleum products 

must be part of the solution. 

Further, a simple pro-rata assignment of burden for reducing GHG emissions 

may not be the most appropriate response and will likely result in economic 

waste. All CO2 molecules produced by human activity contribute equally to 

the atmospheric concentration of CO2; however, the cost of mitigating those 

emissions can vary significantly across sectors of the economy. 

b. If so, please discuss what requirements Ford Motor Company would consider 

reasonable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing adequate time 

for adaptation by the auto industry. What is an appropriate timeframe for a 

requirement? What substantive requirements would Ford Motor Company 

suggest? 

Reduction programs should be based on upstream, carbon trading systems 

that gradually reduce the limits on carbon introduced into the economy. This 

approach will most cost effectively involve all sectors of the economy and 

eliminate the need to regulate and enforce each sector/industry uniquely. The 

upstream system must include a safety valve that is based on economic/energy 

indicators that would allow for the release of additional emission allowances at 

reasonable prices to avoid unintended constraints on the economy, maintain 

price stability and protect vital economic growth and social development 

needed to help spur demand for more efficient products and support long-term 

investment, research and innovation. 

Total U.S. 

CO2 Emissions

2004

 Coal

34.8%

 Motor 

Gasoline

19.8% Natural Gas

20.0%

 Remaining 

Petroleum

13.1%

 

Renew ables

0.2%

 Other

1.7%

 Distillate 

Fuel

10.3%

Source: EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004
114

c. If Ford Motor Company does not believe that the United States government 

should act to require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from light duty 

vehicles, please explain what alternative approach Ford Motor Company 

suggests for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

See answers to 3a and 3b. 
115

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY WILLIAM REINERT, NATIONAL MANAGER, ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY GROUP, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. 

July 21, 2006 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

c/o Mr. Peter Kielty 

Legislative Clerk 

2323 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Representative Waxman: 

Thank you for your thoughtful questions and your committee’s interest in Toyota’s views 

on climate change. We are pleased to have this opportunity to share our understanding 

and some of our current thinking on this important issue. 

Toyota recognizes the broad and growing scientific consensus that climate change is 

occurring. Although some uncertainties remain, we also understand that the majority 

scientific opinion links anthropogenic activities to increases in Earth surface 

temperatures, and that these activities, considered in total, appear to be having a 

significant impact on global climate. Toyota also observes that the majority of the 

scientific community believes that both immediate and long term strategies and policies 

to reduce the impacts of climate change must be considered. 

Although there appears to be growing alignment in the scientific community about the 

problem, there appears to be much less consensus on solutions. The prioritization of 

mitigation and adaptation options and objectives, the relationship between short-term and 

long-term greenhouse gas reduction activities, the design and viability of a global 

response – these are just a few of the key questions that are open to significant public 

debate. 

Toyota Action

Although these types of critical questions and considerations remain, Toyota has long 

considered it prudent to look for ways to help reduce the impact of greenhouse gas 

emissions from our products and from our business operations. 
116

The greenhouse gas impact from motor vehicles is inexorably linked to their fuel 

economy. As to Toyota’s fleet in the United States, we have exceeded the Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards since their inception in 1978. In 2005 (the 

latest year for which complete public data are available), our combined car and truck 

CAFE was 28.9 MPG, exceeding the combined average of the rest of industry by 4.1 

MPG, or nearly 17%. Further, we support the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) raising future CAFE requirements for both cars and trucks and, 

indeed, in our comments on the recently promulgated light truck rule encouraged 

NHTSA to immediately undertake another multiyear rulemaking for trucks. 

27.4 27.2

27.5

27.2

26.3 26.5

26.1

27.2

26.7

28.9

24.7

24.4 24.5 24.2

24.6

24.3 24.5

24.8

24.3

24.8

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Model Year

MPG

Toyota

Rest of Industry

Our commitment to reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of our products does not stop 

there, however--energy conservation and energy efficiency are core considerations in the 

full life cycle of our business. To this end, we also participate in the Department of 

Energy’s 1605(b) program, and have been reporting our greenhouse gas emissions from 

our U.S. manufacturing operations since 2003. In addition, we set an internal target to 

reduce energy consumption, and thus CO2, from our North American manufacturing 

operations by 15% per unit of production by FY2005 compared to a baseline year of 

2000. We achieved our 15% reduction target two years ahead of schedule and are in the 

process of developing a new, even more challenging target. 

Combined Fleet (Car + Truck) CAFE 
117

9.4

8.6

8.3

7.8

7.1

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2000 FY2002* FY2003* FY2004* FY2005*

mmBTU/Vehicle

* Fiscal Year (FY): Runs April - March

15% Reduction Target

B

a

s

e

l

i

n

e

We also have set targets to reduce energy use and track greenhouse gas emissions 

generated during the sales and distribution of our products. In March 2005, we achieved 

our goal to reduce energy use from this part of our business by 15%, and we set a new 

target of 20% reduction (compared to 2000 base year). In addition, we have developed a 

greenhouse gas inventory using a protocol developed by the World Business Council for 

Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 

All of the goals and targets for Toyota’s North American operations are contained in our 

5-Year Environmental Action plan, which is published annually in our North American 

Environmental Report. This year’s report, scheduled to be published in November 2006, 

will contain an all new set of goals and targets that we will work to achieve over the next 

5-year period. 

Advanced Vehicle Technology and Alternative Fuels

As we work with these federal and voluntary programs and exceed federal fuel economy 

requirements, Toyota is also committed to developing and marketing advanced vehicle 

technology to address global climate change and the growing demand for fossil fuels. 

With these concerns in mind, the Prius and Toyota hybrid technology were launched in 

1997 in Japan and in the U.S. market in 2000 (and at a time when gasoline hovered 

around $1 a gallon). Toyota sees hybrid technology as a core technology for the future 

that will increase the fuel efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of gasoline 

powered vehicles, as well as an essential and enabling element of future powertrains. 

Toyota pioneered the market development for hybrid vehicles and has sold over 600,000 

hybrids globally with more that 300,000 of them being sold in the United States. We 

have previously announced the goal of hybrid sales in excess of 1,000,000 each year, 

starting in the early part of the next decade. We also have announced our intention to 

advance our research and development of plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

We also continue to explore the use of alternative fuels, including biofuels (ethanol) and 

hydrogen. We have hydrogen fuel cell demonstration programs in place in California, and 

are considering introducing flex-fuel vehicles in an effort to promote bioethanol fuels. 

Further into the future, we also continue to look to hydrogen fuel cells to one day replace 

traditional combustion engines. 

Average Manufacturing Energy Consumed per Vehicle 
118

Other Sectors and Other Markets

Our primary business falls within the transportation sector; therefore, we do not have a 

formed opinion over how other sectors should be addressed. Toyota does, however, 

recognize that there may be serious challenges ahead in shifting away from fossil fuels. 

In this sense, we encourage the move to more renewable fuel sources and practices in the 

production of electricity, hydrogen, biofuels or gasoline. How fuels are produced and 

distributed is perhaps the key factor in determining the life cycle greenhouse gas impact 

of specific vehicle powertrain options. 

As an automaker, Toyota believes its primary responsibility is to optimize the fuel 

efficiency of our products. We must accomplish this, however, while also keeping our 

customers’ needs and local markets in mind. Toyota responds to the regulatory climate 

and market forces in each market where we do business. In every case we meet, and 

most times exceed, all applicable regulatory requirements. We believe that some 

markets, like the European Union and Japan, have long been shaped by regulatory and 

tax policies that favor carbon-equivalent reduction strategies based upon high fuel taxes. 

Many economists believe that these policies have led to market conditions that favor 

smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, and Toyota products in these regions reflect these 

preferences. 

Similar conditions do not currently exist within the United States. In-use conditions and 

fuel prices are much different and reflect a different set of customer priorities. Market 

conditions in the United States have historically favored larger, gasoline-fueled vehicles 

and a full line of vehicle offerings. Again, Toyota’s products within the United States 

reflect these conditions. However, Toyota strives to provide class-leading fuel economy 

in each market segment in which we compete. 

Reducing In-Use Impacts and Fostering Technology Development 

While we certainly have control over our product offerings, automakers’ have little 

control over fuel supply, distribution and pricing. In addition, although we can (and do) 

play a role in fostering consumer interest in fuel economy, we also cannot dictate how – 

and how much – consumers use our vehicles. Toyota considers it worthwhile, therefore, 

for society to look for additional ways to influence how automobiles are used by the 

American public. As examples, in-use impacts might be reduced through smarter land 

use planning, increased reliance on mass transit and the greater use of so-called 

“intelligent transportation systems” to reduce traffic congestion and gridlock. There may 

also be merit in additional government policy designed to foster consumer interest in 

advanced technology and fuel efficient vehicles, such as tax credits for hybrids. 

We also encourage the federal government to continue to play a leadership role in the 

development of alternatives to the internal combustion engine and conventional fuels. 

Hybrids, “clean” diesel, biofuels, hydrogen – these are just a few possible pathways that 

show promise for addressing both climate change and energy diversity. The federal 

government can continue to help these nascent technologies find their way into the 

mainstream. 

Addressing climate change will require some fundamental changes in how we view and 

use energy. There are certainly ways that energy conservation and energy efficiency can 

have positive economic effects for businesses and consumers, but it is critical that any 

mandatory requirements on business or on our society be viewed with the additional 

prism of economic impact. We believe it critical that any government requirements be 

designed to distribute the burden for climate change impacts across multiple sectors, 
119

while also recognizing prior and voluntary action. We therefore generally support energy 

intensity and performance based standards (such as the existing CAFE standards), as 

opposed to absolute caps or other limits that may penalize growing companies or 

companies that have taken early voluntary action to reduce their greenhouse gas impacts. 

Continued Collaboration and Innovation

Toyota also strongly believes that addressing climate change and energy diversity in a 

meaningful way will require collaboration. Toyota is investing time, funding and knowhow to joint efforts designed to respond to climate change and help diversify energy. 

These cooperative efforts include joint research projects with universities on climate 

change reduction technologies and participation in global and U.S. policymaking 

organizations, but we are also engaged in strategic alliances with energy providers to 

explore advanced technologies and alternative fuels. We are also sharing our advanced 

hybrid technology with other automakers. 

Tackling climate change and fostering energy diversity calls for careful deliberation and 

balancing with other priorities, but it also demands innovation, unconventional thinking 

and most of all, action. Toyota is committed to continued action to do its share to help 

solve these challenges, and to exploring multiple pathways to achieving sustainable 

mobility. Toyota continues its search for cost-effective, mass market solutions, and we 

encourage the U.S. government to continue to foster the flexibility and innovation that 

our industry – and our society--will need to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of the 

automobile. 

Thank you again for your interest in our views, and this opportunity to share some of our 

current thinking with you. 

Sincerely yours, 

Bill Reinert 

National Manager 

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. 
120

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY ELIZABETH LOWERY, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY 

CENTER, GENERAL MOTORS

June 28, 2006 

Congressman Ralph M. Hall FE-6313 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2323 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Congressman Hall: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at the hearing entitled “Vehicle and Fuels 

Technology: Next Generation.” 

General Motors Corporation is pleased to provide the attached responses to the follow-up 

questions that you sent us in your letter of June 9, 2006. 

If you have any questions regarding this material, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

 

Attachment 

c: Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk (Fax 202-225-2899) 
121

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

1. On June 7, 2005, eleven national science academies issued a joint statement entitled, 

“Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.” The joint 

statement was issued by the science academies of the United States, Brazil, Canada, 

China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. It can 

be reviewed online at the National Academy of Sciences website: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. The statement begins: 

Climate change is real 

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the 

world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global 

warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising 

surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from 

phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, 

and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of 

the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 

2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate. 

The statement proceeds to state: 

We urge all nations . . . to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate 

change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant 

national and international strategies. 

As the joint statement makes clear, climate change is clearly an issue of great 

importance to every nation on the planet. Given the substantial greenhouse gas 

emissions attributable to the transportation sector, climate change should clearly be a 

major factor in any discussion about the next generation of vehicles and fuels. 

Unfortunately, climate change was not meaningfully discussed at the May 24, 2006, 

hearing. Accordingly, please provide answers to the following questions: 

a. Does General Motors agree that the joint statement represents the prevailing 

scientific views on climate change? 

We are not experts in climate science, and thus are not in a position to 

judge the accuracy of the joint statement. However, we are aware that the 

concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. For 

this and other reasons, we are taking appropriate steps to reduce energy 

use and greenhouse gas emissions from our facilities and products. 

Development of advanced technologies for vehicles and manufacturing 

and alternative fuels are critical parts of this process. 

b. Does General Motors agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that “the 

threat of climate change is clear and increasing”? 

See response to question 1a. 

c. Does General Motors agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that “there is 

now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring”? 

See response to question 1a. 
122

d. Does General Motors agree that it is the prevailing scientific view that “most of 

the warming . . . can be attributed to human activities”? 

See response to question 1a. 

e. If General Motors disagrees with the joint statement, or a portion of the joint 

statement, based on a scientific disagreement, please identify the portion of the 

statement with which General Motors disagrees and explain the scientific basis 

for the disagreement. Please provide references to any published, peerreviewed studies that form the basis for General Motors’s disagreement. 

See response to question 1a. 

2. The joint statement referenced in question 1 also recommends taking action to reduce 

the causes of climate change. It states: 

The scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently clear to justify 

nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective 

steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. 

It goes on to state: 

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in 

the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

recognises, a lack of full scientific certainly about some aspects of climate 

change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a 

reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate 

system. 

Fortunately, the scientific academies report that “there are many potentially costeffective technological options that could contribute to stabilising greenhouse gas 

concentrations.” They also warn that “failure to implement significant reductions in 

net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.” 

In order to understand General Motors’s views on reducing the causes of climate 

change, please provide answers to the following questions. 

a. Does General Motors agree that current scientific understanding of climate 

change justifies nations “taking prompt action”? 

See response to question 1a above. 

b. Does General Motors agree that it is “vital” that all nations “identify costeffective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? 

Climate change is a global issue. Appropriately addressing concerns 

about climate change will require global involvement. 

c. Does General Motors agree that “a lack of full scientific certainty about some 

aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response 
123

that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference 

with the climate system”? 

See response to question 1a. 

d. Does General Motors agree that “failure to implement significant reductions in 

net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the 

future”? 

GM believes the most effective way to improve energy efficiency and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the development and global 

implementation of cost-effective energy technologies in all sectors. We 

are working hard to accomplish this in the products that we make and sell 

worldwide and in the facilities that we operate. 

e. What actions can be taken now “to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? What actions does General 

Motors anticipate can be taken in 5 years? How about 10 years? 

The basic challenge is to meet the world’s growing demands for energy 

and mobility necessary to sustain economic growth while also addressing 

long-term concerns about the environment. GM believes the most 

effective way to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions is the development and global implementation of cost-effective 

energy technologies in all sectors. 

f. What actions can be taken now in the transportation sector “to contribute to 

substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? 

What actions does General Motors anticipate can be taken in that sector in 5 

years? How about 10 years? 

In the near term, the deployment of flex fuel vehicle technology and a 

biofuel fueling infrastructure holds great potential to begin to move us 

away from current U.S. dependence on fossil fuels in the transportation 

sector. We believe investment in FFVs and biofuels will pay even greater 

dividends if cellulosic ethanol becomes a significant player in the 

marketplace. 

In the longer term, fuel cells powered by hydrogen offer a sustainable 

energy pathway to decouple economic growth and personal transportation 

from CO2 emissions. It is important that the research being undertaken by 

automakers to develop the capability of fuel cell vehicles be 

complemented by research into ways to better and more economically use 

renewable and other non-carbon emitting energy pathways so that as ‘zero 

emission’ vehicles are commercialized, ‘zero emission’ fuels are also 

made commercially available, resulting in a substantial reduction or 

elimination of CO2 emissions on a well-to-wheels basis. 

For developed countries, hydrogen fuel cells offer the opportunity for 

cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles, enhanced energy security and 

reduced vulnerability to oil supply disruptions from unstable sources. For 

developing countries, hydrogen fuel cells offer the opportunity for 

enhanced mobility, which is a key enabler of economic growth, with very 
124

limited or no environmental issues and from, in many cases, locally 

available energy sources. However, as with any ‘leapfrog’ technology, 

there are many technical and transitional issues still to be addressed before 

the benefits of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can be widely realized. 

g. What actions can be taken now by General Motors “to contribute to substantial 

and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? What 

actions does General Motors anticipate that General Motors can take in 5 years? 

How about 10 years? 

Products: GM is implementing advanced technologies in its internal 

combustion engines (such as Active Fuel Management, flex fuel systems 

capable of running on renewable ethanol E-85, and clean diesels), in its 

hybrid vehicles (which include GM's hybrid bus transmission systems and 

SUV and car hybrid systems that will be rolled out over the next few 

years) and in its hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles that emit only water 

(moving us toward the ultimate goal of removing the automobile from the 

environmental equation). GM believes the pursuit of a hydrogen economy 

ultimately provides the best opportunity not only to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions from the automotive sector, but also to diversify away from 

dependence on petroleum. 

Processes: GM continues to set targets and monitor greenhouse gas 

emissions from its facilities and is taking steps to achieve near-term 

reductions. In 2004, GM’s global facilities achieved a 12.5 percent 

reduction in CO2 emissions compared to 2000. 

h. As an international business entity, please explain how your approach to 

climate change varies by the nation in which you are operating? For example, 

compare your approach in the European Union to the United States, and the 

United States to China. 

General Motors operates as one company around the world – looking for 

opportunities to maximize the use of advanced technologies in products 

and processes in all regions in which it operates. 

3. About 20% of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions are emitted by light duty 

vehicles. 

a. Does General Motors believe that the United States government should act to 

require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from light duty vehicles? 

No. The most effective thing the US government can do is to assist in the 

development and implementation of the advanced vehicle technologies 

and alternative fuels described above through a balanced program of 

incentives for vehicle manufactures, consumers, and fuel providers. 

 

b. If so, please discuss what requirements General Motors would consider 

reasonable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing adequate time 

for adaptation by the auto industry. What is an appropriate timeframe for a 

requirement? What substantive requirements would General Motors suggest? 
125

c. If General Motors does not believe that the Untied States government should 

act to require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from light duty vehicles, 

please explain what alternative approach General Motors suggests for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

See General Motors’ response to question 3a. 
126

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY DEBEROH MORRISSETT, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY 

AFFAIRS, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
127

The Honorable Henry Waxman

1. On June 7, 2005, eleven national science academies issued a joint statement 

entitled, “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate 

change.” The joint statement was issued by the science academies of the 

United States, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, 

Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. It can be reviewed online at the 

National Academy of Sciences website: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. The statement 

begins: 

Climate change is real 

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as 

complex as the world’s climate. However, there is now strong 

evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The 

evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air 

temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from 

phenomenon such as increases in average global sea levels, 

retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological 

systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades 

can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This 

warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate. 

The statement proceeds to state: 

 

We urge all nations...to take prompt action to reduce the causes 

of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue 

is included in all relevant national and international strategies. 

As the joint statement makes clear, climate change is clearly an issue of 

great importance to every nation on the planet. Given the substantial 

greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the transportation sector, climate 

change should clearly be a major factor in any discussion about the next 

generation of vehicles and fuels. Unfortunately, climate change was not 

meaningfully discussed at the May 24, 2006 hearing. Accordingly, please 

provide answers to the following questions. 

1a. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that the joint statement 

represents the prevailing scientific view on climate change? 

DaimlerChrysler supports the on-going climate change research and dialogue to 

ensure a fuller understanding of the controversies surrounding this issue and to 

avoid inappropriate responses by government or the private sector. An 

example of controversy was highlighted by the U.S. NAS president when he 

expressed concern to the UK Royal Society President on the process that 

produced the joint statement. Senator Craig entered this correspondence into 

the Congressional Record during the Energy Policy debate of 2005. 

While DaimlerChrysler cannot assess whether this joint statement “represents 

the prevailing scientific view,” we do share the concern expressed by many, 

that global climate change could affect future generations. 
128

Vehicle manufacturers such as DaimlerChrysler are only one stakeholder in the 

energy/greenhouse gas equation and can only influence vehicle technology and 

manufacturing processes – other pertinent stakeholders include governments, 

consumers, interested NGOs and other industry sectors (e.g., energy industry) 

and their suppliers. 

DaimlerChrysler is developing and implementing new advanced technologies 

now to minimize any potential impact our vehicles and processes might have 

on global climate or the environment in general. Our objective is to achieve a 

sustainable road transportation system by focusing on technological advances 

in energy efficiency and innovation. 

We believe that the competitive marketplace is the best solution to this 

challenge and we expect to be a leader in developing and introducing advanced 

technologies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. DaimlerChrysler is 

taking action on two of the conclusions in the joint statement now: 

o “Identifying cost effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to 

substantial and long term reductions in net global greenhouse gas 

emissions.” One example I included in my testimony is 

DaimlerChrysler’s offering of MDS (Multiple Displacement System) 

technology on seven Chrysler Group vehicles. MDS seamlessly alternates 

between smooth, high fuel economy four-cylinder mode when less power 

is needed and V-8 mode when more power is demanded from the engine. 

o “Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies 

and approaches to energy efficiency...” One example I included in my 

testimony is DaimlerChrysler efforts to design more engines to run on 

biofuels with lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, because the plants 

they are derived from absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during 

growth. We have teamed up with the Detroit-based nonprofit NextEnergy, 

the nation's largest chain of biodiesel refiners, industry-leading suppliers, 

and local universities to conduct much-needed research and field testing. I 

ask that Congress support funding requests for this and similar research 

programs. 

DaimlerChrysler also continues to work cooperatively with government labs, 

suppliers and other companies in the industry to achieve breakthroughs in 

technology. Programs, such as FreedomCAR and the hydrogen initiative in the 

United States, and the Fuel Cell Partnership and Hydrogen Highways effort in 

California can have a long-term effect in reducing CO2 emissions from 

vehicles. 

1b. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that it is the prevailing scientific 

view that “the threat of climate change is clear and increasing”? 

See answer to 1a. 

1c. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that it is the prevailing scientific 

view that “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is 

occurring”? 

 See answer to 1a.
129

1d. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that it is the prevailing scientific 

view that “most of the warming ... can be attributed to human activities”? 

 See answer to 1a. 

1e. If DaimlerChrysler Corporation disagrees with the joint statement, or a 

portion of the joint statement, based on a scientific disagreement, please 

identify the portion of the statement with which DaimlerChrysler 

Corporation disagrees and explain the scientific basis for the 

disagreement. Please provide references to any published, peer-reviewed 

studies that form the basis for DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s 

disagreement. 

See answer to 1a. 

2. The joint statement referenced in question 1. also recommends taking 

action to reduce the causes of climate change. It states: 

The scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently 

clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all 

nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to 

contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

It goes on to state: 

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude 

and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognizes, a lack of 

full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is 

not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a 

reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference 

with the climate system. 

Fortunately, the scientific academies report that “there are many 

potentially cost-effective technological options that could contribute to 

stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.” They also warn that “failure 

to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, 

will make the job much harder in the future.” 

In order to understand, DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s views on reducing 

the causes of climate change, please provide answers to the following 

questions. 

2a. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that current scientific 

understanding of climate change justifies nations “taking prompt action”? 

NGOs routinely point to the corporate average fuel economy (or CAFE) 

program as the policy for reducing greenhouse gases through improved vehicle 

fuel economy. DaimlerChrysler has supported the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) national fuel economy standard setting 

process. In March of 2006, NHTSA finalized a second round of rulemakings 
130

that has led to higher truck fuel economy standards for seven straight model 

years (2005-2011 MY). 

DaimlerChrysler also participates in voluntary initiatives such as the DOE 

Climate VISION program to lower greenhouse gases from our facilities and 

reports its greenhouse gas emissions to the DOE 1605(b) program. 

The United States government has committed billions of dollars to mobilize the 

science and technology community to enhance research and development 

efforts which will better inform climate change decisions. In fact, the 

Administration has initiated a Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan 

that the National Academy has reviewed and endorsed. The United States is 

also engaged in extensive international efforts on climate change, both through 

multilateral and bilateral activities. The United States is by far the largest 

funder of activities under the United Framework Convention on Climate 

Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. DaimlerChrysler 

supports these efforts to avoid inappropriate responses by government or the 

private sector. 

2b. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that it is “vital” that all nations 

“identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to 

substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas 

emissions”? 

Ambient greenhouse gases are global in nature. Efforts to mitigate greenhouse 

gas emissions must be embraced by all sectors in developed and developing 

countries alike. Without a global commitment to reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions, little or no environmental benefit will be realized and economic 

disruption will result. 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency projects that 

developing country greenhouse gas emissions will exceed developed country 

greenhouse gas emissions within a decade, primarily due to the rapidly growing 

economies of China and India. Efforts that seek to include these countries, 

such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, with 

its focus on technological development and deployment, have the potential to 

reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. 

2c. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that “a lack of full scientific 

certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying 

an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous 

anthropogenic interference with the climate system”? 

While there are many unanswered questions, DaimlerChrysler continues to 

develop and implement advanced technology in its product line-up. We 

continue to support NHTSA and their charge from Congress to set national fuel 

economy standards for light duty vehicles at the “maximum feasible” level. 

2d. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation agree that “failure to implement 

significant reductions in net greenhouse emissions now, will make the job 

much harder in the future”? 

 See answer to 2c. 
131

2e. What actions can be taken now “to contribute to substantial and long-term 

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions”? What actions does 

DaimlerChrysler Corporation anticipate can be taken in 5 years? How 

about 10 years? 

There are three fundamental actions available to reduce fossil fuel energy 

use/greenhouse gas emissions: 

o Conserve energy through behavior changes 

o Improve energy efficiency 

o Switch to a lower carbon energy source 

Many economists have noted that the most efficient way to lower greenhouse 

gas emissions is to implement carbon controls on all fossil fuels at their 

upstream production point (i.e., the mine-mouth or well head). Controls that 

operate “upstream” on fuel producers versus “downstream” on fuel users hold 

the greatest promise for large greenhouse gas reductions at the lowest cost by 

educating the market regarding the overall value of all forms of energy. 

While setting fuel economy standards will only impact new vehicles, upstream 

controls on fossil fuel carbon content will cause all energy end users, including 

owners of older vehicles, to value energy. 

As I highlighted in my original testimony (attached), DaimlerChrysler 

continues to work on a broad portfolio of technologies to improve the energy 

efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of transportation through the 

implementation of advanced technology and increasing the use of renewable 

biofuels. 

Advanced Technology

For the near-term, we continue to improve advanced gasoline and diesel 

internal combustion engines (ICE) with the development and implementation 

of technologies (including many noted by National Academies of Science 

“Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 

Standards” in 2002). 

o DaimlerChrysler currently has seven models (The Chrysler 300, Dodge 

Magnum, Dodge Charger, Jeep® Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, 

Dodge Ram, and the Jeep® Commander) that feature the Multiple 

Displacement System (or MDS) fuel saving technology. By 2007, MDS is 

estimated to save over 60 million gallons of gasoline per year. 

o The new Dodge Caliber and soon to arrive Jeep® Compass and Jeep® 

Patriot, feature the all new, more fuel-efficient World Engine and 

continuously variable transmission (CVT). This inline 4 cylinder engine 

comes in three displacements and features dual-cam Variable Valve 

Timing (VVT) and electronic throttle control (ETC). 

o On June 13, 2006, we announced a new 3.0-liter turbo Common Rail 

Diesel (CRD) will debut in the 2007 Jeep® Grand Cherokee. The engine 

will have more torque than most eight-cylinder engines, equal acceleration 

and the fuel economy of a small six-cylinder gasoline engine. The 
132

Mercedes built 3.0-liter CRD is one of the most advanced powerplants 

available in the marketplace today. New clean diesel vehicles improve fuel 

economy by up to 30 percent in all driving conditions, when compared to 

an equivalent gasoline engine, while providing durable and smooth 

performance. DaimlerChrysler also offers a Mercedes-Benz E320 diesel, 

which provides the highest fuel economy of any gasoline or dieselpowered mid-size car as well as diesel versions of its larger Dodge Ram 

pickup trucks. Later this year the company will continue its expansion of 

diesel offerings. 

For the mid-term, we are developing a state-of-the-art full hybrid system, 

whose components are being co-developed by General Motors Corp., 

DaimlerChrysler and the BMW Group, utilizing electric drive systems, 

integrated power modules and advanced batteries initially to be used in the 

2008 MY Dodge Durango. 

In the long term, fuel cell vehicles with on-board hydrogen storage, fueled by 

hydrogen from a national hydrogen infrastructure will emerge. 

Biofuels

Biofuels also have a key role in reducing petroleum use and greenhouse gas 

emissions. A recent study by Argonne National Laboratory's Center for 

Transportation Research compares gasoline to corn ethanol and cellulosic 

ethanol (ethanol made from plant stalks, agricultural byproducts, grasses or 

garbage). On a per-gallon basis, corn-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gases 

by 18%-29%, and cellulosic ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by 85%, the 

study found. 

On April 25, 2006, our CEO, Tom LaSorda, had the honor of following 

President Bush to the podium of the Renewable Fuels Association conference 

and announced that, beginning in the 2007 model year, our Jeep® Grand 

Cherokee and the new Jeep® Commander with the 4.7 liter engine option will 

be capable of running on E-85 fuel (blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). 

This is in addition to DaimlerChrysler’s other current flexible fuel vehicle (or 

FFV) offerings: the Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler and Dodge minivans, Dodge 

Dakota and Dodge Ram pickups, and the Dodge Durango SUV. 

Our commitment to renewable fuels extends beyond ethanol use in FFV 

engines. Diesel fuel can also be blended with renewable fuels known as 

biodiesel. DaimlerChrysler is the only manufacturer to offer a diesel vehicle 

that leaves the factory fueled with bio-diesel. We have also announced that 

beginning this Fall, we will endorse the use of B20 diesel fuel, for use by our 

military, government and commercial fleet Dodge Ram customers. As the 

President said in his visit of May 16, 2005, to Virginia BioDiesel Refinery, 

“Biodiesel is one of our nation’s most promising alternative fuel sources...” 

In May, Mr. LaSorda made a new commitment to renewable fuels when he met 

with Congressional leaders along with Ford CEO, Bill Ford and General 

Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner and committed to the “25 x ‘25” campaign – an 

effort by the Energy Future Coalition to aim to get 25 percent of the country’s 

transportation energy needs from renewable sources by 2025. 

 
133

On June 28, 2006, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors and Ford reaffirmed work 

towards this commitment and pledged to double the annual production of 

vehicles capable of running on renewable fuels to two million cars and trucks 

by 2010. This production increase represents the single largest commitment to 

renewable fuels in the nation's history. The pledge toward more flex fuel 

vehicles that can use E-85 ethanol or biodiesel came in a letter to all Members 

of Congress from Mr. LaSorda and the other CEOs. 

For DaimlerChrysler specifically, this translates to manufacturing nearly 

500,000 E-85 FFVs annually by the 2008 MY building upon the 1.5 million 

FFVs manufactured since the 1998 model year. These 1.5 million vehicles 

represent about 10 percent of our total production since 1998, and the 500,000 

figure is nearly 25 percent of our expected annual production. Both 

percentages are the highest for any manufacturer, a fact of which our company 

is very proud. 

Today, there are more than 5 million flex fuel vehicles on the road and the three 

domestic automotive companies will add an additional million cars and trucks 

this year alone. If all of these vehicles were running on E-85, they would 

displace more than 3.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year, an amount comparable 

to the yearly gasoline consumption of Tennessee. 

“We need business and government to work together to enhance the 

production, distribution and use of renewable biofuels,” the CEOs said. “Our 

hope is that with this commitment, fuel providers will have even more 

incentive to produce ethanol and other biofuels and install pumps to distribute 

them.” 

As President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address regarding the 

Advanced Energy Initiative, additional research/invention on ethanol 

production methods from both corn and cellulosic biomass (e.g., wood chips, 

stalks or switch grass) is still needed to make ethanol a “practical and 

competitive” fuel to gasoline. 

The CEOs noted that, “vehicles alone will not get the job done. To capitalize on 

this commitment, Congress and the Administration need to continue to promote 

the production of biofuels, increase incentives for refueling infrastructure, and 

continue incentives for automakers to produce biofuel vehicles.” “Eventually, 

we need to get to the point where most Americans have reasonable access to 

these fuels at a price that is competitive with gasoline,” they said. “Without this 

alternative fuel infrastructure, the U.S. could miss the opportunity to displace 

gasoline with homegrown and produced biofuels.” Currently, there are only 

about 700 E-85 pumps among the nation's 170,000 gas stations. 

DaimlerChrysler’s renewable fuel commitments, coupled with our continuing 

efforts to improve the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles, increase our use 

of diesel engines, and our leadership in fuel cell vehicles (with more than 100 

vehicles, ranging from small cars to transit buses, in operation around the world 

today) are testimony to our commitment to reducing petroleum consumption 

and greenhouse gases. 

2f. What actions can be taken now in the transportation sector “to contribute 

to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas 
134

emissions”? What actions does DaimlerChrysler Corporation anticipate 

can be taken in that sector in 5 years? How about 10 years? 

See answer to 2e. 

2g. What actions can be taken now by DaimlerChrysler Corporation “to 

contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse 

gas emissions”? What actions does DaimlerChrysler Corporation 

anticipate that DaimlerChrysler Corporation can take in 5 years? How 

about 10 years? 

 See answer to 2e. 

2h. As an international business entity, please explain how your approach to 

climate change varies by the nation in which you are operating? For 

example, compare your approach in the European Union to United States, 

and the Unites States to China. 

DaimlerChrysler is one company operating in many markets. For any vehicle 

technology to be successful, it must be accepted by the marketplace and 

accommodate regional market differences such as differing: regulatory 

requirements, fuel taxation, engine size taxation, fuel quality, average distances 

driven, vehicle utility (size, towing, 4WD, etc.). 

In the EU, where fuel prices are considerably higher than in the U.S., almost 

50% of the new vehicle market (60% of Chrysler and Jeep® vehicles) is 

powered by advanced diesel engines compared to about 3% in the U.S. Diesel 

can improve fuel economy by an average of 30% and lower CO2 emissions 

when compared to an equivalent gasoline engine. 

The EPA has also noted that if the U.S. had a light duty fleet that was one-third 

diesel it would save up to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day. If Chrysler 

Group’s diesel mix in the U.S. were the same as in Europe, its Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy (or CAFE) would improve by three miles per gallon. J. 

D. Power and Associates estimate that light-duty diesels could grow from a 3% 

market share in 2004 to 12% in 2012. 

3. About 20% of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions are emitted by 

light duty vehicles. 

3a. Does DaimlerChrysler Corporation believe that the United States 

government should act to require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

from light duty vehicles? 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for 97% of vehicle greenhouse gases and is a 

direct result of fuel combustion. Controlling CO2 emissions is therefore akin to 

controlling fuel economy. DaimlerChrysler is committed to develop new 

advanced technologies to minimize any potential impact our vehicles might 

have on global climate and continues to work with NHTSA, which was charged 

by Congress, to set maximum feasible national fuel economy standards. 

The United States, specifically NHTSA, is acting now to reduce petroleum 

consumption by light-duty vehicles. DaimlerChrysler supported NHTSA’s 
135

efforts for its two light-duty truck rules that defined new fuel economy 

standards for the 2005-2011 MY vehicles. NHTSA’s environmental analysis 

estimated the effect of these rules will be to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 

nearly five billon metric tons of CO2 over the lifetime of these vehicles. 

President Bush has also recently asked Congress to authorize NHTSA to also 

reform fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles. DaimlerChrysler 

supports this effort. 

While actions being taken by NHTSA address new vehicle fuel economy, 

upstream carbon controls would impact all vehicles on the road today. 

3b. If so, please discuss what requirements DaimlerChrysler Corporation 

would consider reasonable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while 

providing adequate time for adaptation by the auto industry. What is an 

appropriate time frame for a requirement? What substantive 

requirements would DaimlerChrysler Corporation suggest? 

 See answer to 3a. 

3c. If DaimlerChrysler Corporation does not believe that the United States 

government should act to require a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

from light duty vehicles, please explain what alternative approach 

DaimlerChrysler Corporation suggests for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

 

See answer to 3a. 
136

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD BY HUNT RAMSBOTTOM, CEO AND PRESIDENT, RENTECH,

INC. 

Rentech is a publicly held, Denver-based firm listed on the American Stock 

Exchange. For 25 years, Rentech has engaged in research and development, focusing on 

enhancing the production of ultra-clean fuels made from coal, petroleum coke and natural 

gas. 

Rentech’s Clean Diesel 

It is very different from petroleum diesel. It is clear, refined to a high degree of 

purity and extremely low in both particulates and sulfur. The familiar belching cloud you 

see when a diesel truck or bus starts to accelerate is caused by particulates, and recent 

studies have shown that they potentially have long-term harm to human and 

environmental health – but our fuel eliminates most of that concern. When the Air Force 

tested our fuels and similar fuels made by competitors, the tests showed reductions in 

particulates of up to and over 80%. The Rentech fuel is also extremely low in sulfur – 

less than 1 part per million, far under the new EPA standard of 15 ppm. 

Rentech’s fuel doesn’t require any engine modifications. It can be used as is as the 

operating fuel for trucks, buses and barges. It can also be blended with petroleum diesel 

or alternative fuels such as biodiesel. It can even be processed into jet fuel. 

The basic chemistry behind our fuel products has been known for 7 decades. The 

basic technology has been developed and used extensively in other countries. Rentech 

currently holds 20 US and 4 foreign patents making the process more efficient and 

effective. We have tested our innovations in six pilot plants over the past 20 years. 

This technology is now being deployed in the US. The 7th pilot, our Process 

Demonstration Unit (PDU), is scheduled to be operating by the first half of 2007. It will 

produce 10 barrels per day (bpd) for demonstration, analysis and training by potential end 

users. And it will allow us to optimize our technology for variations in coal and other 

site-specific factors. We now have developed our technology extensively around Coalto-Liquids – or CTL – gasification, and for Rentech, the future of CTL in the United 

States is no longer a theoretical, what-if, conversation. We plan to have a fully 

commercial, fully operational CTL plant up and running by 2010. 

Our focus as a company is now on making clean transportation fuels in the US, from 

US resources for US consumption. We are targeting our commercial investments to 

production based on coal and petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining) feedstocks. 

We can locate plants anywhere with sufficient access to these resources, from coalproducing states to Hawaii (which has petroleum coke from its refinery). 

Environmental Benefits 

The product has none of the typical odor of diesel. There are two other critical 

differences between this and typical diesel. Our fuel has a shelf-life of at least 8 years, 

rather than 3-4 months for petroleum diesel – meaning that for the strategic reserve, for 

emergency first-responders, and the military, our fuel has incredible advantages. Next, 

our fuel is biodegradable. If it spills, it does not cause extensive or irreparable damage to 

waterways or wells. 

Rentech is committed to being environmentally friendly – and both our production 

and fuels have environmental benefits. 

 As we manufacture our fuel, we remove most of the harmful regulated pollutants in 

the gasification stage. Sulfur and mercury come out as elements – they do not go up a 

smokestack to be scrubbed out, and do not leak into the environment. We are also 

working to reduce unregulated emissions, such as greenhouse gases. Our proposal for a 

second plant, to be located in Natchez, Mississippi, offers the opportunity for 100% 

carbon capture and storage. Our carbon dioxide output would be pumped into nearby 
137

older oil well fields, both helping to produce additional oil by forcing out additional 

supplies and trapping the carbon underground. 

Additionally, our fuel runs cleaner than petroleum diesel. Diesel itself has 

significant advantages over gasoline, providing greater power with fewer emissions – and 

using Rentech’s diesel keeps the power advantage and reduces emissions even further. 

Economic Challenges 

At the moment, a number of trends are converging to jump-start the clean fuels 

industry in the United States--the soaring price of gas, the very real concerns about 

America’s energy dependence and energy security, and the challenges posed by both the 

geopolitical and global environmental situations. Our fuel is part of the solution for each 

of these concerns. 

With oil prices at historic highs, our fuel is also economically competitive. 

Including the financing and development costs, we can produce finished fuels for $36 to 

$42 per barrel, the equivalent of buying raw crude at $30 to $35 per barrel. 

To start this industry however, you need to open the first plant in the US. Each 

successive plant will build on the economies of scale, improve on the lessons learned at 

previous plants, and expand the market. It is very capital intensive to build the industry, 

and one plant is only the start. You have to build second, third, fourth, and then 

successive plants. But, as the Governor of Montana likes to note, everyone wants to 

build the second plant. Nobody wants to finance the first in the US, even though these 

plants exist in several other countries. 

Rentech has developed a five-point strategy for commercialization, designed 

specifically to overcome the financial hurdles of getting started in the US. First, we are 

jump-starting the deployment of our proprietary Rentech process by pairing off-the-shelf 

gasification and finishing plant technologies with our Rentech Reactor using our low 

temperature, iron-based catalyst. Second, we are aggressively pursuing multiple strategic 

projects in the US, with the goal of getting plants up and running at several sites very 

quickly. 

Third, we are developing a repeatable and scalable design that allows for expansion 

of production up to 50,000 bpd per plant that will provide for a very rapid expansion of 

the industry once the first plants are operational and proved out. Fourth, we are 

continuing to invest heavily in research and development, to push the optimization of our 

technologies even farther. And fifth, we are examining selected licensing opportunities 

to expand use of our process and our proprietary technologies. 

East Dubuque, Illinois: The First Clean Fuels Production Plant in the U.S. 

Our first clean fuels plant is underway right now. In April 2006, Rentech purchased 

the fertilizer plant in East Dubuque, Illinois, and we plan to convert it in phases to CTL 

poly-generation over the next 3 to 4 years. By polygeneration, I mean that we will 

ultimately produce 3 core products: ultra-clean transportation fuels, ammonia fertilizer 

and electricity. When the conversion is complete, the overall plant emissions of criteria 

pollutants will decrease (as shown on the attached chart), while the plant production 

increases. 

The plant currently makes ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, and it already 

incorporates basic technologies that are critical to successfully implementing CTL. The 

conversion will include changing the feedstock from expensive natural gas to affordable 

Illinois coal. In phase one, we will add a coal gasification unit to the fertilizer production 

line, generating syngas which is the first step in each of the products that will ultimately 

be generated. 

Fertilizer will still be made in large quantities. Domestic fertilizer plants are 

shutting down rapidly because of high natural gas prices--the current primary feedstock 

for fertilizer. Since 1999, the US has switched from producing all its own fertilizer to 
138

becoming a net importer. We will demonstrate that fertilizer production can still be a 

thriving domestic industry using clean coal technologies. 

Electricity will also be produced, primarily for the plant’s own use. A small surplus, 

however, will be provided to the local grid. But our primary focus is the production of 

our fuels. So in later stages, we will add a Rentech Reactor and a finishing plant, 

allowing production of 1,800 bpd of our diesel. Those additions will be on-line and 

producing in 2010. 

Later, in phase two of our East Dubuque build-out, we will add a second gasifier. 

That will allow us to raise fuel production up to 6,800 bpd. Under our timeline, the East 

Dubuque plant will be first commercial plant in the U.S. to produce marketable 

quantities of clean fuels from CTL. 

Looking Ahead 

Rentech is also pursuing a second larger scale plant in Natchez, Mississippi – the 

Natchez Adams Strategic Fuels Center – which would produce up to 11,000 bpd in phase 

one. We were invited by the local community to consider the possibility after Hurricane 

Katrina when Mississippi ran disastrously low on diesel. At Natchez, we can use two 

feedstocks--coal and petroleum coke, a byproduct of the local petroleum industry. And , 

there is the very real possibility of capturing and storing 100% of the carbon dioxide 

emissions through enhanced oil recovery in nearby oil fields. To our knowledge, this 

would be the first large-scale U.S. commercial capture and storage of man-made carbon 

emissions. Carbon dioxide injection is already being used in this oil-producing basin, 

but additional supplies are needed. 

Looking even further ahead, we are considering several development opportunities 

in various regions of the US, including discussions with coal companies to utilize a 

replicable, iterative plant model at the mouths of mines. There, we would size a basic 

plant model that could be expanded. For twenty years, Rentech has researched and 

optimized its technology. We have refined our process to make it more effective and 

more environmentally-friendly. Now we are commercializing it. 

Today, the US produces and consumes over 2 million barrels per day of diesel, and 

many experts project demand to double in the next twenty years. A thriving clean fuels 

industry is vital to our nation’s future, both for our energy security and our environmental 

sustainability. 

This is doable. Rentech (and Sasol) use a low temperature iron based catalyst and its 

use has been used commercial for years. Other industry vendors which use a cobalt 

catalyst have claimed that 34 foot reactors are needed, making transport and fabrication 

difficult. This is not the case for low temperature, iron-based catalyst as you can make 

smaller reactors so transport and fabrication is not an issue. The reactors will be 14 feet in 

diameter in the East and 20 feet in the West. The height of the reactors is not the 180 feet 

claimed, but rather 120 feet. The US has fabricated and built the most advanced processes 

in use so while initial plants, like any first, will be challenging, it will be done. Using 

low temperature, iron based catalyst, about 2.2 barrels of Fischer-Tropsch liquids will be 

produced from one ton of Illinois coal. 

What the Government Can Do 

As we launch this industry, we are planning to make full use of the EPACT 2005 

incentives that the Congress designed to jump-start clean fuels. The States are also 

lending their assistance. The State of Illinois has been extraordinarily helpful – they 

helped us to complete feasibility studies, engineering studies and provided grants to assist 

with conversion to coal. The State of Mississippi has also been exceptionally supportive 

of the possibility of our second plant being located in Natchez, and just passed a $15 

million bond bill for the proposal. 
139

We are not asking the government to subsidize clean fuels. We need your help to 

create a climate where we can use private-sector funding to establish a fully commercial 

industry. There are four ways than you can help us jump-start the industry. 

A Four-Point Plan to Jump-Start the Clean Fuels Industry 

1) Support Appropriate Investment Tax Credits. To meet our aggressive 

timeline, we will apply for the industrial gasification investment tax credit provided by 

the Energy Bill. Recent initiatives to raise the current $350 million cap to $850 million 

would help even more. If Congress is serious about trying to reduce our dependence on 

foreign oil import then allow me to offer two observations. First, maintaining the current 

cap of $350M could slow the rollout of industrial gasification using coal to the point 

where the US winds up losing more industry. Even an $850M cap will assist the 

development and deployment of only 3 to 4 more plants – hardly the creation of a fullfledged industry. At $75 per barrel, the price of oil last week, the U.S. is paying $850 

million to foreign countries for oil every two days. To create a real incentive, it might be 

better to lift the caps altogether. The second proposal is an additional investment tax 

credit specific to clean fuels to accelerate production 

2) Make the Fuel Excise Tax Credit Available to Clean Fuels. Make the 50 

cent-per-gallon fuel excise tax credit provided in the Highway Bill available to CTL 

fuels. To do that, you could extend the expiration of the current credit from 2009, when 

no CTL plants will yet be operational in the U.S., to 2020. 

3) Fully Fund and Implement the Federal Loan Guarantees. We will also apply 

for the self-pay guarantees that the Congress initiated at the Department of Energy 

(DOE). This program is absolutely vital to our efforts. We understand that DOE’s 

implementation has begun and we commend the Department for quickly moving to 

implement the authorized programs. We appreciate and hope you will continue your 

efforts to ensure that both of the DOE loan programs are fully funded and implemented 

expeditiously. And, 

4) Support Military Consideration of Clean Fuels. The final idea for the 

government to help catalyze commercial deployment of the CTL industry is to examine 

usage of clean fuels for military applications. Long-term contracts for military use of 

diesel and jet fuel would assist greatly with private-sector financing of the first plants. 

The Energy Information Administration’s AEO 2006 projected long-term oil costs at 

$50 and above. The same forecast shows CTL production growing to 700,000 barrels per 

day by 2030. To get there, the first plants must be financed and built, paving the way for 

the industry to flourish. This 4-point combination of incentives and contracts would 

provide the initial climate and stability needed to propel private investment. 

Conclusion 

The great potential of clean fuels, especially using CTL, is that American resources, 

American know-how, and American innovation will help create environmentally-friendly 

energy and sustain American jobs. A robust clean-fuels sector can help us meet the 

challenge of our national energy needs, foster greater energy independence, and preserve 

a full measure of our energy security. At Rentech, we are moving today to produce clean 

fuels for America’s future. 

Thank you for all that you have already done to allow a jump-start of CTL and clean 

fuels in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We intend to make use of your help to do just 

that – jump-start full scale utilization of CTL, and jump-start a new clean fuel 

manufacturing industry. 

○