U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

71–632 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–283 

GROWING JOBS IN RURAL AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 14, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN W. COPPESS, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

MICHAEL J. SEYFERT, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Growing Jobs in Rural America ............................................................................. 01 

Thursday, July 14, 2011 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 01 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ......... 16 

Bennet, Hon. Michael F., U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado .................... 5 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 6 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 6 

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana ....................... 3 

Panel I 

Bony, Paul, Director, Residential Market Development, Climate Master, Oklahoma City, OK ...................................................................................................... 10 

Graham, Bruce, CEO, Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Indianapolis, IN ........................................................................ 7 

Sanders, Helen, Ph.D., Vice President, Technical Business Development, 

SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., Faribault, MN ...................................................... 12 

Stewart, Zac, Owner, Ambient, LLC, Ignacio, CO ................................................ 9 

Panel II 

Hall, Dennis, Assistant Director, Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center, Columbus, OH ................................................................................................................. 27 

McIntosh, John, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Signature Crypton 

Carpet, Dalton, GA .............................................................................................. 26 

Peoples, Oliver P., Ph.D., Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Metabolix, 

Inc., Cambridge, MA ............................................................................................ 23 

Verbruggen, Marc, Ph.D., President and CEO, NatureWorks LLC, Wayzata, 

MN ......................................................................................................................... 21 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 36 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr. ............................................................................... 38 

Thune, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 39 

Bony, Paul ......................................................................................................... 41 

Graham, Bruce .................................................................................................. 44 

Hall, Dennis ...................................................................................................... 49 

McIntosh, John ................................................................................................. 55 

Peoples, Oliver P. ............................................................................................. 57 

Sanders, Helen .................................................................................................. 63 

Stewart, Zac ...................................................................................................... 67 

Verbruggen, Marc ............................................................................................. 68 

Page

IV 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Written questions to Paul Bony ...................................................................... 74 

Written questions to Bruce Graham ............................................................... 76 

Written questions to Zac Stewart ................................................................... 90 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Written questions to Paul Bony ...................................................................... 74 

Written questions to Bruce Graham ............................................................... 77 

Written questions to John McIntosh ............................................................... 85 

Written questions to Oliver P. Peoples ........................................................... 86 

Written questions to Helen Sanders ............................................................... 88 

Written questions to Zac Stewart ................................................................... 90 

Written questions to Marc Verbruggen .......................................................... 93 

Thune, Hon. John: 

Written questions to Paul Bony ...................................................................... 75 

Written questions to Bruce Graham ............................................................... 81 

Written questions to Dennis Hall ................................................................... 83 

Written questions to John McIntosh ............................................................... 85 

Written questions to Oliver P. Peoples ........................................................... 86 

Written questions to Helen Sanders ............................................................... 89 

Written questions to Zac Stewart ................................................................... 92 

Written questions to Marc Verbruggen .......................................................... 94 

Bony, Paul: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 74 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 74 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 75 

Graham, Bruce: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 76 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 77 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 81 

Hall, Dennis: 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 83 

McIntosh, John: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 85 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 85 

Peoples, Oliver P.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 86 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 86 

Sanders, Helen: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 88 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 89 

Stewart, Zac: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 90 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 90 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 92 

Verbruggen, Marc: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 93 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 94 

(1) 

GROWING JOBS IN RURAL AMERICA 

Thursday, July 14, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in Room G– 

50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Stabenow, Brown, 

Casey, Klobuchar, Bennet, Lugar, and Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, good morning and thank you for 

being here at the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry. We will call the meeting to order. 

This is a day of multiple things happening at the same time, so 

we welcome all of our witnesses and hope you will understand as 

people are trying to be two or three places at once. Senator Roberts 

this morning is not able to join us, but welcomes you, as well, and 

we are very, very pleased to have Senator Lugar here as a great 

leader on these issues that we are talking about today. So we 

thank you for being here and being a part of this. At some point, 

I, as well, have a bill up in the Energy Committee that is going 

to be voted on and I am going to be running up and down between 

here and third floor in Dirksen at some point, so if I leave, it is 

not because of something you said. It is because I need to attempt 

to be two places at once myself this morning. 

But again, welcome. Today’s hearing will focus on ways to grow 

jobs in rural America, and certainly we know the farm bill is a jobs 

bill and there are other ways in which we can leverage what we 

do, the strength of rural America to create jobs, and that is really 

what we are all about in this committee. There are 16 million 

Americans who have a job because of agriculture and there is even 

more that we can do. Even as we look at the challenges of the last 

decade, certainly in my State, agriculture continued to grow, and 

this is a very, very important part of our economy. Manufacturing 

accounts for roughly a quarter of rural private sector earnings and 

accounts for more than one in ten rural jobs, as well. 

I have a unique perspective as Chair of the Agriculture Committee, because in Michigan, as I always say, we grow things and 

make things, and you have an economy, I believe— we have a middle class in this country because we grow things and make things. 

2 

Agriculture and manufacturing are at the heart of any economy. 

They created the U.S. middle class and really are the life blood of 

rural America. 

All across Michigan, all across America, we have people in rural 

communities working to create jobs and compete just like people in 

every city in America. Today, we are highlighting some of the great 

work that is being done, promising opportunities to grow jobs in 

both agriculture and manufacturing sectors around the country. 

First, we will consider the possibility of developing a Rural Energy Savings Program which will enable the Rural Electric Co-Ops 

to assist their customers in making energy efficiency improvements 

to their homes and their businesses. Senator Lugar has included a 

similar provision in his practical energy plan, and I understand he 

continues to work on a stand-alone proposal with Senator Merkley 

and we, again, thank you for your leadership. 

Further, I know that several other members of the committee expressed an interest in this concept last year when we had a subcommittee hearing to examine legislation at that time which Senator Merkley had introduced. This type of program is important because rural residents are more likely to live in older, less efficient, 

energy efficient homes and the USDA has found that our rural 

residents spend as much as $400 more a year on energy costs than 

those living in our cities. 

A rural energy savings program would not only lower energy 

costs for families, for farmers, for small businesses, but it would 

create opportunities for companies that manufacture energy efficient installation, heating and cooling systems, doors, windows, et 

cetera. So it is really about jobs. 

Our second panel will examine the link between agriculture and 

manufacturing in the rapidly expanding sector of bio-based products. We tend to think of America’s dependence on foreign oil only 

in terms of the gas pump, but we also rely on imported petroleum 

for plastics, foams, and other materials that we use every day. For 

years, our best minds have been working to develop bio-based alternatives to those petroleum products. 

One of the foremost pioneers in this area was none other than 

Henry Ford, who experimented with ways that soy-based products 

could be used in automotive production. Today, we have cars rolling down assembly lines across America being built with parts 

being made from agricultural products—seats, interior panels, arm 

rests, sunshades, to soy wire coatings, carpets, and structural foam. 

In Michigan alone, we have over 80 companies manufacturing 

bio-based products and even more using bio-based materials in 

their products, and these products are not just for cars, as I said. 

They are cleaning products, soaps, insulation, plastics, foam products, and fabrics. At today’s hearing, we will hear about a number 

of these exciting new opportunities to connect production agriculture with rural manufacturing, creating jobs and prosperity in 

our Main Street communities in rural America. 

So I am very pleased again to have my friend, Senator Lugar, 

here and would ask him for his opening remarks. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate you convening this hearing today and for the opportunity to discuss the big opportunities we all have for job creation 

for Hoosiers and for all other States, for that matter, to save money 

through rural energy savings. 

Rural energy efficiency has broad bipartisan support. Senator 

Merkley is a leader on this legislation. We also appreciate the partnerships of Senator Shaheen and Graham. Today’s hearing gives us 

an opportunity to gather more views before we formally introduce 

and mark up the Rural Energy Savings Program proposal within 

this committee. 

I join the Chair in welcoming all of our witnesses, and in particular Bruce Graham of the Indiana Statewide Association of 

Rural Electric Cooperatives. The Rural Electric Co-Ops in Indiana 

not only provide essential services for our homes, farms, and small 

businesses they also invest heavily in rural community activities 

across the State. They are pioneering efficiency work and investment in new forms of power generation that will save Hoosiers 

money. Bruce has served as the Chief Executive Officer for the 39 

member cooperative association for nearly five years and I thank 

him for his leadership in Indiana and for joining us today. 

Energy efficiency is gaining ground, from utilization of digital 

thermostats and better lighting at Warren Township schools in Indianapolis to energy savings contracts pioneered by Vectren Corporation Energy Systems Group in Newburgh. The potential savings from accelerating this trend can be a tremendous windfall for 

Hoosiers and all American families and small businesses. For example, a 2009 study by McKinsey and Company found that the end 

use energy efficiency measures using technologies already available 

can save us $1.2 trillion by the year 2020. 

Progress on energy efficiency is a particular need, an opportunity 

for our rural communities. More than 42 million Americans live in 

rural communities, and many of these Americans reside in homes 

that are significantly less efficient than those typically found in 

urban circumstances. In fact, the USDA has found that rural 

households spend $200 to $400 more, as you pointed out, Madam 

Chairman, per year on their utility bills than comparable urban 

households. This utility bill disparity is significant, especially given 

that rural households earn $10,000 less per year than the national 

average. 

The Rural Energy Savings Program proposal would permit rural 

families, farms, and other small businesses to receive low-interest 

loans to improve the energy efficiency of their properties. Opportunities for savings are abundant. A consumer might install better 

insulation, such as that manufactured in Shelbyville by Knauf, or 

replace drafty doors with a more energy efficiency variety like 

those made by Therma-Tru Doors, manufactured in Butler. Those 

are just two examples of the many Hoosier businesses that today 

manufacture innovative and affordable energy efficiency products. 

Not only will consumers save money, but more Hoosiers will be put 

to work to manufacture and install these efficiency upgrades. 

4 

By providing loans, the proposal offers a fiscally responsible path 

toward energy savings. Loans would be issued through USDA’s 

Rural Utility Service to qualified local entities, primarily nonprofit 

rural cooperatives, who would then issue loans to consumers to 

meet local needs. Loans issued under this program would be repaid 

within ten years through money saved on utility bills. The Rural 

Energy Savings Program proposal is projected to create nearly 

26,000 jobs, spur retrofits in up to 1.6 million rural homes, save 

rural households hundreds of dollars a year after the loan is repaid, and eliminate the need for new generating capacity to power 

625,000 homes in our country. 

Madam Chairman, my recently introduced Practical Energy 

Plan, S. 1321, includes the Rural Energy Savings Program proposal 

we are discussing today. The broader bill will save Americans $33 

billion each year in savings through energy efficiency and reduce 

the need for foreign oil by more than six million barrels per day 

by the year 2030, or well over half of our current imports. 

The costs of the proposals are fully offset, and with substantially 

increased Federal revenues through more oil production. In writing 

my bill, I focused on energy policies that are achievable, cost effective, and most importantly, that have American consumers saving 

money and businesses saving money. I appreciate very much the 

Agriculture Committee doing its part to take up this energy saving 

for all Americans. 

I thank the Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. 

We would ask our first panel to come to the table and we will 

introduce them. Welcome. I ask you to come and take a seat. We 

are very pleased to have each of you with us. 

Let me go ahead first and introduce our first panelist, Mr. Bruce 

Graham. Mr. Graham is the Chief Executive Officer, Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives based in Indianapolis, Indiana, so I am sure that Senator Lugar may want to say 

hello, as well. Prior to his current appointment, Mr. Graham 

worked for the Kansas Electric Power Cooperative as the Vice 

President of Member Services and External Affairs. So we are very 

pleased to have you with us. 

Our next panelist is Mr. Zac Stewart, and he will be introduced 

by his home State Senator—and I just want to note, Senator Bennet, this is at least two weeks in a row we have had people from 

Colorado with us, so I think you are getting more than your fair 

share of bragging about Colorado. 

Senator BENNET. Well, I was going to mention that, Madam 

Chair. This is a record for us. I think we had three panelists two 

weeks ago and two panelists this week, so thank you for recognizing the incorporable talent from the State of Colorado. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Well, we appreciate very much 

having Mr. Zac Stewart with us, the owner of Ambient, LLC, a 

building performance company in Durango, Colorado, that provides 

energy services, consulting, and construction, and I understand you 

have been in the energy efficiency field for 16 years and have a 

very impressive background, so we welcome you. 

Also, Senator Bennet, I understand that our next witness, Mr. 

Paul Bony, who is actually from Oklahoma City, or your business 

5 

is in Oklahoma City, but you also live in Colorado, so you are certainly welcome to make a comment on that, although I think you 

are running up against your limit on people from Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator BENNET. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. If I could say, 

first, how much I appreciate your holding this hearing, and, Senator Lugar, your leadership on this issue has made a huge difference, as well. And if I could spend two seconds introducing the 

witnesses from Colorado, and then I want to apologize to them because I have got a Banking Committee hearing and Chairman 

Bernanke is testifying and you may have noticed that things are 

not going so well on that score, so I am going to have to go to that, 

but—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. That is because he is not from Colorado. 

Senator BENNET. That is right. I will try to come back. 

But I do want to say that we are happy to have Zac Stewart 

here, who is from Ignacio, Colorado, the home of Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell, the beautiful Four Corners region of our 

State. Mr. Stewart is a native of nearby Durango and a graduate 

of Fort Lewis College. He has got broad experience working on 

these issues in State government agencies, both in Arizona’s Department of Commerce and the Governor of Colorado’s Energy Office. And as you mentioned, Madam Chair, he has recently started 

his own building performance company, Ambien, LLC, and we look 

forward to hearing of the work that Ambien is doing. 

Following Mr. Stewart, the committee will hear from Paul Bony, 

who is the Residential Market Developer for a company called 

ClimateMaster. ClimateMaster is the world’s largest manufacturer 

of geothermal heat pumps, headquartered in Oklahoma City. However, while working for an Oklahoma company, I understand Mr. 

Bony has the distinct privilege of living in Montrose, Colorado, 

where he has worked on geothermal heat pump issues in several 

capacities over the years, including innovative financing efforts 

with the Delta-Montrose Electric Association, his local electric cooperative. Mr. Bony’s energy efficiency and renewable energy market 

development efforts have earned the Association of Energy Services 

Professionals’ Achievement in Energy Services Award, the U.S. 

EPA’s Excellence in Energy Star Outreach Award, and recognition 

from the Alliance to Save Energy. 

So thank you, both of you, for coming here. You need to represent us well because next week we will have another hearing and 

we want to have at least two more Coloradans here, so let us not 

break our record. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Our final witness on the panel is Dr. Helen Sanders, and Senator 

Klobuchar would like to introduce her. 

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, and I note, 

Senator Bennet, we have Dr. Sanders here from Minnesota. We 

also on our second panel have a witness, Marc Verbruggen, whose 

company is headquartered in Minnesota, but let us go on. 

Dr. Helen Sanders is the Vice President of Technical Business 

Development at SAGE, based out of Faribault, Minnesota. She has 

been involved with SAGE since 1999 and has been involved with 

nearly all aspects of the manufacturing business. SAGE manufacturers windows that use innovative high-performance energy saving technology. They are really cool. I hope she describes them to 

you. It is really something, that can kind of change colors on a 

dime and is really an innovative technology. 

She is a unique witness on the panel because SAGE is a producer of energy efficient products and is also working with Rural 

Electric Co-Ops to put in place new energy efficient technologies at 

manufacturing facilities to reduce their energy bill. So this is just 

a great example. 

Our manufacturing is really on the upswing in Minnesota. I realized this back in January when I could start to visit all the companies on Saturdays because they were going 24/7 and we had one 

of our biggest export quarters of our State’s history last quarter. 

Actually, I would add one good thing. Ag exports are up, Madam 

Chair, 22 percent in Minnesota. The whole rural area has really 

been holding our economy together, and SAGE is a great example 

from the manufacturing sector of how it can be done right. So I am 

pleased to have Dr. Sanders here. 

I would also mention Mr. Verbruggen, who is the President of 

NatureWorks, and he is going to be testifying on the second panel. 

NatureWorks is headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It produces new bio-based products and is reinvesting in rural America, 

creating jobs. Mr. Verbruggen is going to testify about the exciting 

bio-based products at NatureWorks. 

So thank you, both of you, for being here. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, and I understand that Senator Brown will have to be being two places at once 

this morning, as well, and that you did want to bring hello and introduce someone that will be on our second panel. Senator Brown. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator BROWN. Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks for going out 

of the regular order. I preside over the Senate later this morning, 

so I cannot be here during the second panel, but wanted to welcome Dennis Hall from Columbus, Ohio. Dennis, whom I spoke 

with earlier today and walked over with, is a sixth generation 

farmer near Marysville, Ohio. His family many generations ago 

served as a stop on the Underground Railroad in northern and just 

outside of Columbus. 

He is an Assistant Director of the Ohio BioProducts Innovation 

Center at Ohio State. Not only does he bring decades of experience 

as a farmer, he has been at Ohio State in the Extension Service 

as professor for ten years, working with students and educators. 

7 

And, Madam Chair, a couple of really brief comments in addition 

to introducing Dennis. Ohio is home to approximately 130 companies that use agricultural products to make new products—the agricultural crops to make new products, ranging from pet foods to 

bio-based paint to soy ink and toner, and the passion that Dennis 

brings to this, you will see in a few moments. To date, the Federal 

Government has provided minimal support to these efforts and I 

think this discussion today and beyond will help to form some partnerships that can work for all of us. 

Mr. Hall, welcome. I appreciate that. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

We will now turn to our witnesses, and Mr. Graham, welcome. 

We would ask each of our witnesses to take five minutes. We certainly want your written testimony, as well, but we would ask for 

you to give us five minutes of testimony, and then when we are finished, we will open it up for questions. Mr. Graham. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE GRAHAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

INDIANA STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION OF RURAL ELECTRIC 

COOPERATIVES, INC., INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Stabenow and 

Senator Lugar and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to express the views of the electric cooperatives on the 

Rural Energy Savings Program Act. It is a cost effective concept 

that can save energy and create jobs in rural America. It is an 

honor to be here before the committee. 

As mentioned, I am Chief Executive Officer of the Indiana Electric Cooperative Association, which is the first Electric Cooperative 

Association in the country. Our 39 electric cooperatives and two 

GNTs provide safe and affordable energy to more than half-a-million homes and businesses and farms, and we continue to be leaders in making energy efficiency manageable for our consumer members in the State. 

As also mentioned, I began my career with Kansas Electric 

Power Cooperative, and I mention that because as part of my responsibilities those 18 years, I managed our economic development, 

marketing, and our consumer efficiency programs at KEPCO. 

Just as a reminder, the electric cooperatives are nonprofit member-owned utilities that were created to provide affordable and reliable electricity, not to make a profit for shareholders. We have for 

many years provided information and advice to consumers to help 

them manage their energy bills. This includes programs and incentives for their member owners to use electricity in an efficient and 

cost effective manner. The wide range of assistance includes rebates for energy efficient appliances, installation of efficient lighting, and rate incentives to encourage off-peak usage. In addition, 

in Indiana, Hoosier Energy successfully utilized the Federal stimulus program to weatherize more than 2,000 homes, giving us an 

important experience in consumer home improvement initiatives. 

Just a couple of statistics from the electric cooperatives. As I 

said, we have been engaged in this for quite some time. In fact, 96 

percent of the cooperatives in the country operate an efficiency program currently, and 70 percent of the cooperatives offer some kind 

of financial incentives already to promote efficiencies. 

8 

We believe that a RESPA program would be another tool that 

electric cooperatives can use to enable their member owners to 

maximize energy efficiency. The RESPA program authorizes an onbill financing mechanism that allows co-op customers to borrow 

money from the cooperative for energy efficiency improvements at 

their homes and businesses and to pay back those loans through 

the monthly electric bill. This program was actually modeled in 

part on a successfully operating program developed by Midwest Energy in Hayes, Kansas, called House Smart. 

The RESPA program design is simple. Cooperatives would be authorized to borrow no-interest funds from the Federal Government 

acting through the RUS at USDA and, in turn, make loans to their 

residential or business customers for the sole purpose of improving 

the energy efficiencies of those residences and businesses. No loan 

funds would be approved until an energy audit is performed, an application for funds is approved by the RUS, and the project is completed in accordance with the plans included in the application. 

RESPA requires energy efficiency loans to have a pay-back period of no more than ten years. The savings to consumers related 

to the energy efficiency projects must be more than the amount of 

the loan. Customers will be able to repay the loan from those 

monthly energy savings through their electric bill. This rule means 

that energy efficiency projects that are not cost effective within a 

ten-year period will not be funded. 

Consumer loans would only cover structural improvements, such 

as blocking air infiltration, insulation, HVAC systems, windows, 

and other improvements that co-ops can demonstrate will provide 

sufficient savings. Loans will not be used for appliances that do not 

stay with the structure, such as refrigerators, window air conditioner units, et cetera. 

RESPA is designed to minimize the impact on the Federal budget because it is a loan program, not a grant program, and requires 

repayment of loans to the Federal Government. 

The RESPA program will use the existing infrastructure at the 

RUS and the RUS loan protocols to evaluate loan applications, obligate funds, and advance them to electric cooperatives. Most cooperatives already have the billing capabilities and consumer relationships that will enable them to deliver and administer the loans 

to their consumers. 

The program does have a jump-start loan component that enables co-ops to receive up to four percent of the loan amount in 

order to offset the up-front costs of initiating the program. Despite 

that, the loan funds provided by the government will not cover the 

entire cost of the program, so the individual cooperatives will likely 

still incur administrative costs. That being said, the program is voluntary and individual co-ops will be able to determine whether 

there is a need in their community that could be addressed with 

the funds from the RESPA program. 

It is important, also, to remember that co-ops are ultimately responsible for paying back the loans from the RUS and not the individual consumers. Therefore, co-ops have a strong incentive to 

make careful evaluations of potential projects that make sure the 

member owners get the value they expect and they have the ability 

to repay the loan. Rural Electric Cooperatives have an extraorVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:13 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71632.TXT MICHA
9 

dinary track record of positive payment under the RUS and we 

look forward to continuing that trend using RESPA. 

The Indiana Co-Ops and the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association support the Rural Energy Savings Program Act 

because we believe there are co-op members across the country 

that would benefit from energy efficiency improvements on their 

homes and businesses and cannot afford the up-front investment in 

those improvements. The RESPA bill would benefit rural Indiana 

by making homes and businesses more comfortable and energy efficient. Importantly, RESPA also has the potential to create muchneeded jobs in rural America for energy auditors, contractors, installation crews, and thousands of jobs to manufacture the new 

windows and doors, insulation, heating and cooling systems, and 

other energy saving improvements. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Mr. Graham, we would ask you to bring 

it to a close. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAHAM. That is it. I thank you for the opportunity to be 

here this morning and that concludes my comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham can be found on page 

44 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. We very much appreciate 

your input and being here today. 

Mr. Stewart. 

STATEMENT OF ZAC STEWART, OWNER, AMBIENT, LLC, 

IGNACIO, COLORADO 

Mr. STEWART. Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator Lugar, Senator 

Bennet—he left—and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing me to speak today regarding the potential 

Rural Energy Savings Program and the possible impact on job creation in rural America. 

I operate a small home energy retrofit business located in Southwest Colorado. We are a full-service home performance business, 

which means that we conduct the initial energy audit, generate a 

recommendations report based on potential energy savings, and 

then perform the repairs. So it is a one-stop shop for the homeowner. We install windows, insulation, other energy saving measures. I currently have three employees and all three, including myself, were previously employed in the residential home building industry prior to the downturn in the housing market. 

We are experiencing a steady demand for energy efficiency repairs in my region, but face the same challenges most markets 

face, which is access to capital. For home performance programs to 

work, a funding mechanism must be in place to meet the needs of 

the homeowners who want and need repairs but lack the money to 

proceed. 

In metropolitan areas, there are large national home performance contractors who have the capital to offer financing to homeowners. In rural areas like Southwest Colorado, we are made up 

of small businesses, small home performance contractors that do 

not have the ability to offer any financing options to customers. 

Financing options, coupled with existing energy efficiency initiatives, is the piece that we are missing, especially in the rural areas, 

and I believe this would propel many homeowners to move forward 

10 

with repairs and, in turn, create more jobs for contractors like myself. 

The housing stock in the Southwest in general, and I would venture to say in the rest of the nation, is weathered and aged. Home 

repairs usually only take place when there is a good year or the 

furnace stops working and there is no other choice but to fix it. 

There is no shortage of homes that need to have energy efficiency 

upgrades. As a home performance contractor, our greatest challenge is converting the audit into repairs. I can perform an energy 

audit and have the most talented salesperson around, but if the 

homeowner does not have the money to implement those repairs, 

there is no savings for anyone. An audit has no realized savings 

unless the repairs take place. 

So I routinely encounter homeowners that are taking advantage 

of rebates that are available through the electric co-ops. However, 

they cannot proceed with any of the repairs because of funding 

issues. We are talking $3,000, $4,000, up to $8,000 repairs that 

they would like to have done, but that is a big chunk to come out 

of their pocket at that point. 

A rural energy savings program would benefit homeowners by 

making their homes safer, healthier, and more efficient, and it 

would definitely benefit rural contractors like myself by increasing 

our workload. 

It is a perfect piece. When I sit down with a homeowner and 

have the leveraging opportunities, it is a perfect sales tool for a 

contractor like myself in that there are existing rebates for audits. 

There are existing Federal tax credits and now a potential for 

loans. I believe it would increase—go from a $300 audit to a $4,000 

repair would no doubt create jobs. 

Thank you. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart can be found on page 67 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bony, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BONY, DIRECTOR, RESIDENTIAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATEMASTER, OKLAHOMA CITY, 

OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BONY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Stabenow, 

Senator Lugar, and distinguished members of the Senate. It is 

truly an honor and a pleasure to be here this morning to offer support for the Rural Energy Savings Program on behalf of my employer, ClimateMaster, which is based in Oklahoma. I was living 

in Colorado when they hired me and refused to leave, so I get on 

airplanes every week. ClimateMaster is based in Oklahoma, where 

our manufacturing facilities are, but we also have over 1,000 dealers and distributors across the United States, so our product goes 

into every State in the Union. 

I have 25 years of electric utility experience focused on energy 

efficiency, renewable energy, and demand management. I have 

worked for two electric cooperatives, including the one where my 

great uncle was the first elected board president, and I am a member of the Delta-Montrose Electric Co-Op where I worked until I 

took this job. And thanks to the Fifth Army, I am a native Hoosier. 

11 

I have a degree in agriculture from Kansas State University. And 

I own a registered farm in Colorado, so I am a very bi-State kind 

of guy. 

But based on my utility energy efficiency experience, this pending legislation will provide many benefits to electric cooperatives 

and the members they serve. This legislation will save energy. 

Buildings use nearly 40 percent of the primary energy consumed 

by this nation, with heating, cooling, and water heating consuming 

nearly one-half of that usage, and in rural homes it can be as much 

as 70 percent of the energy used. 

Geothermal heat pumps, our product, can reduce this energy consumption by up to 50 percent. This legislation will save rural consumers money. Most rural areas do not have access to well-capitalized and organized energy efficiency retrofit companies. Rural 

areas also rely on a high proportion of expensive fossil fuels for 

heating and water heating. Customers can benefit greatly from energy efficiency upgrades, including geothermal heat pumps that 

provide energy bill reductions that can exceed the loan repayments 

under this proposed legislation. 

I conducted an extensive home energy retrofit project at the 

Delta-Montrose Electric that confirmed that homeowners can easily 

reduce their annual energy usage by 50 percent or more from efficiency measures that provide a positive cash flow after debt service. In a survey ClimateMaster recently completed, 53 percent of 

our potential customers would have purchased our system if they 

could have obtained financing that would provide them a payment 

lower than their energy savings, giving them a positive cash flow. 

Unfortunately, in today’s tough economy, customers do not have 

ready access to affordable loan funds to implement energy efficiency measures. This legislation will be invaluable in breaking 

this financial barrier. 

This legislation will also create jobs. The energy efficiency upgrades financed by this legislation will generate employment for 

local labor. For geothermal heat pumps, the installation of the 

equipment and ground loop has to be done locally. We will never 

import ground loops from offshore. I started an installation company that focused exclusively on the installation of 50 to 70 of our 

systems annually. This company employed seven full-time people in 

good paying jobs with full benefits. We also hired other contractors 

to provide services, including energy audits, drilling the ground 

loops, and weatherizing homes. 

This legislation will improve the financial stability of the participating co-ops. Geothermal heat pumps offer cooperatives an excellent tool to obtain significant peak loads reduction and improve 

their system load factor. This allows a cooperative to provide energy efficiency to their members and reduce the need for expensive 

new generation without putting pressure on electric rates. These 

energy savings also provide four to ten metric tons of annual carbon savings per home. 

Electric co-ops are a great vehicle to administer the RES program. They have a long track record of providing member-focused 

services and paying back their Federal loans. They are trusted by 

their members and they can collect payments on utility bills. And 

12 

in the rural communities, they are often the only organization with 

the resources and talent to administer this type of effort. 

I recognized over 15 years ago that access to affordable financing 

was the key to customer participation in energy efficiency when I 

started a successful cooperative geothermal loop lease program that 

is still working today in California. In Colorado, I again proved 

that customers will respond to co-op financing to make efficiency 

investments. While individual members in my loan portfolio experienced the misfortunes that can happen to any of us, it always generated a positive cash flow, and I can also assure you that my general manager and our board of directors paid very close attention 

to my monthly reports on how that loan portfolio was performing. 

However, in both programs, our ability to fund member efficiency 

was limited to internally generated funds, as the RUS was not able 

to finance these efforts. This legislation will close this large financing gap, and in my humble opinion, greatly accelerate the implementation of energy efficiency in co-op country. 

In conclusion, ClimateMaster is very supportive of this legislation. I am convinced that it will provide great benefits to the millions of members of electric cooperatives. It closes the financing gap 

that has prevented the greater adoption of energy efficiency in 

rural America and it leverages the resources and talent embedded 

in America’s electric co-ops. 

Thank you for giving the opportunity to share my comments this 

morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bony can be found on page 41 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Sanders, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNICAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, SAGE 

ELECTROCHROMICS, INC., FARIBAULT, MINNESOTA 

Ms. SANDERS. Thank you. Chairman Stabenow and Senator 

Lugar and members of the committee, I really want to thank you 

very much for the opportunity to come testify here today on the 

role SAGE Electrochromics is playing in creating economic opportunity and strengthening the green economy in rural America. In 

her absence, I would like to thank Senator Klobuchar for her kind 

introduction to me earlier. 

My name is Helen Sanders and I have a Doctorate from the University of Cambridge in surface science, and today I serve as the 

Vice President of Technical Business Development at SAGE 

Electrochromics, which is located in Faribault, Minnesota, in rural 

Rice County, where I have lived for the last 13 years. 

I want to tell you a little bit about SAGE. We are actually creating glass for windows that go beyond your traditional idea of the 

window being just simply a piece of glass in the wall. What is 

unique about our glass is that it uses a technology called 

electrochromics, which allows it to be made highly tinted or highly 

transparent or any tint level in between at the touch of a button. 

So in this way, you can actually manage the amount of light and 

heat that comes into your building depending on the exterior environment or the needs or the occupants. So you kind of have like 

13 

a heat or light valve for your building. This reduces the load on the 

HVAC system and improves thermal and visual comfort for the occupants. 

At SAGE, we like to think of the window now as an appliance 

that allows occupants to actively manage the amount of sunlight 

entering their building, and it allows occupants to keep out excessive heat and glare without resorting to the use of shades and 

blinds, which block the view to the outside. So you get to maintain 

that view and connection with the outside and let natural daylight 

in— which, of course, is the reason you put the window in in the 

first place. 

SAGE is the world’s leader in the commercialization of this technology for buildings, and we supply electrochromic glass for commercial, institutional, and residential windows. The electrochromic 

glass provides both daylighting and energy management solutions 

for a wide variety of buildings, for example, commercial offices, museums, religious buildings, high-tech buildings, colleges, and health 

care facilities, anywhere you need heat and light control. 

And, in fact, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories found 

that by actively managing lighting and cooling, these smart windows could actually reduce peak electric demand loads by 20 to 30 

percent in many commercial buildings, and potentially enhance the 

human comfort and productivity by maintaining that access to natural daylight and that view and connection with the outdoors. 

The U.S. Department of Energy has determined that the use of 

electrochromic glass in windows can save up to 28 percent of energy in most climate zones through reduced air conditioning demand and increased use of natural daylighting. That makes it a 

huge part of the energy efficiency equation. And, in fact, what we 

call variable solar control that is provided by electrochromic glass 

is one of the key building envelope technologies cited on DOE’s 

roadmap for achieving the zero energy commercial buildings goal in 

2030. 

Now, SAGE has actually advanced this technology to a point 

where we are actually expanding our manufacturing facility in 

Minnesota. We are constructing a 300,000 square foot facility, manufacturing plant, in Faribault and it has already created over 200 

construction jobs and will create about 160 permanent green manufacturing jobs. 

The project is in part financed by a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, and Senator Klobuchar has been instrumental 

in helping secure that loan guarantee. Another element of our 

funding is coming from the local electric cooperative, which is funded through a USDA loan program which is similar to the RUS program under discussion here. And the USDA financing provides a 

valuable contribution to our project because it is supporting the 

cost of implementing energy efficiency enhancement in our factory, 

including the use of energy efficient lighting systems, dimmable 

lighting controls, which, when we combine that with the unusually 

large number of windows and skylights that we are putting into 

our manufacturing facility, is going to provide significant energy 

savings. 

We are also doing a number of other—implementing a number 

of other energy efficiency measures in this factory, and as a result 

14 

of these and other energy savings, we project that our facility will 

be—the energy performance will be 28 percent better than the 

ASHRAE 90.1 baseline, which is the key national energy standards 

today. We are also going to be pursuing LEED certification for the 

building. 

So we expect to make significant energy savings to lower our 

operational costs, and as a result, we will be able to make further 

investments in our facility. The faster that we can reduce the cost 

of our product, the faster that we can build adoption in the marketplace and then the faster that we will be able to grow our business, 

increase the number of jobs, and also the faster that the nation will 

be able to capture the significant energy savings potential both in 

new construction and also in renovations of the existing building 

stock and the faster we will be able to get to the goal of low energy 

or zero energy buildings. 

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity that you have 

given me to testify today and I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders can be found on page 63 

in the appendix.] 

Senator LUGAR. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Dr. Sanders. 

The Chairman has asked me to preside momentarily as she takes 

care of another committee emergency and will reemerge soon. 

Let me commence the questions to the panel by asking you, Mr. 

Graham. You have described the 39 co-ops that are a part of the 

co-op organization that you head. How many rural homes in Indiana, from your estimate, would be eligible for the program we are 

talking about today? What is the extent of the market, taking Indiana as a possible State for that? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I would hesitate to give you an actual number, but as some of the other testimony indicated, the challenges 

we have in rural Indiana and across rural America are oftentimes 

substandard housing. We found— Hoosier Energy in the program 

that they just completed found that easy market for 2,000 homes 

to weatherize in that program alone, really without turning over 

too many rocks to find those homes. I mean, there is a lot of interest in these programs, and that was just the Southern part of Indiana. It was very easy to find eligible projects for that. 

I think there would be a great deal of interest. I do not know 

that I could tell you exactly how many, and, of course, that is going 

to depend upon how easy the rules are to comply with, how easy 

the program is to implement. The less red tape, the more aggressive our cooperatives can get with the program, and I think that 

is an important thing to remember. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Stewart, just trying to think through how all 

this gets underway, let us say that there are thousands of rural 

houses that would be eligible, but why do you believe that homeowners in these houses are going to apply for the program? First 

of all, how will they ever find out there is such a program and call 

upon you or other panel members today to commence so-called audits of their situation, which I gather is an examination of the way 

that energy savings might occur in that particular dwelling. In 

other words, how do we get the momentum going, even if we make 

15 

estimates of how many houses there are and how much energy 

might be saved in America? 

Mr. STEWART. Marketing. 

Senator LUGAR. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. We have got to get out and hit the streets, and we 

are doing that. We are hitting it. And additional funding to market, 

the electric co-ops being able to send out flyers with the bill every 

month. I mean, there are definitely ways to get the word out, ways 

that I cannot do, fellow contractors like myself cannot do. The 

county that I live in is all served by an electrical co-op. Every county around the area is. They have a unique opportunity to get the 

word out to their members. 

Senator LUGAR. So the co-op or the organization Statewide has 

to, through circulars or through some type of advertisement, make 

this knowledge available. Even at that point, there must surely 

have been a lot of homeowners for years who knew down deep they 

could probably have a more efficient situation but never got around 

to it or this was not so obvious in terms of savings that they 

thought about it, quite apart from how it would be financed. What 

is going to bring about, not a revolution in rural America, but at 

least an awakening so that significant percentages of people say, 

‘‘Aha, this really is an opportunity for me. I would like to call somebody, a co-op or contractor, to get on with this.’’ 

Mr. STEWART. Well, as the prices of your utility goes up, I mean, 

that is going to sell itself. We battle with that every day. How do 

we get them on board? How do we convince this person that they 

need to have that happen? And it is really those case studies and 

their neighbors getting it done and getting into one neighborhood 

or area. Everybody is close knit, so if I can get into one house and 

then we can start rolling that around, then the word of mouth that 

I saved $150 on my utility bill a month during the winter because 

of these things that happened, I believe that is going to benefit and 

it is—that is one way. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, if somebody calls you and asks for an 

audit, how much would that cost? What would the cost of the audit 

be? 

Mr. STEWART. It definitely depends on how extensive they want it to be, but they generally run from $300 to $500, based on the 

square foot. I mean, if it is a huge home, obviously, there is more 

time into the house. 

Senator LUGAR. So the homeowner up front spends $300 or 

$500—— 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 

Senator LUGAR. —to get the word as to what kind of changes—— 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 

Senator LUGAR. —as the basis for the loan, then, that is taken. 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely. And I definitely—audits are a crucial 

point in this whole process and I really want to encourage any incentives for rebates on audits to be done only if they do select 

measures. If they do not choose to do anything, then they are going 

to have all their skin in the game, right, and pay for the whole 

audit. But when you can couple the incentives rebates from utility 

companies with actual measures being installed, I believe that is 

a very useful approach. 

16 

Senator LUGAR. Dr. Sanders, why would somebody come to you, 

even if you have these remarkable windows? How do people know 

of the 28 percent savings? Do you advertise this widely? Would it 

be likely that rural customers would say, I need those windows? 

Ms. SANDERS. We do advertise. Mainly, you buy our glass 

through the standard window purchasing channels from some of 

the large wood and vinyl window manufacturers. Our testimony 

was primarily to look at the impact of the loans for small businesses in reducing our overhead and our operating costs and, 

therefore, being able to deliver our glass to customers at a lower 

cost. So the more that we can do that, the more accessible they are 

to the rural customers. 

Senator LUGAR. But let us say an audit has been conducted by 

Mr. Stewart, so windows are a part of this situation. But how does 

this customer, who may not be sophisticated in terms of all the options, decide that he or she wants your windows? 

Ms. SANDERS. I think it would, again, go back to marketing and 

the knowledge of the people doing the audit who are making recommendations about how—what is the best technology to be retrofit to solve their problem. I think it goes back to awareness with 

the people doing the audits. 

Senator LUGAR. I appreciate your responses. I want to turn to my 

colleague now for his questions. Senator Casey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY JR., U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Lugar. 

I apologize to the panel for being late. I missed most of, except 

the very last part of Mr. Graham’s testimony. I heard the other testimony after that. But I am grateful for the opportunity, and Mr. 

Chairman, I will submit my statement for the record as part of this 

hearing. I will not read a statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Casey can be found on page 

38 in the appendix.] 

Senator LUGAR. It will be made a part of the record. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. I just wanted to ask a couple of basic 

questions about not just the topic that we are examining today, but 

also that topic within the context of what is happening here in 

Washington the last couple of days and certainly even over the last 

couple of weeks. There is an appropriate focus on deficit and debt, 

but all the time we are doing that, we seem to have lost our way 

or lost our focus on the question of job creation. So this hearing is 

particularly timely. 

I wanted to ask if you had to answer—you are not required to 

have an answer to this, but I will try—if you had to answer the 

following question, how do we create jobs in rural America in the 

next 12 months, or let us say six months to 12 months, either in 

the context of this legislation or more broadly, because I know in 

Pennsylvania, we have got a State of approaching 13 million people. We are about between 12-and-a-half and 13, depending on 

what year you pick. Of those 12-and-a-half-plus million people, we 

have got at least three-and-a-half, if not more than that, who are 

living in so-called rural areas demographically. It is a huge rural 

population. 

17 

And when I go across our State and see the unemployment rates, 

invariably, the highest percentages have been in rural areas, small 

towns, communities, rural counties where most of the county is 

considered rural. Some of the economic trauma has been focused on 

a particular sector or industry. Dairy farmers, of course, have lived 

through hell, if I can say that in a very dramatic way. Some have 

just been suffering through what a lot of other communities are, 

whether they are rural or urban or suburban. It is access to capital. It is energy costs. It is a whole range of impediments to job 

creation. 

So I would ask you, in the context of this legislation, and just 

based upon your own experience, you are in the trenches meeting 

budgets and creating jobs. What could we do here that would either 

have a direct impact on job creation in rural America or would be 

an incentive or a triggering mechanism to create jobs? And I am 

talking short-term. Maybe start with you, sir, Mr. Bony. 

Mr. BONY. Yes, thank you, Senator. By the way, Pennsylvania is 

the largest State for our equipment, so thank you for that. You are 

our number one market. 

Senator CASEY. I cannot take credit for that, but I will. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BONY. Well, you are tied for first with New York, so we appreciate that. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BONY. There is a precedent in the past, and it was the Rural 

Conservation Service, which was an energy audit program implemented in the Carter administration where utilities got to do energy audits, or actually—I hate to use the word—but were mandated to do energy audits for all of their members. The gas companies did the gas audits. The electric companies did propane and 

electric if it was the primary heating and cooling fuel. The flaw in 

RCS is the audits were mandatory, but there was no mechanism 

to get consumers to take action after the audit. 

What is being proposed in this potential legislation is now the 

utilities could do the audits. They would have, at least in co-op 

country, they would have the financing available then to connect 

the consumers with the contractors and any implementable measure that had a positive cash flow, it is a lot easier purchase decision for a consumer when it is a turnkey package. 

The other part of this bill that I do not want to be overlooked 

is the on-bill collection component, where the loan stays with the 

property through the electric meter or the gas meter. Now the consumer is not frozen up on, wait a minute, what happens if I want 

to sell? What happens if I have to move? The infrastructure investment stays with the meter so the consumer is not hung up on having the loan stay with them. 

Those are very powerful tools that did not exist when we had the 

RCS audit program, and so if you could have the utilities—you 

could say, utilities, we want you to go audit these homes. We want 

you to offer on-bill financing. And we want you to train and aggregate your contractors, and there is—I live in the second-highest unemployment county in Colorado. We are rapidly pushing to be 

number one, and that is very unfortunate. Most of my friends who 

are in the construction industry—I flew home last week. The guy 

18 

who did my brick work was taking tickets at the airport to get out 

of the parking lot. That is very disconcerting to me. 

So have the utilities do the audits. Have the financing available. 

The utilities can put the contractors together and use on-bill as the 

mechanism to make sure the consumers can fund anything that 

has a positive cash flow in that audit report and I think you can 

put people to work in a hurry. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. I know we may only have time for 

one other response, but either Mr. Stewart or Dr. Sanders? It is a 

jump ball. 

Ms. SANDERS. I guess from a small business perspective, to drive 

job creation in small businesses we need to think about trying to 

reduce operating costs, and the extent to which you can provide the 

ability to implement energy efficiency measures will help drive 

down operating costs which will give, or improve cash flow and enable people to put the money to work in building their businesses 

and creating more jobs. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, and 

I apologize for stepping out again to go to the Energy Committee, 

but we were successful there and I am now glad to be back. 

So let me ask each of you, specifically around jobs, because I appreciate the discussion in terms of rural America, but when we are 

discussing the possibility of the Rural Energy Savings Program, 

some of you have touched on it, each of you in some way, but from 

the outside, I am not sure people really understand exactly what 

we mean or the broad array of which jobs can be created from 

something like this. So I wondered if each of you might talk about 

the fact that—what would happen if the program was available 

and walk me through the process that each of you would use from 

your positions to make improvements in a home or business and 

how this, in fact, would create jobs on the ground. What kind of 

jobs are we talking about? Mr. Graham. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Certainly. The job opportunities are diverse for a 

program like this. From the electric cooperatives’ perspective, we 

are going to—it is going to be in our best interest to have an energy auditor on staff, I think, because the cooperatives are ultimately responsible for repaying the loan, and so that would probably be an immediate job creation opportunity for the cooperatives. 

We are going to have to—we would work with contractors that 

exist already, because you have heard about the important relationship we already have with contractors that exist. There would 

be a need to promote the program. There will probably be a need 

for somebody to track the costs of the program. There are going to 

be jobs that are created there. 

But we can demonstrate in the project that we had for the stimulus program that the immediate jobs are going to be for the installation and the contractors. The program that Hoosier Energy went 

through, the contractor that did that work created 30 full-time jobs 

just to do that program. So that is just from the contractor’s perspective. Then you had the wealth that is created by those jobs 

that has the downstream positive effect from all of those opportunities. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Mr. Stewart. 

19 

Mr. STEWART. At my level, I cannot install windows by myself. 

If the workload picks up, obviously, I have to hire people to do that. 

And what goes with that, obviously, is windows. I have to buy my 

windows. I have to go to Home Depot. That is the large supplier 

in the area. I mean, I have to buy those things. I have to hopefully 

hire another auditor and buy the equipment, the associated equipment that goes with it, the blower doors, the infrared cameras, 

whatever. 

That is the jobs that I would be creating, in addition to administrative positions just within my company. And then subcontractors. 

I do not install furnaces myself, so I subcontract it out to a HVAC 

contractor. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. So you are talking about actually purchasing equipment, which means other retailers, which means they 

have been getting equipment from the folks that make it. Then you 

are talking about hiring people to install it and so on. 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Yes. Mr. Bony. 

Mr. BONY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did a program called the 

Home Energy Makeover Contest, which is now run nationwide by 

the Electric-Gas Industry Association, the first one being done in 

Colorado, another testament to our great State, I guess. We wanted 

to know how bad the homes were and we wanted to know how 

much employment it would take to put them in order. 

We basically set out in our cooperative newsletter, if you think 

your bills are too high, let us know, and we looked up people’s bills. 

We got several thousand folks who entered that contest. Now, that 

is on a meter base of about 40,000 total customers. So we had 

about a five percent response rate just to win this home energy 

makeover. 

So then we had to go through the steps. The first was we needed 

to do the home audit, like Mr. Stewart’s company would do. So a 

fellow showed up with the blower door and the thermal camera, 

and I even crawled in a few attics and basements myself just to 

see if it was as bad as I remembered, and it was worse. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BONY. The next step is then you have to fix all the stuff that 

does not done right, correctly—disconnected ductwork, adding insulation, taking windows out if they have totally failed, that kind of 

thing. 

Then for the particular equipment that we represent, ground 

source heat pumps, somebody has to put the loop in, so that is either a fellow on a backhoe with a helper or two guys on a drill rig. 

We had to install the heating and air conditioning equipment. That 

is usually a two-man crew. There was always somebody in the back 

office to answer the phones and process the paperwork and do the 

purchasing. We hired other trades, which would include weatherization contractors, insulation blowers, electricians, carpenters, 

sheet rock workers if we had to tear out a wall. 

And then upstream, with the job I do now, we had to buy products from manufacturers. They had to get those products on trucks. 

Those trucks had to go to distribution warehouses and they had to 

get it to the field. 

20 

So when you summarize all the folks that are involved, my personal math said five jobs per 100 homes that got a full workover. 

When I argue this with my friends, they say up to seven jobs per 

100 homes, so the truth is probably somewhere in between that 

range. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Very good. Very interesting. Thank you. 

Dr. Sanders? 

Ms. SANDERS. From SAGE’s perspective, we would be able to implement energy efficiency technologies into our buildings, which 

would reduce our operating costs, and obviously the implementation of those energy efficiency measures would create jobs by virtue 

of the fact they need to be installed. 

But on top of that, though, it is really as we reduce our manufacturing costs, it enables us to produce our product at lower cost and, 

therefore, offer it to the market at lower prices, which drives market adoption, which allows us to grow our business, which allows 

us to expand our manufacturing and hire more people. And it is 

like a virtual circle. 

On top of that, one of the benefits of energy efficiency and developing more sustainable design in your building is that you get to 

have a more comfortable and more productive workplace, and that 

also enables us to attract and retain top talent, which is really important for us to remain competitive, especially in the global environment. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

And in closing, let me just ask, Mr. Graham, could you talk just 

for a moment and elaborate a little bit more about the difference 

between the existing program and the proposal for a Rural Energy 

Savings Program. 

Mr. GRAHAM. The existing program and—— 

Chairwoman STABENOW. What you have been doing and what 

the difference is, why it is good to have the kind of program that 

we are talking about. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, the Rural Energy Savings—there are existing 

programs, but right now, they are few and far between. The value 

of this program would allow us to roll it out nationwide and there 

are a lot of efficiencies in that. Our national association or the government, if we create a model plan that everybody can adopt— 

there would be unique features to every State because every State 

has different needs weather-wise and improvement-wise—but if we 

create a wider range of program, then I think we have a much 

stronger success rate opportunity from this. So this is really kind 

of rolling it out nationally rather than leaving it to the individual 

cooperatives to initiate this program. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Great. Well, thank you very much for 

each of you coming today. This is an important discussion, certainly in terms of jobs, which is a major focus for us, as well as 

what we can do in terms of energy savings, and we look forward 

to continuing to work with you on this. Thank you. 

I am going to ask our second panel to come forward. I apologize 

again that we continue to have people coming in and out, but it 

does not negate the interest in the topic by any means. We are actually very excited about the opportunity to expand upon the great 

work that is being done, both around energy efficiency but also 

21 

around bio-based products, and this is the beginning of that discussion as we look for ways that we can be supportive. Please come 

forward. 

[Pause.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Good morning. We are really pleased to 

have all of you here, and as I indicated, we expect colleagues coming back from other hearings to join us. We are very anxious to 

hear about the work that you are doing and how we might be supportive of that in partnership with you. 

Let me first start with our first panelist and introduce Dr. Marc 

Verbruggen, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of 

NatureWorks. Prior to this appointment with NatureWorks, he was 

the President of Toho Tenax America and we are very, very pleased 

to have you with us today. 

Our next witness is Dr. Oliver Peoples. Dr. Peoples is the founder and Chief Scientific Officer for Metabolix, Incorporated, based in 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Dr. Peoples is a pioneer in the field 

of metabolic pathway engineering. He holds many patents related 

to genomics, including the first U.S. patent on the expression of 

PHA genes in crop plants, so we welcome you today. 

Our third panelist is Mr. John McIntosh. Mr. McIntosh is the 

Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Signature Crypton Carpet in Dalton, Georgia, and most recently was instrumental in 

forming a partnership with the Yellowstone Park Foundation 

which recycles all of Yellowstone National Park’s plastics, remaking them into Signature’s carpet backings. We are pleased to have 

you with us. 

Mr. Hall, who has already been introduced by Senator Brown, 

who we hope is going to be joining us, returning with us, as well, 

but we appreciate Mr. Dennis Hall, who is the Assistant Director 

of the Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center in Columbus, Ohio. 

So welcome to all of you and we will start with Mr. Verbruggen 

first. 

STATEMENT OF MARC VERBRUGGEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATUREWORKS LLC, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 

Mr. VERBRUGGEN. Thank you, Chairwoman. My name is Marc 

Verbruggen. I am the CEO of NatureWorks located in the home 

State of committee member Senator Klobuchar. 

I would like to start with recognizing Senator Nelson. We have 

worked with Senator Nelson for a long time, even going back to the 

time when he was Governor. I also would like to thank Senator 

Johanns from Nebraska for all his great work he has done for us. 

We have a large manufacturing plant in Blair, Nebraska, where 

today we directly employ about 100 people and are presently investing tens of millions of dollars expanding the existing capacity, 

all because of the large global growth we see for our product. 

I would like to start out by talking about not the bio industry, 

but the regular chemical industry. Just some statistics. Between 

1997 and 2003, the U.S. trade balance, if you think about chemicals, has plummeted from a $20 billion surplus to a $10 billion deficit. Over that same time period, the U.S. chemical industry lost 

about 100,000 jobs. If you wonder where those jobs went, you can 

22 

look at any statistic and see that the Middle East plastic industry 

is growing by about 20 percent per year. 

In contrast, if you look at bio-polymers, according to a recent jobs 

report issued about bio, this committee could help create about 

250,000 direct U.S. jobs in the sustainable chemistry sector, which 

could capture about 19 percent of an estimated $1 trillion global 

bio-chemical market. 

With that broad context, I would like to talk a couple minutes 

about NatureWorks. We were the first company to commercialize 

a broad range of bio-polymers derived 100 percent from renewable 

resources. We engineered and built the first ever large-scale biopolymer plant with the required economies of scale to compete head 

to head with traditional plastics. Our proprietary PLA polymer, 

marketed under the Ingeo brand name, can today be found in a 

wide variety of applications. By the way, we were able to put some 

of them on the desk over there. You can look at rigid and flexible 

disposable packaging, wipes, diapers, and in a blended form, an increasing range of semi-durable products, such as gift cards, mobile 

phones, computer housing, and copier housing. Today, global 

brands and retailers such as Coke, Pepsi, Danone, Nestle-Purina, 

Toyota, Walmart, all have Ingeo products in their global portfolio. 

Beyond NatureWorks, this Ingeo demand is creating jobs and 

spurring new product growth for our customers. Just to name a 

couple, we have large customers in Ohio, like Clear Lam and 

PolyOne, and a large customer in Michigan, Fabrikal. Actually, 

Fabrikal today is one of our largest global customers for our product. 

NatureWorks is a typical representative of the broader bio-polymer industry in that it creates a number of benefits, a carbon footprint typically half of traditional plastics. And since our products 

are 100 percent based on renewable resources, we have abundantly 

available feedstock in the United States. And based on present 

feedstock economics, so today’s oil price versus today’s corn price, 

PLA can compete very well with disposable oil-based plastics such 

as polystyrene or PET while creating value for upstream farmers 

and downstream customers. 

Just to put it in perspective, even during the global recession, 

NatureWorks grew about ten percent per year, and out of the global recession for the last two years, we have been growing by more 

than 30 percent year over year. Clearly, consumers around the 

world have been driving this demand for sustainable cost-effective 

plastics and global brands see the value in low-carbon product 

launches. Another piece of information is that we export more than 

50 percent of our products outside the United States. 

Because of time, in my written testimony, I gave seven different 

policy principles which could really help driving our business forward. Because of time, I will not go into them. 

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that in a global economy, 

the importance of bio-plastics have now been understood globally, 

also. The U.S. today is by far the most efficient corn producer, 

which for us is our feedstock in Nebraska, but other feedstocks can 

also be used such as cane sugar or other starches. Therefore, other 

countries around the world are trying to get bio-plastic investment 

to their country to add value to their feedstocks and create jobs 

23 

over there. Just as an example, there is one Southeast Asian country who is now providing an incentive package containing a 15-year 

tax abatement for investors in the bio-plastics industry. 

In the end, only the marketplace will decide which innovations 

will succeed. NatureWorks is a very firm believer that green plastics, which economics tied to renewable resources, will be one of the 

key growth drivers for the next decade, creating numerous green 

jobs tied to domestic feedstocks rather than imported oil. 

Where the U.S. Government can help is to support innovation 

through competitively awarded research funds, but most important 

at this point, to redouble their efforts through tax legislation to attract the manufacturing base, because we are ready to manufacture. We are not a start-up. We are not an emerging technology. 

We are ready to manufacture today. Other countries know that, as 

well, so there is a competition going on. It is very important over 

the next five years that the U.S. positions itself well. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verbruggen can be found on page 

68 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, and we want you 

making your items in America, no question about it, so thank you 

very much. 

Dr. Peoples, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF OLIVER P. PEOPLES, FOUNDER AND CHIEF 

SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, METABOLIX, INC., CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. PEOPLES. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

other distinguished members of the Senate. 

The creation of long-term sustainable jobs in rural America is 

something I consider to be a personal mission. I have been very fortunate to come to this country many years ago and this country 

has been very, very good to me. I have also found the creation of 

jobs in rural America to be one of the most rewarding aspects of 

my career. 

As a much younger scientist, I came to the U.S. from Scotland 

27 years ago and I went to MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. One 

thing led to another and I was very fortunate to help found a new 

company with two of my colleagues. The company, Metabolix, will 

celebrate its 20th anniversary in June of next year. 

This company was formed with what was then a revolutionary 

vision and mission: To use the emerging tools of genetic engineering to create a new chemicals and materials industry based on renewable agricultural resources. This was always going to be about 

rural development. This concept stemmed from a basic science 

project funded by the Office of Naval Research, and at the time, the 

terms ‘‘industrial,’’ ‘‘biotechnology,’’ and ‘‘synthetic biology’’ had not 

been coined. Oil prices were under $20 a barrel. We were effectively pioneering in a very lonely way what is known today as the 

bio-based products and biochemicals industry. 

In thinking about the message I wanted to convey to today’s 

hearing, given that this is not really my forte, I came up with three 

with respect to jobs in rural America. Bio-based products and 

chemicals, as my colleague has said, has the potential to revitalize 

24 

U.S.-based manufacturing and create large numbers of sustainable 

jobs. Continued government investment in industrial biotech innovation and R&D providing value to agricultural feedstocks is also 

crucial to long-term sustainable job creation. The government can 

facilitate deployment of this emerging industry in the U.S. based 

on locally developed technology by creating demand, both through 

policy and also your purchasing power. You are a very large customer. 

To get back to my story, with the help of a few visionary investors, we worked on the technology in our labs in Cambridge, Massachusetts with Federal support in the form of grants, as we 

watched the bio-pharmaceutical industry emerge around us. When 

I first came to the U.S., companies like Amgen, Genentech, et 

cetera, were very small start-up companies. Today, if you look at 

Cambridge, it has been completely transformed and we have tens 

of thousands of very high-paying, high-quality jobs based in biotechnology. 

In Metabolix’s case, given our focus, today we are pleased to see 

that our first production plant with a capacity of 50,000 tons per 

year of new bio-plastic is in operation with our partner, ADM, in 

Clinton, Iowa. The Clinton polymer plant has over 100 employees 

with future expansion plans to quadruple this. I believe there were 

over 500 construction jobs during its development. 

Well, why Clinton, Iowa? Frankly, there is not too much corn in 

Massachusetts and ADM operates a very large corn wet mill in 

Clinton with enough infrastructure and sugar to supply future expanding demand. This speaks to a very fundamental advantage of 

rural areas in the emerging bio economy, which is the ability to 

supply the necessary feedstock for these new products and for new 

production facilities based on technological innovation. 

Jobs will always move to the center of competitive advantage. 

That is why the oil and gas is moving to the Middle East. In the 

case of the U.S. Midwest, we have that feedstock. We have that 

foundation. What we need is to get that industry going. 

The ADM polymer employees in Clinton are well trained, capable, and very hard working with a ‘‘can do’’ attitude so typical of 

rural America. Another plus in addition to having the feedstocks 

available for this new industry, we have the employment workforce 

ready to go. 

A compelling feature of bio-based products is the downstream job 

multiplier effect. Based on this new bio-plastic, we have rejuvenated the plastics industry in Massachusetts, which is where, fondly enough, the plastics industry actually started before it started to 

move away. With our Telles Bioplastics Center headquartered in 

the revitalized industrial city of Lowell, a former big mill town, 

very big in basically the textile manufacturing before that migrated 

over the sea, as well. Telles is the name of the joint venture with 

ADM. So in this converted textile mill, we have 50 plastics scientists, engineers, and commercial staff working and processing applications and sales of Mirel Bioplastics. These jobs are further 

multiplied by end users or converters of the Mirel Bioplastics into 

products like bags, films, consumer goods, et cetera, et cetera. 

Globally, as my colleague has said, bio-plastics are growing very 

rapidly, over 20 percent per year, with an almost unlimited upside 

25 

potential. The chemicals and plastics industries currently account 

for some ten percent of all petroleum used with the global production of plastics being around 500 billion pounds. The net value of 

this is around 400 billion pounds, if you focus on the lower value 

end. Simply put, replacing a barrel of oil making higher valueadded bio-plastic products and chemicals is as effective at reducing 

dependence on imported oil as a gallon of bio-fuel. 

The technical innovation developed in the U.S. to make bio-products is an opportunity for the U.S. to recapture its once dominant 

position in the plastics and chemicals markets. At its peak in the 

1950s, the industry was responsible for over five million jobs and 

a $20 billion positive trade balance. My colleague has addressed 

what has happened in the last decade. 

So with respect to bio-based chemicals and plastics, they represent a historic opportunity to reverse these trends through the 

creation of a new generation of renewable, sustainable products developed and produced in the U.S. The U.S. and in particular rural 

America has a substantial competitive advantage in available arable land, advanced agriculture and infrastructure. We can couple 

this with leading innovative industrial biotech, an outstanding 

labor force, and excellence in manufacturing. In addition, we have 

the potential to use all of the infrastructure created for the existing 

petroleum industry to essentially take large volumes of bio-plastics 

to market. We basically have the makings of a very powerful biobased products industry to revitalize manufacturing in this country. 

Even in its early stages, the bio-based products industry accounts 

for several thousand direct jobs and likely tens of thousands economy-wide. Achieving the industry’s full potential could create tens 

of thousands, bring jobs into the United States within the next five 

years, and the majority of these will be where the feedstock is, 

which is the rural areas. And when I say feedstock, it is not just 

corn. It is also trees. We have a very considerable forest industry 

in this country also in demise due to the lack of need for packaging, mainly because we have stopped making things to package. 

As I stated earlier, Federal funding of innovative R&D is also 

crucial to maintaining and building on our advantages. The technology behind the success of the Mirel Bioplastics and the two 

other commercial platforms being developed by Metabolix was 

based in part in Federal funding. Using only the bio-plastics case, 

Metabolix translated less than $5 million in Federal support into 

what is now over $300 million in private investment in the business. Economic development impacts will include the creation of 

high-valued green jobs, improved trade balance, reduction of CO2, 

and enhanced energy security through reduction of dependence on 

imported foreign oil. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I have to ask you, Dr. Peoples, if you 

could wrap up. Thank you. 

Mr. PEOPLES. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peoples can be found on page 57 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. We very much 

appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. McIntosh? 

26 

STATEMENT OF JOHN McINTOSH, VICE PRESIDENT OF SALES 

AND MARKETING, SIGNATURE CRYPTON CARPET, DALTON, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow and the rest 

of the committee. It is an honor and we are very excited to share 

with you what we are doing in Northwest Georgia. On behalf of 

1,100 employees of Textile Management Associates that include 

such brands as AstroTurf and SynLawn and Syntec, Universal Textiles Technology, and my company, Signature, we are excited to 

share with you how we are growing jobs by the utilization of biobased products. 

Eight years ago, the leadership of our company, led by Tom 

Peeples and Larry Mashburn and Doug Giles of UTT began the exploration of bio-based technology to replace existing petrochemicals 

that had been used in polyurethane carpet backings for some 30 

years. Through their exploration, they were led to the United 

States Soybean New Uses Committee and a new and dynamic partnership was made with American farmers. 

Through those efforts, the industry’s first high-performance carpet backing, BioCel, was introduced and has become a standard in 

the specified commercial market sector as we know it. Today, 

BioCel can be found in some of the most prestigious installations 

across the U.S., including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

U.S. Patent Offices, walk-off matting systems that have just been 

installed at the Pentagon, landscape turf all across the country by 

SynLawn, AstroTurf athletic fields that are found in professional 

stadiums like the St. Louis Rams and also most recently in the 

University of Cincinnati baseball field, and two home runs in Kansas at the Kansas Jayhawks baseball fields and the K State Wildcat football field will now all be scoring on soy in the future. 

All totaled, UTT and through its use of polyols extracted from 

American-grown soybeans have displaced literally millions of 

pounds of foreign-dependent petrochemicals each year. By depending on U.S. agriculture, we are depending on the U.S. chemists and 

chemistry. More importantly, the use of soy in our backing technologies has shown no increase in our cost, while in the manufacturing process improving performance resulting in a cost-neutral 

environmentally responsible solution for our customers. 

This has driven great demand for our product over the last three 

to four years, and that is very important, because over that time 

in Northwest Georgia, our economy, like many of the manufacturing places across the country, have been hit hard through the 

economic downturns, with our unemployment rates hovering 

around 11 and 12 percent. Through these tough times, Textile 

Management Associates and UTT and our brands, by utilizing biobased technologies, have actually been able to grow our workforce 

by some ten percent, and we are currently investing around $3 million in creating our own plant to create our own polyols to expand 

into other markets, as well, continuing to lessen our industry’s dependence upon foreign oils. 

One of the things that I have learned is that success draws success and innovation draws innovation. The USB introduced us to 

an incredible gentleman, Jim Evanoff, who is an environmental 

protection specialist at Yellowstone National Park where he had a 

27 

little problem, where 43 tons of plastics were going overseas every 

year. This was not acceptable. We partnered with Yellowstone and 

Four Corners Recycling, CPE, in South Carolina and the USB to 

form a partnership where we now take all of these plastics back 

to Dalton, Georgia, and recycle them back into our products. 

My company, Signature Crypton Carpet, was so inspired by this, 

we created an entire line devoted specifically to the inspiration of 

the natural order of nature in Yellowstone National Park. We 

formed a partnership with Aquafil, a yarn provider that is now providing us with nylon yarns that are 100 percent recycled content. 

Combined with the BioCel products, we now have the industry’s 

leading 82 percent green by weight products. We have displaced 82 

percent of either petrochemicals or virgin petrochemicals out of our 

products while increasing performance 30 percent. 

We are proud that the first installation went into the Snow 

Lodge just two months ago with plastics out of the Park. 

Having felt a need that the industry needs to adopt a more socially responsible position, as well, we partnered with the Foundation to say that 50 cents a square yard of every product sold out 

of that collection will go back into the Yellowstone Park Foundation 

that will help protect and preserve one of America’s most pristine 

natural resources. 

We firmly believe that if you always do what you have always 

done, that you are always going to get what you have always gotten. It takes great courage to create change. Our leadership 

changed 30 years of a mindset on how to make a petrochemical 

product and other new innovations inspired by such products like 

this will increase awareness, develop strategic partnerships, and 

we will take back our leadership in the world by doing well by 

doing good. 

We thank you for this opportunity to share these stories with you 

and look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh can be found on page 

55 in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much for your terrific 

work. 

Mr. Hall, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS HALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO 

BIOPRODUCTS INNOVATION CENTER, COLUMBUS, OHIO 

Mr. HALL. Chairwoman Stabenow, members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

I would also like to especially thank Senator Sherrod Brown for inviting me and his very kind introduction. It is a privilege to come 

before you as a member of the Ohio State University, the Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center, and also as a farmer, to talk about the 

amazing potential of bio products and bio-based manufacturing. 

My history is to have been doing this in Ohio, where we have as 

our number one industry in the State agriculture. But we also are 

very fortunate to have the number one polymer State in the country in terms of polymer employment and a very strong specialty 

chemical industry. And so the Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center 

was really born out of the idea of helping our polymer and chemical 

companies innovate by using bio-based materials from Ohio farms. 

28 

We have some amazing stories of companies that have been successful, some stories of products that we are just close to seeing the 

commercial scale, and a big line of entrepreneurs and small and 

medium-sized companies that are eager to get to that next level. 

So some of our stories. 

First is a young woman by the name of Cathy Horton who helped 

to create a company called Nutek. It is a line of cleaners and lubricants made from soybeans, the soybeans grown in Northwest Ohio, 

processed by Mercer Landmark and a farmer-owned co-op and converted into a wide line of cleaners and lubricants. 

Another product that most people from farm country are familiar 

with but did not really know is a composite known as Envirez. It 

is manufactured by Ashland Specialty Chemicals, and where people 

see that product is if they see a John Deere combine or tractor. The 

green panels that are on those combines and that farm machinery 

is actually a product of Ashland Specialty Chemicals. 

A product that we are very excited about, think has great potential but is still in a very early start-up phase is a natural fiber composite. We work with a company called the Natural Fiber Composite Corporation that has a proprietary technology to infuse the 

fiber into the plastic and make a composite that competes very 

nicely with fiberglass, being lighter in weight, less abrasive for 

manufacturers, lower in cost, and comparable in performance. 

And then one of the other stories that I am so excited to share 

about is we have a company that is a start-up company that is converting swine manure into an asphalt substitute for roofing applications. Yes, we are making shingles from swine manure. 

So we do not need to put biomass in the ground and cook it for 

a couple thousand years in order for us to make products out of it. 

One of the reasons that I think this is such an incredible opportunity for the United States is this single key statistic. Three-pointfour percent of all the oil we use today has a value as petrochemicals equal or closely equal to 70 percent of the oil we use today for 

transportation fuels. In other words, only 3.4 percent of all of our 

U.S. oil is used to make plastics, adhesives, paints, coatings, cleaners, detergents, those kinds of high-value products, and those products are equal in value to the 70 percent of the oil we use today 

for transportation fuel. 

It is that key point, the value-added opportunity of taking our 

wonder biomass materials and converting them into specialty 

goods, specialty materials, much the kinds of things that my panelists here have already talked about, that I think is an incredible 

opportunity. 

There is great demand out in the Midwest and across the country 

for these kinds of businesses, but we find that many of our companies very much struggle with the opportunity to hit that scale-up 

phase. It is very easy for them to make a beaker’s worth of quantity, but when they go to make a barrel’s worth of quantity for 

product testing that they run into trouble. 

I have outlined in my testimony other suggestions that I think 

are appropriate, but I will just conclude with saying that I am very 

honored to be here today. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, for this 

opportunity and I look forward to doing anything I can to help advance jobs in rural America and really developing the supply chain 

29 

that can provide up to a trillion dollars’ worth of material for our 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall can be found on page 49 in 

the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, and thank you 

to each of you. This is an area that I find very exciting, what you 

are already doing, and the question for our committee is what can 

we do to help take it to the next level. How can we be supportive, 

both in terms of supporting jobs for rural America and opportunities in terms of markets, continuing value-added processes, and so 

on for our farmers. 

Let me start, Mr. Hall, with what you were just saying as you 

were concluding your testimony in terms of being able to go to the 

next level and what happens in terms of commercialization. What 

has been the most effective tools and strategies that you have 

found, and are there things that we should be doing to help companies get through what is commonly called the ‘‘valley of death,’’ 

where new technologies struggle to get the financing to be able to 

commercialize and move forward. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. That is very common problem for small start-up 

companies and there are several strategies for how we can help 

them, how we as a government can help them. First, I would say 

that one of the strategies that the Ohio BioProducts Innovation 

Center uses is to surround that start-up company with a cluster of 

other companies that both precede them in the supply chain and 

are interested in purchasing their products. In that economic ecosystem, we can help to create the relationships that can help them 

move forward. 

But many of these companies need assistance with that next 

phase, that pre-commercial quantities, being able to provide sufficient material that those customers can effectively evaluate that 

material and see if it is going to work for them. We think that in 

most cases, once they have had the chance to try out these biobased products, they are going to find them superior and beneficial 

in many ways to their line of products. And so being able to access 

that is a very big deal. 

I am struck by the Biomass Research and Development Initiative 

Program that is a joint program between the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and the Department of Energy. In 2009, there were 

800 pre-proposals submitted requesting funds for that program, of 

which there were 22 grants awarded. The next year, people saw 

that and said, well, do I take the effort to write these big proposals, 

submit them to the USDA or to this program, only to find out that 

I am one of a thousand and the chances of me winning this award 

are so slim? The next year, the number of pre-proposals fell to 320 

and eight grants were awarded. 

The BRDI program is a model program. It is just underfunded. 

And it really would help so many companies to be able to get the 

sufficient quality and quantity of materials out to potential customers to address their opportunities. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Verbruggen, I noticed as you talk about Blair, Nebraska, 

that this is a population of about 7,500 people in a county seat 

which has a population of about 19,000. So this is a rural commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:13 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71632.TXT MICHA
30 

nity. I also understand that you have--NatureWorks sources the 

field corn for the PLA plastic produced within about 300 miles of 

Blair. So from a jobs standpoint, again, today, could you talk about 

the advantage of—a little bit more about the advantage of putting 

the plant where you have in a rural community in terms of quality 

of workforce, access to feedstock, and so on. Why does this make 

sense in the context of rural communities? 

Mr. VERBRUGGEN. From that point of view, we are actually not 

too different from your traditional petrochemical company. When I 

said earlier on that a lot of the traditional chemical jobs are moving to the Middle East, it is they just follow their feedstock. We are 

doing exactly the same. So if your feedstock is in Nebraska or Iowa, 

you are not going to build a plant in New York. I assume none of 

the New York Senators are here. 

So, truly, I think if you look at bio-plastics, biopolymers, you will 

see those plants very close to your feedstock, and the reason is very 

simple. Transporting feedstock is expensive. If you look at our variable cost, I would say well over 50 percent of our variable cost is 

feedstock. So it is to be expected that wherever you have vegetables 

oils or corn or any other feedstock, as my colleague here said, whatever feedstock you are going to use, that is where you are going to 

see the plants. 

And as I indicated before, it is important here to say that this 

is no longer technology development. It is no longer early innovation. We are way beyond that. So we are, indeed, ready to build 

plants wherever the feedstock is in North America. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McIntosh, could you talk a little bit about the partnership 

with the United Soybean Board to replace petroleum-based products and develop the new technologies in bio-based materials. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I will. A long time ago, I learned that those who 

say it cannot be done are usually interrupted by somebody doing 

it. The USB is one of those organizations. Our partnership with 

them has led to some pretty amazing advancements within our industry that was somewhat stuck in the status quo, and I think 

some of the most difficult things for manufacturing is moving the 

status quo. That requires investment. That requires vision. But 

most of all, it requires courage. And everyone that we have been 

associated with with the USB continues not to rest on, as our 

founder and owner, Mr. Peeples, has taught me, you cannot go pick 

yesterday’s blackberries, and they go and they are constantly looking to what is next and what is next. 

One of the things that I have seen most about today, the infrastructure is in place. We now have to go execute and educate and 

inspire, because I genuinely believe, like they do, that everyone, 

given the opportunity to do the right thing, will choose that. If we 

can provide performance and value and environmental responsibility, that is a win-win and that is what everyone is looking for. 

And they have been a great inspiration for us. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to 

thank our panel for their insights. 

31 

I am a big fan of science and technology and the advances that 

have been made there in terms of energy issues. I think it has dramatically changed and continues to change agriculture in rural 

America, and I think the question is how do we in this next farm 

bill utilize reduced dollars that are available to fund the necessary 

research to promote the increased development and utilization of 

bio-based products and ensure a continued role for agriculture in 

sustainably lessening our dependence on foreign oil. And that is 

going to be extremely difficult because of the budgetary constraints 

that we are facing, and that is a challenge that we are going to 

have to deal with. 

But it is pretty clear to me, Madam Chairwoman, that based on 

the testimony that we received from the witnesses today here that 

they are already moving rural America forward with a lot of these 

innovative, common sense approaches to growing America’s potential and to securing its sustainability. Bio-based products hold an 

exciting future for agriculture and potentially can help the United 

States to recapture chemicals and manufacturing jobs that we have 

been hemorrhaging to foreign countries. 

I just have a couple of questions, if I might, in that vein, and I 

would like to direct this one to Dr. Peoples. What do you think that 

the plastics and manufacturing industries in this country need to 

shift manufacturing back to the United States? 

Mr. PEOPLES. You know, fundamentally for the plastics manufacturing in this country, it is really about what is the opportunity 

and what is in it for them, quite frankly. And I think what is in 

it for them is really a whole new feedstock, which is basically the 

agricultural resource plus the technology that enables it to be converted into plastics that they can then use, as NatureWorks has 

ably demonstrated. And so I think it is really about them recognizing that there are materials coming along which can do the job, 

that they are bio-based, that they are made in America based on 

American feedstocks, using American employees, and I think it is 

a matter of them just recognizing that that is the case. 

In terms of what the Federal Government can do, my own view 

is I think you can help to create the demand, the demand for biobased content. There are rules in place at the USDA for that already in some areas and I think that is an area where you can be 

very effective in helping to deal with this industry in the United 

States. 

Senator THUNE. Do any of the tax policies need to be changed? 

Mr. PEOPLES. I really do not—I am not really able to comment—— 

Senator THUNE. You do not dabble in that? 

Mr. PEOPLES. I do not dabble in that. I am a scientist and I like 

to—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PEOPLES. —to stay within my comfort zone, which is I am 

happy to talk about the next great discovery, but it is really not 

my place to talk about tax policy. 

Senator THUNE. Right. Yes. 

Mr. PEOPLES. My colleague can perhaps comment. 

Mr. VERBRUGGEN. Thankfully, I am not a scientist, so I can talk 

about it. 

32 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VERBRUGGEN. No, I think what is very important right now 

is to get for the bio-plastics industry something like a production 

tax credit initiated for two reasons. If I look at some of my colleagues, which are early start-ups, a production tax credit can be 

the difference between being non-competitive compared to traditional plastics in that early stage of development, versus being 

more competitive and therefore quickly helping the industry displacing traditional plastics, traditional chemicals. 

For a company like myself, like ourselves, NatureWorks, having 

a U.S. tax credit in place will make the U.S. more competitive 

versus foreign governments. I mentioned in my testimony that in 

a Southeast Asian country today which I will not name, you get a 

15-year tax abatement for bio-plastics investment. We are working 

in a global economy. We are working in a global business. So the 

U.S. for getting investments in the United States will compete with 

those types of countries. 

So it will do two things, the production tax credit. It will help 

companies like NatureWorks, who are established, who are selling 

around the world, investing in the United States rather than somewhere else. For start-ups, it will make them more competitive out 

of the gate and, therefore, will help them grow quicker. 

Senator THUNE. Let me direct this question, if I might, to Mr. 

McIntosh. What commodity crop do you see as having the most potential to produce bio-based products? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. There are two within the carpet industry right 

now that are pliable for what we do in backings, that being soy and 

also corn, poly-light [phonetic] gasses out of corn. Our research has 

shown and our performance has shown that soy-based products are 

performing better in our backing systems. Being in the commercial 

end of our business, neither provide the tensile strength for a face 

fiber quite yet. The USB is funding and supporting a lot of research to be able to do that, because right now, the most embodied 

energy of a piece of carpet is in its fiber with nylon. So we are 

working hard to do that. But right now, it has been the soy-based 

products. 

Senator THUNE. Do you see that changing? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. You know, I would need to check with our chemists, but I know everything that we are doing right now, our investment in our own plants to create polyols, I do not see it changing 

any time soon. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all very 

much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Let me just conclude by asking each of you, and we have begun 

to really talk about it a bit in terms of a production tax credit, but 

if there was one thing that we could do to help move this forward 

so that we are really developing large-scale production of bio-based 

products, what would that be? Dr. Verbruggen. 

Mr. VERBRUGGEN. Let me start with this comment. It is something very obvious. I think the USDA, about, I think, six months 

ago, it might be a little bit longer, came out with a ‘‘BioPreferred’’ 

label, and I think for the first time, consumers all over America 

have now the option to choose between a traditional packaging maVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:13 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71632.TXT MICHA
33 

terial or a bio-plastic. And again, you see a lot of them around 

here. That by itself will create demand, because you could go in a 

Walmart a year ago and see our products everywhere, but often 

very difficult to recognize. Now, with that label on there, with the 

stamp of the U.S. Government on it, I think that will really spur 

demand. With demand come jobs, comes investment. So support for 

that particular program is going to be very important, for example, 

if you look at the next farm bill. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Dr. Peoples? 

Mr. PEOPLES. I would reiterate that and also indicate that I 

think there is a role in this for small businesses in terms of getting 

something similar to the set-aside program for small businesses so 

that small businesses can compete in this area. This is a very capital-intensive industry and it is very difficult for small businesses 

to participate in that way. So I would recommend that on top of 

what Marc said. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I think a purchase order for the 500,000 buildings in the U.S. Government that represents three billion square 

feet would be a good start. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. A good place to start. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Yes, ma’am. But seriously, I was going to mention the USDA BioPreferred program. What we are dealing with is 

education, is educating the consumer that there is a better alternative, a more not only environmentally responsible, but socially 

responsible, as well, that improves performance. 

So just the fact that I get to sit here from Dalton, Georgia, to 

be able to share with you these exciting things is somewhat overwhelming in itself. But our goal and I think where the government 

can help is in the GSA contracts which we are going to be taking 

the Yellowstone project to, the farm bill act that has already been 

placed. So all of these things are helping. But what I have learned 

is that it takes time. It is a crock pot, it is not a microwave fix. 

And it is going to take more and more people like Yellowstone that 

are in a leadership position, and everyone realizes that, the first 

national park and does incredible work. 

And so those are the type of things that will help because it 

starts all the way—our wellhead is a farmer’s field and it goes to 

an end product that is never put in a landfill. And so throughout 

the entire chain, from installers to farmers to mill workers to 

whomever touches it, maintenance people and things of that nature, just the exposure and the education to be able to create demand. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you, Mr.Hall? 

Mr. HALL. The Federal Government does a lot of really good 

things right now, and the Hatch Act that provides for research 

funding, the Smith-Lever which provides for extension, outreach 

programs, are very important, and we would not have an Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center in Ohio if we had not had those funds. 

But I think the current farm bill has one excellent program 

that—one model program that misses the mark for bio products, 

and that is the Bio-Refinery Assistance Program, Section 9003. It 

misses the mark in two ways. The first is that its focus is solely 

on advanced bio-fuels and we are not able to use this kind of proVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:13 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\71632.TXT MICHA
34 

gram to target these much more higher value-added products, the 

plastics and the advanced materials. 

And the second thing is the existing paradigm is that of rural development for that program, rural economic development, not agricultural economic development. We see great alliances, great opportunities to partner with major corporations that happen to be in 

the city, you know, and being able to more fully exploit that opportunity of connecting the agricultural resources to companies like a 

Goodyear or an Emery Oleochemicals would be very valuable, who 

happen to be in Akron and Cincinnati. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much to all of you. 

This is an area, I think, of really exciting opportunity for our country and certainly for rural America and we want to thank you for 

being here as a part of this. 

I would say that any additional questions for the record should 

be submitted to the Clerk five business days from today, which is 

Thursday the 21st of July at 5:00 p.m. 

Let me also say that we, at our very first hearing back in February, gave an overview of agricultural and rural economies and 

the importance of jobs. We started from the perspective of jobs, 16 

million people working in rural America in agriculture. And some, 

I think, off this committee were actually surprised that our agricultural economy is leading the nation’s economic recovery, which is, 

in fact, true, and we want to continue to stress that and continue 

to lead that. But agriculture will continue to lead the country in 

creating new opportunities in small towns in rural communities 

across America with all of our efforts. 

We heard today we can spur job growth, reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil, and add value to farmers’ agricultural products by 

supporting innovations such as the emerging bio-based manufacturing sector and encouraging energy efficiency improvements 

through legislation like the Rural Energy Savings Program. We are 

going to continue in the weeks and months to focus on these and 

other issues that will strengthen our economies in rural America 

and ensure that American agriculture continues to thrive, and I 

think this is a great opportunity for us to work together to make 

sure that happens. 

So thank you very much and the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

JULY 14, 2011 

36 


71632.001
37 


71632.002
38 


71632.003
39 


71632.004
40 


71632.005
41 


71632.006
42 


71632.007
43 


71632.008
44 


71632.009
45 


71632.010
46 


71632.011
47 


71632.012
48 


71632.013
49 


71632.014
50 


71632.015
51 


71632.016
52 


71632.017
53 


71632.018
54 


71632.019
55 


71632.020
56 


71632.021
57 


71632.022
58 


71632.023
59 


71632.024
60 


71632.025
61 


71632.026
62 


71632.027
63 


71632.028
64 


71632.029
65 


71632.030
66 


71632.031
67 


71632.032
68 


71632.033
69 


71632.034
70 


71632.035
71 


71632.036
72 


71632.037
(73) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

JULY 14, 2011 

74 


71632.038
75 


71632.039
76 


71632.040
77 


71632.041
78 


71632.042
79 


71632.043
80 


71632.044
81 


71632.045
82 


71632.046
83 


71632.047
84 


71632.048
85 


71632.049
86 


71632.050
87 


71632.051
88 


71632.052
89 


71632.053
90 


71632.054
91 


71632.055
92 


71632.056
93 


71632.057
94 


71632.058
95 


71632.059