llnited ^tatcs 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

November 6, 2013 

The Honorable Gina MeCarthy	 The f-lonorable Sylvia Mathews I3urwell 

Adniinistrator	 Director 

Environmental Protection Agcncy	Office of Ma.nagement and Budget 

1200 Pemisylvania Avenue, N.W.	 725 17fh Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460	 Washington, D.C. 20503 

Dear Administrator McCar-tliy ancl Director 13urwcll: 

I am concerned by reports that the I?nvii-onmerntal Protection Ageney is eonsiderinf; substantially 

lowerint; the volume requirenletlts for compliance with fcderal fterlcwable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

for 201 4. As the Administration continues to evaluate volume obligat'tons for 2014, I hope you 

Nvifl set reduiretnents at or as close to tlle levels prescribed in law as possible. 

"f'he RFS was designed to decrease our dependence on fossil fucls and drive economic 

development in rural America by creating new markets atld industries. Sincc its enactment in the 

hnergy Policy Act of 2005 (P.I_. 109-58) and subsequetlt expatlsion in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 1 10-140), the RFS has dertlonstrated success on both counts. 

According to industry estimates, domestic rcnewablc titcls displaced the need for more than 460 

million barrels of' oil in 2012, contributinb to the decline in our dependence on foreign sources of 

oil and cnhancing our energy security. I urtherrnore, ethanol prodttctioil contributed at1 estitnated 

$43.4 billion to GDP in 2012. In South Dakota alone, a recent report suggested a$3.8 billion 

economie impact (ro►n the ethanol industry. Should the Ef A sibnilicantly iower the volume 

obligations tior the RFS in 2014, it would urndertninc these important policy goals. 

In addition to taking a step backward for cnerl;y security and economic devclopnlent, settiJlg 

volume obligations at lower levels tliati ctrrrently rec'luired would harnl investment in advanced 

and celhtlosic biotiuels that promise cven grcater etivirotttnental benelits. Oi1e oCtlle great 

strengths of the RPS has been the certainty it providcs to attract investtnent and spur innovation 

in advanced renewable fuels. Already, biodiesel production h1s met and exceeded targets. 

Though cellulosic cthanol has bcen slower to develop, tretnendous investment 11as been and is 

being nlade in this sector. Acivanced bioCuel targets neecl to be based on real-world conditions, 

however, the RC'S rcquirements [`or 201=1 sliould reflect the expected market in 2014, not 

artiticially restrain t;roNvth. 

`I'hc tlexibility built into the RFS arnd discretion provided to the I:PA to adjust ohligations in 

ce►-tain circttmstances has proven important in responding to the slower than atzticipated 

developnletlt ot'cellulosic ethrtnol. It is critical, however, that the E`PA use its authority 

judiciously and withirn the context that Congress irntendecf. Interpreting the waiver autllority 

under Section 21 1(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Aet to include insufticient ret'ucling infrastrueture 

or flex l'uel capable vehicics is questionable and coulct subjcct the EPA to legal cllallerlges. "I'his 

nclrninistration llas donc commendable work to increase availability ot'refireling infrastrueture. 

The suggcstion that volume requiretitcnts as low as 13 billion gallons arc necessary seems to 

discount t11e amount oC tlea fue) vchicles capable ot'runnint; ot1 )^85 and the increasing 

availability of I:15 for consumers with ttpproved vehicles that would like to take advantage ot' 

.r..^eelans'^'Vw^r.^w^r7^ixR"vr+.fs .n^-,ca.vr^"r^'.•.•^a•_m..:-.n.,ta+-^^M^=+ia-v- ^ ^nc • «*rn- - i +,.	^...,^y.y,.:^x^^..^nea-.x ,T'^Sr^—....a..^,
etlianol bletids liiglier tliaii F.-'] 0. Well docutiietited eff'orts by tlle oil indListry to resist liiglieilevels of* ettiailol blends stiotild not be reNvarded with a decreasc in tlleir obligatioils under the 

law. Accommodating the oil industry's rcqLiest to lower theit- volume obligations below tlle socalled "blend wall" will only serve to perpettiate it at a ti►iie wilen coiisLttiiers are cager foi- iilore, 

not f6ver, choices at the punip. 

Congressional iiiient in creating the RFS was to broaden iiiarket access for renewable fuels atid 

spur development of advanced renewable ftiels. ArtiFicially cotistraining this market access due 

to the oil industry's resistance to tllc la\v wotild be a iiiistake. I llave appreciated tile 

commitment the Administration has provided to increasing otir ciiergy sccurity, iticreasitig lowcarboti etiergy sotirces, ati(I protiiotitig econoiiiie development tlirough itivestnicilts in a cleati 

etiergy economy, particularly in rural America. Maintaining the integrity of the RFS is critical to 

each of these priorities. 

Thank you for your coiisideratioil in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

c^^ ^- ^^-^-- 

Titil	iriison 

Uiiitcd States Senate