The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in nine areas of the United States with severe ozone pollution. The act set up a two-phase program. Under phase I, beginning in January 1, 1995, volatile organic emissions and toxic air pollutants are to be reduced by 15 percent. During phase II of the RFG program, to start in the year 2000, EPA’s rules require reductions of 5.5 percent of nitrogen oxides along with further reductions in volatile organic and toxic emissions. As an emission control measure, areas that have less severe ozone problems but that still exceed the standards may also use RFG to reduce pollution problems. Oxygenates are compounds that deliver oxygen to gasoline in various concentrations. As part of the required reformulation process, oxygenates must be added to gasoline to make up 2 percent of the finished product’s weight. A minimum of 2.7 percent oxygen is also required to be added to gasoline sold in 39 areas of the country to reduce carbon monoxide levels during the winter. In the form of ethanol, oxygenate is also blended with conventional gasoline to make gasohol—a gasoline extender and an octane enhancer. Biofuels are alcohols, such as ethanol or other chemicals, derived from biomass or living matter. Current research is focused on developing biofuels from the starch in corn kernels or from the fibrous cellulosic materials in the rest of the corn plant; it also focuses on cellulosic plants, such as fast-growing trees or grasses, and waste products, such as agricultural and forestry residues and municipal and industrial wastes. A glossary of terms appears at the end of this report. The following sections summarize the results of studies on the cost-effectiveness of RFG compared to other control options and the estimates for the price of RFG used in the various studies that we reviewed compared with the actual prices experienced. Studies done by EPA, the American Petroleum Institute, Radian Corporation, and Sierra Research, Inc., in conjunction with Charles River Associates, suggest that RFG may be cost-effective when compared with some pollution control measures but less cost-effective than other measures. However, significant differences in the studies’ objectives, methodologies, time frames covered, costs considered, types and extent of pollutants considered, and other factors produced widely varying estimates of costs per ton of pollutant removed, a common cost-effectiveness measure. Also, each of the studies evaluated somewhat different control measures and made different assumptions about the extent of the pollution and control measures already in use. These differences make comparisons of results between the studies very difficult. (App. II identifies the four studies that we reviewed and contains tables showing the cost-effectiveness estimates that were made by the various organizations.) For example, EPA estimates that removing volatile organic compounds using available control measures would cost from about $600 to $6,000 per ton of compounds removed. Specifically, EPA estimates that it would cost about $600 per ton for phase II of the RFG program; $1,300 per ton for enhanced automobile inspection and maintenance programs; $2,000 per ton for on-board diagnostic requirements for automobiles; $5,400 per ton for the basic automobile emission inspection and maintenance program; $5,550 per ton for phase I of the RFG program; and $6,000 per ton for Tier I requirements, which is an EPA emission standard for light-duty vehicles. Officials in EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources consider these cost-effectiveness estimates to be inexact, but they consider the estimates to be the best figures that they could develop with the data available to them at that time. Some regions of the country that are not required to use RFG, but which still need to lower ozone levels, are considering whether to require RFG or gasoline with low vapor pressure. Generally, in the studies that we reviewed, low vapor pressure gasoline was not included as an alternative control measure, but according to refining industry officials, it has the potential to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) at a lower cost than RFG. In a February 17, 1994, memorandum to an official in one area considering this option, EPA stated that RFG offers a number of benefits, besides VOC reductions that are due in part to the low vapor pressure of RFG, that low vapor pressure gasoline does not, including the reduction of air toxics and nitrogen oxides (when RFG phase II becomes effective) as well as federal enforcement of the RFG program. EPA also stated that the lower cost of reduced volatility gasoline may be offset in whole or in part by lower competition in the reduced volatility gasoline market. We obtained the estimates used for the price of RFG from the four cost-effectiveness studies that we reviewed along with other organizations’ price estimates. The estimates varied but were all close to the range of the actual prices experienced during the first 14 months of the RFG program, which began in January 1995. The estimates varied from a low of 3.3 cents to 4.0 cents per gallon more for phase I RFG than the price of conventional gasoline (cited by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Policy) to a high of 8.1 cents to 13.7 cents more per gallon (cited by the American Petroleum Institute). EPA estimated that the price of RFG would be from 3.0 cents to 4.9 cents per gallon more than the price of conventional gasoline for phase I of the program. DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has monitored prices for both conventional gasoline and RFG since the program began in January 1995. In the early weeks of the program, retail prices for RFG were as much as 12 cents a gallon more than those for conventional gasoline. However, March 1996 data indicate that the average gap between RFG and conventional prices had narrowed to about 5 cents per gallon. Furthermore, according to EIA, the price difference may now be closer to 3 cents. (See app. III for additional information on the estimated RFG prices compared with the actual prices experienced.) EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook for 1996 and supporting documents contain the most current and comprehensive estimate we could find of the potential for using oxygenates to displace the petroleum used to produce gasoline. EIA data indicate that for all uses of oxygenates in gasoline, including the RFG program, about 384,000 barrels per day of oxygenates will be blended with gasoline in the year 2000 and about 394,000 barrels per day in 2010. These projections compare with about 309,000 barrels per day of oxygenates that EIA reports were used in 1995. Adjusting for the lower energy density of oxygenates, the projected level of oxygenate use will potentially displace about 305,000 barrels per day of petroleum used to produce gasoline in 2000 and about 311,000 barrels per day in 2010. (See app. IV for additional information on EIA’s projections, along with the energy densities and volume blending ratios of the various oxygenates.) It is important to note that the above petroleum displacement estimates do not account for differing amounts of petroleum that may be used in the production process for ethanol and the other types of oxygenates. The extent to which petroleum will be used to produce oxygenates depends on several variables and, therefore, is difficult to predict. The greater the amount of petroleum that is used to produce oxygenates, the less petroleum will be displaced. As such, our estimates are likely to be somewhat higher than the displacement that will be actually experienced. Furthermore, the displacement estimates do not include any possible increases or decreases in refinery outputs made possible by using oxygenates in the refining process. The use of oxygenates could allow some refineries to operate their reformers at lower temperatures, thus increasing the amount of gasoline produced. Doing so, however, may result in reductions in the other petroleum-based products produced, making the total petroleum displacement potential difficult to assess. According to DOE, EIA, and petroleum industry officials, any increase in the finished products related to lower reformer operating temperatures would vary on the basis of the different refinery configurations but, in total, would likely be relatively small. One EIA analysis concludes that, not counting the volume displacement discussed above, the amount of petroleum used in the refining process may actually increase when using oxygenates, but that the increase is not statistically significant. The 1992 Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary of Energy to determine the technical and economic feasibility of replacing 10 percent of projected motor fuel consumption with nonpetroleum alternative fuels by the year 2000 and 30 percent by 2010. Using the EIA’s projected oxygenate use discussed earlier and adjusting for energy density differences, oxygenates would displace about 3.7 percent of the 8.21 million barrels per day of the projected gasoline consumption in 2000 and about 3.6 percent of the 8.64 million barrels per day by 2010. In terms of meeting the act’s 10- percent and 30-percent petroleum replacement goals, this amount of displacement will account for about 37 percent of the motor fuel replacement goal for the year 2000 and about 12 percent of the 2010 goal. Your office also asked us to estimate the level of petroleum displacement if all gasoline sold was reformulated. EIA’s projections assume that about 35 percent of all gasoline will be reformulated and another 5 percent will contain some level of oxygenates for other purposes. Assuming the same percentage share for the different types of oxygenates, and other assumptions that EIA used in projecting future oxygenate consumption, we estimate that about 762,000 barrels per day of petroleum would be displaced in the year 2000 and 777,000 barrels per day in 2010, if all gasoline were reformulated. This would amount to about 9.3 percent of projected gasoline consumption in the year 2000 and about 9 percent in 2010. We did not assess the added costs or other implications of reformulating all gasoline. The transportation sector is currently about 97 percent dependent on petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline. According to DOE, this dependence contributes to our vulnerability to oil supply disruptions and related price shocks. DOE and USDA have a number of research projects under way to develop biofuels technologies as alternative transportation fuels. Most of the projects focus on reducing the costs of raw material feedstocks and of transforming the feedstocks into ethanol. Progress has been made in reducing the cost of ethanol, and additional cost reductions are projected in the future. If such reductions are achieved, DOE and USDA expect increased demand for biofuels. The primary focus of DOE’s biofuels program is to produce ethanol from low-cost, high-yield cellulosic feedstocks. These are dedicated energy crops, such as trees that can be grown in short-rotation time periods (3 to 10 years), grasses that can grow on marginal croplands, agricultural residues, and waste products. To a lesser extent, DOE is also conducting research into biofuels technologies to produce biodiesel. The feedstock production research is conducted at DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where crops grown specifically for energy purposes are studied. Biofuels produced from waste products, such as municipal and industrial wastes, could potentially supply a small portion of transportation fuels in the near future. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado conducts research on converting biomass feedstocks to competitively priced transportation fuels. Research activities include (1) pretreating biomass to facilitate its conversion to fermentable sugars, (2) improving enzyme technologies to convert cellulosic biomass into fermentable sugars, and (3) developing processes to rapidly ferment sugars from biomass materials to ethanol. According to the Director of DOE’s Biofuels System Division, the total DOE funding for the transportation biofuels program was about $26 million for fiscal year 1995. (App. V provides more detailed information on DOE’s and USDA’s biofuels research efforts and describes the process of converting corn and biomass to ethanol.) The vast majority of USDA’s biofuels research program is focused on developing corn starch as a feedstock for ethanol and, to a lesser extent, research to produce biodiesel from farm crops. A small component of USDA’s ethanol program is devoted to research on producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass, such as agricultural residues and the remaining portions of the corn plant, such as the cob, hull, stalks, and leaves. USDA’s research on conversion technologies focuses on enzyme research to convert feedstocks to fermentable sugars, fermentation improvements to increase ethanol yields, and other processes to minimize the cost of producing ethanol. According to the Director of USDA’s Office of Energy and New Uses, the total USDA biofuels research and development funding for fiscal year 1995 was about $10 million. According to DOE’s estimates, advances in research and development have reduced the estimated cost of producing ethanol from biomass energy crops in newly constructed plants from $5.32 per gallon in 1980 to the present estimate of $1.40 per gallon, measured in 1995 dollars, a reduction in real terms of about 74 percent. According to DOE, private companies, using proprietary technologies coupled with zero- or low-cost feedstocks and taking advantage of existing facilities to reduce capital costs, believe they can produce ethanol for 60 to 80 cents per gallon in certain applications. Based on further research in developing lower-cost feedstocks and in improving the process of converting biomass to ethanol, DOE’s goal is to produce ethanol at a cost of $0.67 per gallon by 2010, in current dollars. Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers cautioned us, however, that reaching cost-reduction goals can depend on how much ethanol will need to be produced. For example, DOE has the objective of deploying technologies, by 2010, that could contribute to a national annual production capacity of 518 million barrels of petroleum-equivalent fuels in subsequent years. If that much ethanol were actually in market demand, it would require about 30 million to 50 million acres of land, depending on crop yields and conversion efficiency. As croplands are increasingly used to produce biomass, land costs could increase due to greater competition for land resources. Increasing land costs and other factors, such as regional biomass crop yield differences, could drive the cost higher than $0.67 per gallon. According to a 1993 USDA analysis and USDA officials, improvements in enzyme and production technologies have reduced the cost of producing a gallon of corn-based ethanol from about $2.50 in 1980, to less than $1.34 in 1992, measured in 1995 dollars, a reduction of about 46 percent in real terms. USDA officials told us that they could not estimate the current cost of producing ethanol because of fluctuations in the price of corn. The officials told us, however, that corn prices are substantially higher today than in 1992. USDA has not developed any cost-reduction goals for corn-based ethanol production. According to DOE, the two largest potential markets for biomass-derived fuels are ethanol used as an oxygenate in gasoline or as a fuel itself. While the potential oxygenate market discussed above is limited to blending relatively small percentages of ethanol with gasoline, ethanol used alone as an alternative motor fuel has the potential to replace much larger amounts of gasoline. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that by 2020 the demand for biomass ethanol could exceed 14 billion gallons per year. This amount consists of a demand of 3 billion gallons per year to be used as an oxygenate and 11 billion gallons per year for ethanol to be used as a replacement fuel for gasoline. This long-term projection is based on achieving a market price for ethanol that is predicted to be competitive with the price of gasoline. DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program Office also provided us with an estimate of transportation biofuels use, which shows an increasing use of biofuels from 126 million gallons in the year 2000 to 4.6 billion gallons and 10.8 billion gallons, respectively, in 2010 and 2020. While these estimates differ somewhat from the estimates provided by DOE’s laboratory, the differences reflect the uncertainties involved in making such projections. Both sets of estimates, however, predict growing use of biofuels, particularly beyond 2010 when such fuels are expected to be used as a replacement for gasoline. USDA has not projected ethanol demand on the basis of reductions in ethanol production costs. However, USDA’s 1993 analysis showed that further expansion of ethanol from corn is limited because of the high price of corn and the fact that corn has many alternative uses. According to the analysis, these restrictions do not apply to biomass feedstocks that could supplement corn as an inexpensive ethanol feedstock. According to DOE and USDA officials, many technical and economic barriers must be overcome to achieve a significant increase in the demand for biofuels. These barriers include limited funding for the successful development and commercialization of the biomass technologies discussed above, as well as achieving the cost-reduction goals mentioned earlier. We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE, EPA, and USDA for their review and comment. DOE suggested several changes to clarify information in the report. We incorporated DOE’s comments where appropriate. Both EPA and USDA expressed concerns with our discussion in appendix III on the average price of RFG over the life of the RFG program compared to conventional gasoline. The agencies believe that the average price is misleading because it would reflect the very high price of RFG experienced at the start of the program. The officials also believe that the more recent price difference of about 3 cents to 5 cents per gallon is more accurate. We concur with these comments and deleted the reference to the average RFG price difference. EPA said that EIA’s projections for the future displacement of petroleum by the use of oxygenates seem higher than what it would expect. According to EPA, while it is encouraging states to use RFG where its use is now optional, it expects that the amount of petroleum displaced by the use of oxygenates in future years will be modest. The reasons cited by EPA were that the oxygenate requirements of the RFG program do not change over time, the number of areas participating in the RFG program has remained fairly stable, and the number of areas participating in the wintertime oxygenated fuels program have been decreasing as the program succeeds in bring areas into attainment for carbon monoxide. EIA projections show a 24.3- and 27.5-percent increase in oxygenate use in 2000 and 2010, respectively, over 1995 levels. According to EIA, these increases are based on several factors, including California’s recent statewide adoption of more severely reformulated gasoline requirements and projected increases in gasoline consumption, including RFG. In addition, the projections took into consideration the declining use of oxygenates in the wintertime oxygenated fuels program and do not include the expanded use of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Finally, EIA assumed a constant market share of about 35 percent for RFG throughout the forecast period. The above factors and assumptions used by EIA seem reasonable to us, but we agree that to the extent the projected increases in oxygenate use do not take place, the amount of petroleum displaced would be less. USDA said that from its perspective, our report does not sufficiently analyze the competing information contained in the RFG studies summarized in our report or critique the cost-effectiveness estimates that were examined. As stated earlier, our objective in this area was to summarize the results of studies on the cost-effectiveness of using reformulated gasoline compared to other measures to control automotive emissions. We state in the report that significant differences in the studies’ objectives, methodologies, time frames covered, costs considered, types and extent of pollutants considered, and other factors produced widely varying estimates of cost-effectiveness. A critique of the studies’ results or comparing the results on an equal basis may be useful but would require redoing the studies, controlling for each of the factors cited above. Such an analysis was beyond the scope of our review. Appendices VI, VII, and VIII contain DOE’s, EPA’s, and USDA’s comments, respectively, along with our responses where appropriate. App. IX describes the objectives, scope, and methodology. We performed our work from July 1995 through April 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 14 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix X. This appendix summarizes the results of a 1995 study performed by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, which evaluated, among other things, the greenhouse gas emission characteristics of reformulated gasoline (RFG). This is the most current and comprehensive study that we could find on this issue. The study indicates that RFG’s potential to reduce greenhouse gases is small. According to the study, the effects of using RFG on greenhouse gas emissions varies according to (1) the specific oxygenate that is added to conventional gasoline and (2) the time of year that RFG is used. According to one of the study’s authors, the time of year is a factor because of the volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction requirements for high ozone season (summer) RFG. Table I.1 shows the comparative carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, a common measure of greenhouse gases, of RFG made with ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), an ether made from ethanol;methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), an ether made from methanol; conventional gasoline; and RFG made with ETBE, derived from ethanol produced with new or additional rather than existing agricultural sources. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions (grams) Reformulated gasoline(existing) Reformulated gasoline (new) The table shows that in the summer when ozone problems are most severe, ETBE made with existing sources of ethanol produces the least amount of greenhouse gases; while ETBE from new sources of ethanol emits the highest amount of greenhouse gases. Emissions of greenhouse gases from conventional gasoline are the second lowest, followed by emissions from RFG made with MTBE. In all cases, however, as discussed above, the difference in greenhouse gas emissions between RFG and conventional gasoline is small. Nearly all ethanol is currently made with corn. According to the Department of Agriculture, current research on using biomass feedstocks to produce ethanol, combined with improved production processes, may lead to greater reductions of greenhouse gases for RFG made with ethanol. However, a DOE official noted that while ethanol made with biomass can significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions compared with corn-based ethanol, all oxygenates comprise only a small part of the RFG mixture. Hence, unless the use of RFG becomes more widespread, and specifically RFG made with ethanol derived from biomass, the potential for large greenhouse gas reductions appears limited. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Petroleum Institute (API), Radian Corporation, and Sierra Research, Inc., in conjunction with Charles River Associates, conducted studies of the cost-effectiveness of RFG compared to other automotive emission control measures. A list of the studies follows. “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for Reformulated Gasoline,” EPA (Dec. 1993). “The Cost Effectiveness of VOC and NOx Emission Control Measures,” Publication No. 326, API (Sept. 1994). “Emission Reductions and Costs of Mobile Source Controls,” DCN92-221-054-01, Radian Corporation (Dec. 1992). “The Cost-Effectiveness of Further Regulating Mobile Source Emissions,” SR94-02-04, Sierra Research, Inc., and Charles River Associates (Feb. 1994). Tables II.1-II.5 and accompanying narrative contain the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses made by the various organizations that we reviewed. The costs indicated are expressed in dollars per ton of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOx), or air toxics removed. Significant differences in the analyses’ objectives, methodologies, time frames, costs considered, and other factors produced varying estimates of costs per ton of pollutant removed. Also, each of the analyses evaluated somewhat different control measures, making comparisons among the studies very difficult. An API analyst reported on various estimates of the cost-effectiveness of emission control strategies and found several problems that make comparison among the studies’ results very difficult. The analyst found that cost-effectiveness is dependent on several factors, including the baseline emission level, whether cost-effectiveness is calculated on a marginal or total cost-effectiveness basis, the assignment of control costs for different emission reductions, the extent of emission reductions in attainment areas, and the seasonality of ozone pollution, which would vary from locality to locality. Table II.1 contains cost comparisons, which are drawn from EPA’s 1993 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the RFG program. Some of the costs reflected in the table are the total costs of implementing some control measures and others are the incremental costs—the additional costs—incurred to implement control measures with more stringent requirements that are added to earlier measures. For example, the costs reflected for phase I of the federal RFG program are the total costs of that measure. Whereas, phase II of the RFG program reflects the incremental cost of implementing more stringent requirements in addition to phase I of the program. The glossary at the end of this report defines the control measures identified in this table and subsequent tables, as well as other terms that are contained in this report. Stricter emission standards for light-duty vehicles (tier I) EPA officials told us that because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandated the RFG program, the regulatory impact analysis focused on the cost differences of various RFG formulas and, therefore, contained only limited information comparing RFG with other control measures. Even this focus was constrained somewhat because the legislation specified that oxygen must make up a minimum of 2 percent of the RFG’s total weight. EPA also estimated the cost of RFG phase II in removing NOx at about $3,700 per ton and the cost of removing air toxics at about $40,000 per ton for RFG phase I. EPA has recognized the limitations of the cost-effectiveness information for RFG and specifically the need for additional information that compares the costs of the RFG program with other control measures. According to an official in EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources, the cost figures used in the regulatory impact analysis are the best available from EPA. Furthermore, EPA officials said that comparative data are not readily available for most of the other control measures because the purposes of these programs are not the same as the RFG program, especially with regard to reducing NOx and air toxic emissions. RFG phase I is ranked fifth of the six control measures listed in table II.1. Table II.2 summarizes the results of API’s analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the RFG program in reducing VOC and NOx emissions in five cities. The analysis was prepared for API by Radian Corporation. Washington, D.C. The study found that there were major differences among the cost-effectiveness of RFG among the five cities. In some cities, RFG is up to three times more cost-effective than in other cities. The data take into consideration the vapor pressure of gasoline sold in these cities and other factors, such as the length of the ozone season that varies by city. The study indicates that a primary reason for the RFG cost-effectiveness differences was the vapor pressure of the gasoline used in those cities. The data show that the lower costs for VOC reductions are in the cities that use gasoline with higher vapor pressures. Table II.2 contains values for the years 1995 through 2004 and, therefore, includes cost figures for NOx control that is part of the phase II RFG program. Table II.3 summarizes comparisons of mid-range cost estimates by API for RFG in the five cities reviewed with other control measures for VOC and NOx. These figures also reflect estimates for the years 1995 through 2004. The table shows that RFG is ranked second out of the eight control measures studied for VOC. Refueling vapor recovery equipment (stage II) Reformulated gasoline (phases I and II) Enhanced automobile emission inspection and maintenance program Expanded automobile emission inspection and maintenance program Use of natural gas-fueled vehicles California’s stricter reformulated gasoline California’s low emission vehicle requirements Data not available. Table II.4 summarizes Radian Corporation’s study of the emission reductions, costs, and cost-effectiveness of different mobile source control strategies. The study was prepared for the Virginia Petroleum Council, for the Virginia State Legislature’s use in determining which air pollution control measures to adopt in Northern Virginia. The table shows that RFG is ranked seventh out of the eight control measures. Refueling vapor recovery equipment (stage II) Enhanced automobile emission inspection and maintenance program Maximum automobile emission inspection and maintenance program (with tier II) Maximum automobile emission inspection and maintenance program (with tier I) Reformulated gasoline (phases I and II) Sierra Research, Inc., and Charles River Associates’ study estimated the cost-effectiveness of mobile source emissions control measures required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the California Air Resources Board regulations. The study was prepared for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Table II.5 summarizes the results of the key control measures identified in the study. RFG is ranked fourth out of the 14 mobile source control measures. Enhanced automobile emission inspection and maintenance program Refueling vapor recovery equipment (stage II) California phase II reformulated gasoline New evaporative standards and test procedures to control vehicle emissions Stricter emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (tier I) Transitional low emissions vehicle program Stricter emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (tier II) This appendix compares the price estimates used for RFG in the four cost-effectiveness studies that we reviewed, along with the price estimates of other organizations, with the actual RFG prices reported by DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). Sierra Research, Inc., and Charles River Associates New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Data were unavailable for phase II of the RFG program. EIA has monitored prices of both conventional gasoline and RFG since the RFG program began. Figure III.1 shows EIA data on actual retail prices from the beginning of the RFG program in January 1995 through the week of March 18, 1996. (12.1 difference) (5.1 difference) Weeks (1/3/95 - 3/18/96) The EIA data show that in the early weeks of the program, average retail prices for RFG were as much as 12 cents a gallon more than those for conventional gasoline. However, more recent data indicate that the average gap between RFG and conventional gasoline prices had narrowed to about 5 cents per gallon. Furthermore, according to EIA, the price difference may now be closer to 3 cents. This appendix discusses the potential petroleum displacement from using oxygenated fuels, identifies some of EIA’s assumptions used in its Annual Energy Outlook for 1996 to forecast gasoline and oxygenate consumption, and provides information on the volume and energy density of oxygenates blended with gasoline. EIA used several assumptions in forecasting gasoline and oxygenate consumption to 2015. Some of the key assumptions are described as follows: EIA assumes that the tax exemption of $0.54 per gallon of ethanol will continue past the year 2000 to 2015. The subsidy is in nominal terms. EIA models the production and distribution of four different types of gasoline: traditional, oxygenated, reformulated, and reformulated/high oxygen. RFG is assumed to account for about 35 percent of annual gasoline sales throughout the forecast. The total estimated market for all oxygenated fuels, including RFG and traditional gasoline that may contain some oxygenates, is about 40 percent throughout the forecast. Oxygenated gasoline, which has been required during winter months in many U.S. cities to control carbon monoxide emissions, requires an oxygen content of 2.7 percent by weight. Reformulated/high oxygen gasoline, used in overlapping areas that require oxygenated gasoline and RFG, requires 2.7 percent oxygen. RFG requires 2.0 percent oxygen by weight. EIA assumes that RFG will be certified in accordance with the EPA models. Only ethanol made from corn is currently modeled. About 95 percent of the U.S. production of fuel ethanol is derived from corn. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that government, business, and fuel providers purchase a specified percentage of alternative-fueled vehicles in their fleets. EIA assumed that both business and fuel-provider fleet mandates do not take effect until the year 2000. (Footnote “b” in table IV.1 shows that some ethanol will be used in E85, an alternative motor fuel, in 2010.) Percent of oxygen requirement by weightPrior to March 18, 1996, EPA’s RFG fuel regulations did not allow oxygenates to be blended above 2.7 percent oxygen by weight during the summer high ozone season. EPA revised these fuel regulations effective March 18, 1996, allowing higher concentrations of oxygenates under certain circumstances. EPA does not expect significantly higher use of oxygenates as a result of this change. DOE and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) have several research projects to develop biofuels technologies from renewable resources for the transportation fuel market. This appendix provides additional information on the agencies’ efforts. The appendix also shows the processes for converting corn and biomass to ethanol. Since the ethanol supply is limited due in part to the high cost of corn feedstocks and the use of corn for other purposes, DOE’s biofuels research program is aimed at developing biomass-based transportation fuels from cellulosic feedstocks. Such feedstocks are derived from renewable resources such as grasses, trees, and waste products. DOE is also conducting research to convert these feedstocks to liquid transportation fuels. DOE’s program envisions that such fuels have the potential to displace a large percentage of petroleum-based transportation fuels in the future. The following summary outlines the focus of DOE’s biofuels research efforts. To lower the cost of cellulosic feedstocks, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory leads a research and analysis program with many collaborators nationwide to identify and develop plants that can be used as high-yield dedicated energy crops on excess cropland; develop specialized site management, crop management, harvest and handling techniques to obtain optimum yields from plants with high-yield potential; identify crop production techniques that ensure the protection of the environment and natural resources; identify locations where high-yields can be achieved on low cost land; and obtain cost, risk, and environmental data under operational conditions by collaborating with private industry, USDA, and local organizations to demonstrate crop production systems. To lower feedstock conversion costs, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is conducting biofuels research to demonstrate a process to convert 1 ton per day of cellulosic waste feedstock to produce 100 gallons of ethanol in cooperation with industrial partners; demonstrate a process of using the cellulosic fiber of the corn kernel to improve yields; develop and evaluate a new process that combines two main biomass sugar fermentation steps into one, to decrease the production time and increase yields; develop new cellulase enzymes that more economically degrade cellulose determine the potential to produce ethanol from switchgrasses, sugarcane, tropical grasses, trees, paper and sawmill wastes, forestry residues, and rice straw; and develop new technologies to produce biodiesel from waste fats and oils. The cost of producing ethanol from corn depends on several factors, including the price of corn, the value of co-products, the cost of energy and enzymes, the size of the production plants, and the level of technology in the plant. USDA’s efforts have largely focused on improving technologies that would increase the efficiencies of feedstocks (primarily corn), speed up the production process, and raise the yield of ethanol in order to reduce its overall cost. USDA conducts or funds biofuels research on the projects summarized below. To lower the cost of feedstocks, USDA research is conducted on starches, such as corn, wheat, sorghum, and potatoes; fruit and vegetable by-products; corn cobs, straws, and corn hulls; corn stover and grasses; potential energy crops such as trees (e.g., evaluate the energy yield from short rotation of different types of woods); and agricultural residues. To lower feedstock conversion costs, USDA research is conducted on organisms that can produce ethanol from various feedstocks through biomass conversion processes to convert feedstocks to fermentable sugars through more efficient and cost-effective use of enzymes; processes to increase the yield of ethanol and other co-products, such as advanced fermentation technologies to more efficiently and cost effectively produce ethanol. Two primary methods are used to make ethanol from corn: dry milling and wet milling. Dry milling, used for about one-third of ethanol production, is used to produce mainly ethanol, while wet milling generates ethanol and a variety of co-products, such as corn oil, animal feed, and other starch products. Figure V.1 illustrates the process used to convert corn into ethanol. This step consists of soaking corn to separate it into its components (oil, protein, fiber, solubles, and starch) DOE’s biofuels research focuses on developing biomass-based transportation fuels from cellulosic feedstocks. Figure V.2 illustrates the process used to convert biomass feedstocks into ethanol. The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s letter dated May 17, 1996. 1. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 2. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 3. Our report refers to the use of oxygenated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. We revised the report to reflect EPA’s comment that the number of areas participating in the oxygenated fuels program have been reduced. 4. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 5. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 6. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis and discussions with EPA officials, $5,550 reflects the total cost of phase I of the RFG program. We added EPA’s views on the costs of reducing VOCs to our report. 7. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 8. We revised the report to more clearly reflect EPA’s position stated in its memorandum. 9. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. (This comment relates to comment 17.) 10. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 11. The assumptions used for EIA’s projected oxygenate use is explained in the agency comments section of this report. EIA’s projections of oxygenate use do not include the future use of ethanol as an alternative fuel. 12. We said in our report that the petroleum displacement estimates do not account for differing amounts of petroleum that may be used in the production of ethanol and other types of oxygenates. We also said that the extent to which petroleum will be used to produce oxygenates depends on several variables and, therefore, is difficult to predict. According to EIA officials, factors affecting the extent of petroleum use to produce oxygenates include the type of oxygenate and different assumptions about the source of raw materials and the energy used to produce the oxygenates and the vapor pressure of the blended fuel. We also pointed out that the greater amount of petroleum that is used to produce oxygenates, the less petroleum will be displaced. More detailed information on the extent of petroleum used to produce oxygenates can be found in the Argonne National Laboratory’s April 1995 report referred to in appendix I. 13. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 14. We did not omit the greenhouse gas emissions associated with RFG produced with ethanol, as indicated by EPA. The table shows RFG with existing and new sources of ethanol as stated in notes b and c. 15. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 16. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 17. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report to explain EPA’s RFG estimates. 18. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 19. We agree that EPA’s phase II RFG requirements are likely to increase the use of ETBE due to the more stringent VOC emissions reduction requirements. The increase in ETBE use did not show up in the year 2000 because the lowest amount of oxygenate usage reflected was 1,000 barrels per day. However, EIA’s forecast of oxygenate use to the year 2015 shows that ETBE usage increases after the year 2000. In fact, the table shows that 28,000 barrels per day of ETBE is predicted to be used in 2010. 20. See comment 12 above, which relates to this issue. We revised the note to table IV.1 to reflect that petroleum displacement would be lower given the extent of petroleum used to produce the oxygenates, as previously stated in the letter, and referred the reader to the Argonne National Laboratory report for further information on this issue. 21. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 22. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 23. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s letter dated May 16, 1996. 1. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 2. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 3. The cost-effectiveness studies that we reviewed use VOC reductions as a proxy for ozone reductions. We state in our report that VOCs and NOx emissions are two of the more prevalent pollutants emitted by automobiles and are precursors to ozone pollution. We recognize in the background and other sections of the report that RFG helps to reduce VOC, NOx, and air toxics emissions. 4. We state in the referenced paragraph that RFG offers a number of benefits that low vapor pressure gasoline does not, including the reduction of air toxics and nitrogen oxides. We have revised this paragraph to make it clear that these benefits are in addition to VOC reductions, which are due in part to the lower vapor pressure of RFG. 5. This comment also responds to USDA’s comment 15. Our report does not indicate that API believes that low vapor pressure gasoline is a cheap ozone control measure or that lowering the vapor pressure represents a major cost. In the text following table II.2 that USDA refers to, we point out that in cities that already use a low vapor pressure gasoline, the cost-effectiveness of adding a RFG requirement is higher. This is because some of the benefits of RFG was already obtained by using the low vapor pressure gasoline. 6. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 7. In this section, we gave the range of the price estimates for RFG compared to conventional gasoline prices—the low estimate cited by DOE and the high estimate cited by API. Appendix III.1 cites some of the reasons for the API higher price estimates. While API’s estimate is in the high end of the range of estimates, it is largely within the range of prices actually experienced during the initial months of the RFG program. We agree, however, that to the extent API’s estimated costs are higher than the actual costs experienced, its estimated costs to reduce pollutants would also be higher than actual. 8. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. 9. While additional estimates of the cost-effectiveness of reformulated gasoline have been reported, and other estimates can be calculated, our objective was to identify and present cost-effectiveness data contained in major federal and other studies. Therefore, we made no change to the report. 10. We discussed this issue in detail with representatives from DOE and industry and concluded that varying industry practices make it difficult to assess the amount of petroleum used to produce oxygenates. As such, the displacement numbers presented likely represent the most petroleum displacement that can be expected. We revised the report to make this point clearer. 11. As our report indicates, the use of oxygenates could allow some refineries to operate their reformers at lower temperature, thus increasing the amount of gasoline produced. We also point out, however, that DOE, EIA, and industry officials believe that any such increases industrywide are likely to be relatively small. 12. Addressing potential price changes of crude oil and gasoline resulting from the displacement of crude oil by oxygenates was beyond the scope of our review. While there may have been some downward pressure on crude oil prices resulting from less demand as oxygenates were introduced, the overall impact on gasoline prices has been an increase in price as discussed in our report. 13. According to the author of DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory study containing the information in question, USDA is incorrect in its position that renewable fuels such as ethanol necessarily emit fewer greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline. The author pointed out that there are differing opinions regarding the amount of energy required to produce ethanol and that USDA’s estimation is lower than that of EPA and DOE. According to the author, USDA’s estimation of greenhouse gas emissions by reformulated gasoline neglect to account for a number of sources of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions resulting from the production and transport of the fuel. For instance, carbon dioxide emissions result from oil used by farming equipment, oil used to transport corn to ethanol plants, the production of fertilizer, and the burning of coal used in producing ethanol in processing plants. 14. Our report focused on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses done by EPA, API, Radian Corporation, and Sierra Research. We recognize in our report that a number of variables can affect the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the different measures for controlling VOCs and other air pollutants. We also point out that the costs and benefits across these studies are not measured uniformly, making it difficult to make comparisons among the control measures. However, the objective of our work was not to conduct our own analysis of the control measures, controlling for all the factors that may affect the results. We also discussed this issue in the agency comments section of our report. 15. See our response to comment 5. 16. The API study did not address whether the NOx cost estimates affect the winter particulate matter benefits associated with NOx controls. 17. The API study measured all VOC and NOx reductions in percentages rather than tons of reduction. 18. The API study did not indicate whether modernization costs were included as part of the cost estimates. 19. See our response to comment 7. 20. We agreed with this comment and have revised the report. The objectives of our review were to (1) summarize the results of federal and other studies on the cost-effectiveness of using RFG compared to other automotive emission control measures and compare estimates of the price of RFG used in such studies with more recent actual experience; (2) summarize the results of studies estimating the potential for oxygenates to reduce the use of petroleum; and (3) summarize the ongoing federal research into biofuels, including any related past or projected cost reduction goals, and any increased demand estimates based on such goals. To identify studies on the cost-effectiveness of using RFG compared to other automotive emission control measures, we interviewed officials from EPA, DOE, USDA, the petroleum industry, associations representing the petroleum, oxygenated fuels, and renewable fuels industries, state and local government agencies, and others. Several organizations have conducted cost-effectiveness studies of air quality control measures. We examined those studies that (1) reviewed the cost-effectiveness of RFG as well as other mobile source control measures and (2) contained original analyses. The four studies listed in appendix II were the only studies we found that met these criteria. To compare estimates of the price of RFG used in such studies with more recent actual price experience, we used the price estimates used in the studies and obtained actual RFG prices reported by DOE’s EIA. To determine what estimates were available on the potential petroleum displacement through the use of oxygenates in gasoline, we interviewed officials from DOE, the refinery industry, and associations representing the oil and oxygenated fuels industries. Through these sources, we learned that DOE had the most comprehensive effort underway that would provide an estimate of the petroleum displacement potential by using oxygenated fuels. Accordingly, we obtained information on the use of oxygenates and its petroleum displacement potential from EIA and DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Policy. Because the Office had undertaken a study of the potential for replacement fuels to displace petroleum fuels by the years 2000 and 2010, we used those 2 years to show the estimated oil displacement from using oxygenated fuels. We agreed with your office to identify any studies on the costs and benefits of using oxygenates versus aromatics as octane enhancers in gasoline and whether refiners were making appropriate cost comparisons between the use of oxygenates and aromatics. During this assignment, we informed your office that we had not been able to identify any such studies. According to the DOE officials we talked with, the petroleum refining industry and associations representing the petroleum industry, the costs and benefits of using oxygenates versus aromatics would vary greatly from refinery to refinery and are dependent on the economic and plant-capacity factors of each refinery. This makes it difficult to generalize about the appropriateness of refining decisions on using oxygenates or aromatics. Most of the officials we talked with, however, believed that refiners would act in their own economic interest in making this decision. We agreed with your office that no further work was needed on this issue. To identify major federal research on biofuels, including any related production cost-reduction goals and the estimated use of biofuels based on such goals, we interviewed officials at DOE, USDA, representatives of the biofuels industry, and universities conducting biofuels research. We also met with officials at the Office of Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President; attended conferences related to biofuels; conducted literature searches; and reviewed and analyzed several reports and documents on biofuels. In addition, we interviewed officials at DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, where DOE’s most extensive biofuels research is conducted. We obtained information on past and projected cost-reduction goals achieved through biofuels research and development from officials at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE, and USDA. To identify the potential increased demand for biofuels, based on cost-reduction achievements, projections and goals, we obtained estimates on the demand for biofuels from DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. We did not evaluate the methodology and assumptions the National Renewable Energy Laboratory used to arrive at the demand estimates cited in this report. A class of high-octane hydrocarbons that constitute a certain percentage of gasoline. The chief aromatics in gasoline are benzene, toluene, and xylene. In addition to concerns about the toxicity of benzene, some aromatics are highly reactive chemically, making it likely that they are active in ozone formation. Biodiesel is a biofuel made from animal and vegetable derived oils that can be used as a substitute or additive to diesel fuel. According to EPA, the use of biodiesel may increase some types of emissions but reduce others. Biofuels are alcohols, such as ethanol or other chemicals, derived from biomass or living matter. Current research is focused on developing biofuels from the starch in corn kernels or from the fibrous cellulosic materials in the rest of the corn plant; it also focuses on cellulosic plants, such as fast-growing trees or grasses, and waste products such as agricultural and forestry residues and municipal and industrial wastes. This program, starting in 1998, will require certain fleets (in certain nonattainment areas) of 10 or more vehicles, which can be centrally fueled, to meet clean-fuel vehicle volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions standards. These standards can be met through the use of alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas or through the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG). More stringent vehicle emission testing and repair program that is required to be implemented in areas in the United States with more serious air pollution problems. An automobile emission inspection and maintenance program that requires testing more vehicles than required by EPA. An alcohol produced from starch or sugar crops, such as corn or sugar cane, or from cellulosic biomass materials. Ethanol may be used as a fuel by itself (an alternative motor fuel) or blended into gasoline to increase the octane of gasoline and increase the gasoline supply. In the United States, ethanol has been largely blended in a 10-percent mixture with gasoline to form gasohol. As an oxygenate, ethanol supplies oxygen to gasoline, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles. Because ethanol is water soluble, it must be blended into gasoline outside the refinery and it cannot be transported in the same pipelines with gasoline. In addition, ethanol increases the volatility of gasoline thereby increasing evaporative emissions. These drawbacks can be overcome if ethanol is converted to its ether form, ethyl tertiary butyl ether. An ether compound made using ethanol, which is used as a gasoline additive to boost octane and provide oxygen. Since ETBE has low vapor pressure, it could be useful in helping to comply with volatility controls on gasoline. Unlike alcohols, ETBE could be produced and blended with gasoline at the refinery and shipped in gasoline pipelines. Gases, including carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, that when emitted into the atmosphere threatens to change the earth’s climate. A California program that prescribes the maximum emissions permitted from new vehicles sold in that state. More stringent automobile emission testing and repair program, which assumes that automobiles will meet appropriate emission standards over their useful life. An ether compound made using methanol, which is used as a gasoline additive to boost octane and provide oxygen to help reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE is the most widely used oxygenate in RFG. Unlike alcohols, because MTBE could be produced and blended with gasoline at the refinery and shipped in gasoline pipelines, it is the most widely used oxygenate. New standards and test procedures that EPA is required to promulgate to control vehicle emissions under summertime, ozone conditions. Technology on vehicles that allows an on-board computer to detect and record malfunctions in the emission control system, allowing more effective repair of vehicles with high VOC and NOx emissions. The term applies to any gasoline additive containing oxygen. Oxygen in gasoline helps to reduce carbon monoxide, VOC, and air toxics emissions from vehicles. Oxygenates include alcohols, such as ethanol, and ethers, such as ETBE and MTBE. Each of these compounds also enhances the octane of gasoline, while their effects on volatility vary. Reforming is one refining process in which crude oil is converted into gasoline and other products. Gasoline whose composition has been changed through fuel reformulation. The Clean Air Amendments of 1990 requires certain fuel specifications and performance standards that RFG must meet to reduce air toxic and ozone-forming emissions in specified nonattainment areas. These areas are to start using RFG in January 1995 and in the year 2000, phase II RFG must be used, which further reduces VOCs, NOx, and air toxic emissions. California RFG requirements are stricter than the federal RFG requirements. This is a control measure for capturing the emissions of gasoline vapor during vehicle refueling and returning them to the storage tanks at service stations. A control measure of gasoline volatility. Vapor pressure is expressed as pounds per square inch (psi) with higher pressure resulting in higher volatility of gasoline. An ether compound made using methanol, which is used as a gasoline additive to boost octane and provide oxygen. Since it has low vapor pressure, TAME could also be useful in helping to comply with volatility controls on gasoline. National VOC, NOx, and carbon monoxide emission standards that light-duty vehicles are required to meet. Standards for certain light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks to further reduce emissions. These standards would be more stringent national emissions standards that the federal government has the option of mandating beginning in model-year 2004. A program that requires a portion of the California vehicle population to meet approximately 50 percent lower VOC emissions than the national VOC standards. A program that further lowers VOC emissions for the California vehicle population beyond that required in the transitional low-emission vehicle program. This program accelerates the removal of older vehicles from the fleet that have high mobile source emissions. VOC and NOx emissions are two of the more prevalent pollutants that are emitted by motor vehicles and are precursors to the formation of ozone. A California program that requires that by 2003, 10 percent of vehicles marketed in that state must be zero emission vehicles. Currently, the electric vehicle produces essentially no pollution from the vehicle’s tail pipe or through fuel evaporation. Several other states have adopted zero emission vehicle requirements. Gasohol: Federal Agencies’ Use of Gasohol Limited by High Prices and Other Factors (GAO/RCED-95-41, Dec. 13, 1994). Energy Policy: Options to Reduce Environmental and Other Costs of Gasoline Consumption (GAO/RCED-92-260, Sept. 17, 1992). Air Pollution: Oxygenated Fuels Help Reduce Carbon Monoxide (GAO/RCED-91-176, Aug. 13, 1991). Alcohol Fuels: Impacts From Increased Use of Ethanol Blended Fuels (GAO/RCED-90-156, July 16, 1990). Gasoline Marketing: Uncertainties Surround Reformulated Gasoline as a Motor Fuel (GAO/RCED-90-153, June 14, 1990). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the cost-effectiveness of reformulated gasoline (RFG), focusing on: (1) the potential for oxygenates to reduce petroleum use; and (2) ongoing federal biofuel research. GAO found that: (1) RFG is more cost-effective than some automotive emission control measures; (2) the extent and nature of air pollution in any specific area determines whether certain pollution control measures are used individually or in combination with other control measures; (3) about 305,000 barrels of petroleum per day are at risk for displacement by the year 2000; (4) this displacement amounts to nearly 3.7 percent of the estimated gasoline consumption for year 2000 and 3.6 percent for 2010; (5) the Department of Energy is focusing its efforts on reducing the cost of growing and converting biomass feedstocks into ethanol, and the Department of Agriculture is focusing on reducing the cost of growing and converting agricultural feedstock into ethanol; (6) advances in biofuels research has reduced the cost of producing ethanol from biomass crops; (7) further cost reductions in producing corn-based ethanol, and the subsequent demand for it, may be constrained by the price of corn and its many uses; and (8) the demand for ethanol will increase assuming the successful development and commercialization of biofuels technology.