from all of us here politics and prose, be well and well read. >> you been watching tv. every sunday on c-span to watch nonfiction authors discuss their books. television for serious readers. watch them all online anytime on booktv.org. you can also find us on twitter, facebook and youtube apple tv. .... .... [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> i am pleased to call this hearing to order. today we're going to examine environmental protection agency's renewable fuel standard. this includes management and implementation, challenges as well as opportunitieses to encourage greater deployment of more sustainable fuels. our staff, my staff tells me that our committee has not held an oversight hearing on this topic, 2016? 2016. going on six years. it's probably time. to help form our discussion were grateful to have a panel of witness a day and we want to thank all of you for participating in this meeting,

this discussion. winston churchill great thing, one of my favorite quotes for the back with a look, the further forward we see. so we will take a moment to understand the history of this program and have got to where we are today. in in the early 2000 our natios energy future didn't look all that promising. americans were consuming more and more gasoline and diesel fuel. we were incredibly relying on imported oil to fuel this and that result global oil price one arise without communication of slowing down. consumers are paying more at the pump every year. at the time by bipartisan group of us in congress took several steps to improve our nation's energy future. i would say with the e leadershp present at the time george . bush, among those steps we created expanded the renewable

fuel standard under the clean air act. our goals included providing new economic opportunity for farmers while also lowering our dependence on foreign oilre and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel would burn and are cars and trucks and vans. since the implementation of the program has come a long way toward achieving our goals, economic growth in agriculture committees has expanded, and her fuels have become significantly cleaner than they were two decades ago. in fact, the renewable fuel standard presents economic and energy opportunities for people in delaware and every other state to seize. like many of our colleagues on this committee, i still support the goals of the renewable fuel standard. having said that, there been a number of challenges when it comes to the implementation of the program as we know it. thisr less than 36 billion.

that shortfall is partly due to market challenges and approving new fuels to enter the marketplace. but make no mistake having the potential to replace on a gallon for gallon basis in today's combustion engines with no loss of performance. many of these advanced fuels have already been approved for use in state fuel programs and states like oregon however we've been slow to make decisions on the new advanced biofuel applications and and pathways for usage. at the same time, the clean air act we have some of the advanced renewable fuels that qualify to

help refine these obligations and further supporting and growing domestic biofuel industry and another challenge in preventing the renewable fuel standard is the volatility and compliance costs. years of mismanagement in the previous administration coupled with the unexpected changes in both fuel supply and demand caused by the pandemic have collectively wreaked havoc on the programs compliance and market known as the rin market. epa tracks compliance with the renewable fuel standard by using tradable credits.

the costs from 30 cents to almost two dollars per gallon created the financial incentive for just about everybody. especially those that comply with of the renewable fuel standards. that has made it extremely difficult for the obligated parties to make forward thinking investments in producing cleaner fuels. i'm going to sneeze. maybe not. [laughter] excuse me. with the volatility and compliance costs. when exploring ways to improve the federal policies.

all while fostering local clean fuel investments as we will hear today these programs have the flexibilities and those that are not included in the renewable fuel standards. and if he and post liquid fuel world and the key abilities to producing the refined motor vehicle fuels to power our lives

we turn to senator capital. it's nice to be back in the nation's capital, so i appreciate that. i also want to join the witnesses today. the renewable fuel standards. we haven't had that hearing since 2016 so i think the gap between the hearings speaks to the intricacies of the program. there are a few issues i would like to cover today during this hearing.

i'd like to highlight my concern on the two actions. the renewable obligation for 2022 does not reflect the market reality for the but the panel has to say about that. i'm concerned the volume obligation is going to raise costs at the time when gasoline isn't as high in and of itself. imposed by the program. the proposed action will

negatively impact. we've already won two more cases acted in the arbitrary manner with the exemption petition. but it's just one of a number of small refineries around the country. it's especially puzzling as we see the increase in gasoline prices and small refinery closures around the nation. the proposal will only lead to the increased uncertainty with bearing the cost amid the already record high inflation

and the business is being harmed by elevated fuel costs i look forward to hearing more on this issue. it's still very, very important. i can tell you firsthand it isn't going away anytime in my state of west virginia. it disregards the fact the different communities and businesses have different needs for transportation solutions. it may be true that electric vehicle sales are slowly but surely increasing.

it is conversational and liquid fuel is especially important as the program enters the new phase next year. from 2006 to 2022 but after 2022, epa has the power to determine the annual volume amounts and as the chairman pointed out. the expected to issue a rule to do just that. the office of radiation at epa this is the office that is in charge and many other complex regulatory programs. yet we've been waiting for more

than a year for the administration to name a nominee to their office. i talked about this more than once in the committees. the previous record was 260 days. with that, mr. chair man, i yield back my time.

would you repeat and say your name for us. finally a partner before this began for the testimony i would turn over to the colleagues.

looking at the renewable fuel standard as we look around the world all the visible and measurable signs of the global climate change we need to adopt clean forms of energy and end our dependence on carbon emitting fossil fuels. i believe we have an incredible opportunity by the electric cars and trucks and investments we made in the act. as we strive to tackle the challenge of the global climate chaos. not all of the solutions will

start with the federal government and we need to learn from them and it is something we recognize in oregon year after year we confront the wildfires and having a huge impact on the lakes and streams and oceans wreaking havoc off the oregon coast. almost six years ago was a resounding success. it put us on track within the next five years.

running the federal fuels policy. a proud graduate of oregon state university with a degree in bio resources engineering. she's been an integral member of the environmental quality for almost three decades. everyone has the tools and technical assistance to transform the fuel market.

along the west coast moving in the same direction. so i'm thrilled she's with us today through the miracle of electronics and to share her experiences about what has worked in oregon and how those successes can be implemented in a larger scale. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. if you are ready, go right ahead. >> good morning, chair carver. i work for the oregon department and the program manager for the invitation to speak to you today about the clean fuels program.

i'd also like to thank senator merkley and for the continued leadership in addressing the climate crisis. the program began in 2016 and thus far the program's success can be summarized in three distinct outcomes first the companies that are producing the fuels are making them more cleanly and delivering them in greater volumes. the carbon intensity of the ethanol oregon uses.

reducing the greenhouse gas emissions so far and displacing a billion gallons of fossil fuels in oregon. to biofuels reducing tailpipe emissions in oregon and improving the health of oregonians. in addition to reducing the greenhouse gases, low carbon fuels also e-mailed to the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter compared to fossil fuels.

the prices when compared even those that do not have similar

positions. in fact the program has lowered the cost of the low carbon fuels it created a powerful incentive to de- carbonized to decarbonized the transportation sector. the cute clean fuels program with created in oregon takes the best parts of the renewable fuel standards and combines it with the best parts of the low carbon fuel standard. . it's needed to begin the transmission to the lower carbon fuels and the fuel standard ensures that the lowest of the low carbon fuel comes to oregon. with the credit as both are necessary to provide the incentives to the fuel providers. from the long-term certainties from the low carbon fuel standard program that has

established targets through 2030 and oregon is currently in a rulemaking to established through 2035. but we haven't done this alone. oregon has benefited greatly being a signatory to the coast elaborate. since 2013 british columbia, washington, oregon and california have worked together to harmonize best practices and policy alignments, program design and implementation to create cleaner low carbon fuels. this has grown to other states are looking for smart strategies to reduce the transportation emissions.

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm the ceo of the world's largest biofuel trade association. remaining the nation's most successful clean energy policy yet the full potential as a climate solution remains untapped. for the past eight years, the lack of accountability and failure to comply with the law slowed progress into carbon reduction bit today as the congress looks to immediately reduce the intensity of the nation's transportation it is imperative that a biofuels like ethanol, the most affordable and

abundant source of low carbon high-octane fuel on the planet is part of the transportation now and into the future. there's no pathway 2015 without biofuel. the gasoline or the flex fuel vehicles will dominate a new new vehicle sales through 2050. we can achieve progress and progress reductions with today's infrastructure, today's vehicles and a homegrown supply chain through a robust and binding renewable fuel standard and acceleration towards nationwide year-round elusive lower cost biofuels.

and a compliance deadline extensions. most of these administrative actions have been to appease the unfounded claims of a select few looking to subvert, slowing progress and carbon reduction. epa's recent proposals, delayed as they are, right and some of the wrongs and included the required 15 billion in 2022. a long-overdue remedies for the general waiver and the abuse of the small refinery exemptions. they take a major step backward by seeking to produce the 2020 blending obligations finalized two years ago. this retroactive change exceeds the agency's authority and creates market disruption and uncertainty. we need to finalize the proposals as soon as possible

not only have they deprived consumers of the lower cost fuel, they eliminated an easy task for their own compliance. without immediate action, consumers will lose access to the most affordable fueling option on june 1. when americans drive the most. we must restore market access so drivers can save up to ten cents per gallon every time they fuel up with a 15. in addition to reducing emissions in light duty vehicles, biofuels are poised to play a greater role in the carbonized and other forms of transportation. and bio refineries are already deploying carbon capture and

wind and solar energy and incentivizing sustainable farming practices. all to drive further innovation as further reductions in the carbon intensity. we see promise in the low carbon fuel markets and like aviation, marines and heavy duty vehicles. to lead the nation to the clean energy transition we must have a healthy and thriving biofuels industry and a strong and growing rfs and move to e- 15 is the nation's standard fuel. don't be fooled, it isn't going to harm refiners. three administrations in the courts have affirmed this. claims to the contrary are just a smokescreen to divert attention away from clean, affordable american energy. undermining and delaying the role of the 15 means increasing the gas prices for american consumers, period. gas prices are driven by the price of crude, not to the cost of the rfs. american farmers and biofuel producers are ready to work with the administration and congress to restore and put us back on

track. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much for joining us and for your testimony. i got another shot at your name. i think i'm getting close to getting it right. you are recognized. please proceed. >> [inaudible] thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on the renewable fuel standard and management of the program. i'm with the research foundation that's been around since 1944. i also want to thank the senior director for helping me with the testimony and preparation of the charts. the first thing i would like to say is that in all of our work over the years and we testified

here in 2018, 2016, we have always said biofuels and particularly ethanol represent a very important component of the fuel supply for the u.s. it's a very cost-effective way to get octane and extend the supply. the basic criticism of the program is not with biofuel, it's with the mandate. as you can see in the first chart, and chairman carver talked about this already. we are not hitting the original targets of the energy security act. in fact there's a lot of reasons for that. we are about 20 billion against the initial proposed target. the basic reason we are not hitting the target is because our expectations were wrong. there's a lot of uncertainty in the future of oil and gas prices and supply and demand.

in 2007, expectations were gasoline demand was going to grow dramatically by about 30% over the next 20 to 30 years. in fact, it declined dramatically. and this made it more difficult to incorporate biofuels because when biofuels become a large percentage of the gasoline pool, the costs rise. it's actually quite low costs that save money up to around the 10%, about 10% compliant costs rise. you can see this year, this is actually very interesting to us because when we testified in 2016, we informed the committee that there was a certain price pricelist to the program that if you tried to drive these biofuels by mandates above 10% the compliance cost escalates and as chairman carver pointed out the credits are one way to

understand and we estimated that using the scenarios alone, the increase in the cost of the program per gallon the consumers could be anywhere from 30 to 50 cents. well, today the prices are driving up the cost of gasoline about 28.5. as you can see i'm not going to bore you with this, but in a way it's what it costs to take crude oil and turn it into gasoline diesel fuel and other petroleum products. you can see here that when we had a period, and we will talk a lot about this, but before epa changed the rules on how to treat the credits under the exemption, the program, the exemptions were driving down the rin prices because it increased

the volume. that program has ended, combined with the acceleration and prices as we come out of covid, we now have very high prices in the u.s. and these are reflected in the start. the other issue we are now entering a period in this period preceding this because a big percentage of the cost of the program and i would like to show you here the problem is yes it might be contributing about two dollars, but an array of programs, the low carbon fuel standards, rfs, federal taxes, all of these are contributing to the costs. so, we just have to keep this in

mind. one of the components of the high gasoline prices are these programs. i think that i will just flip to the end of my comments here that as we go forward, our future is very uncertain and i really encourage congress to give some guidance to the epa because unless we have a set of programs that are robust against the uncertainty, we are likely to have a lot of dislocations into this is a fundamental problem in the program, with the use of the mandates. thank you so much. >> thank you very much and last but not least we thank you for your testimony. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman carver, ranking members of the committee for the opportunity to talk about the renewable fuel

standard. i spent the entirety of my 30 year career representing the petroleum industry and particularly small refineries. i know the companies, i know the people, and of the communities, and now i also know the very real threats they face as a result of the proposal to end the refinery hardship under the standard. i am referring of course to what senator o-uppercase-letter described in the december 7, 2021 proposal to issue a blanket denial of all pending small refinery hardship editions. the epa's deadline to issue the decisions was 90 days after the petitions were submitted and instead now he intended to deny them retroactively causing small refineries to enter the market at the near record highs. most important and most telling is the fact the epa's proposed denial did not reference it's

legally required consultation with the department of energy, and the department of energy's conclusion that if epa acts as they propose to do, small refineries will be at risk of shutdown into bankruptcy, notwithstanding that advice from the department of energy the legally required consultation, epa is moving ahead with its plans. certainly this was material information to the parties asked to provide comments on the state of small refineries. i'm sure you are aware of the fact the gas prices are at the highest levels in eight years into the inflation rate is increasing faster now than in the last 40 and we are at a crossroads. if epa persists ignoring its statutory duty and taking aim at america's small refineries, it will not only violate the law, it will exacerbate these already adverse economic conditions the

country faces. the harm to refineries and the u.s. economies will be harmed for harm's sake because denying small refinery hardship relief cannot and will not affect 1 gallon of biodiesel. no biodiesel blending will be lost. at congress' direction the department of energy in the report determined that small refinery hardships would grow increasingly acute as the volume mandates increase because as the volume mandates increase, wind prices increase. when rin prices increase, small refinery costs increase, and that is because small refinery hardship is caused by the limited ability to blend not their unwillingness to blend. epa's 2021 proposed denial concludes a small refinery with limited access to renewable fuel

blend stocks, no downstream blending capability, no retail type capability, no pipelines to access lucrative product markets will have the exact same costs to the penny to comply with of the renewable fuel standard as the largest integrated oil company in the united states. companies that have the ability to export their fuel and avoid the mandate completely, companies with the ability to blend other fuels by small refineries to generate excess and the ability to take those and trade them, speculate in them in the unregulated 30 billion-dollar market. large integrated refineries report in their public reports earning tens of millions of dollars in profits speculating in rin. i listened to a hearing talking

about the harm to the biofuels industry from granting small refinery hardship relief, which is a fiction. a small refineries first of all disproportionately produce diesel, not gasoline. they blend as much ethanol as they can, but gasoline is a small part of the production. the data demonstrates that there is zero correlation between small refinery hardship release and the blended rate generally, so in the years when the hardship relief was granted, more than in the prior years, there was zero impact on the rate. so this is a question that we have to have explained to us because there is clearly no correlation between the two. forcing small refineries to buy him a record high price will result in their failure. it will result in the closure and bankruptcy according to the department of energy and epa needs to step back.

>> have you concluded your remarks? >> yes. >> thank you so much. i would ask unanimous consent to place in the record materials on historical fuel and energy prices. here in the no objection, so ordered. the past administration's mismanagement of the renewable fuel standard along with the ongoing fuel impacts of the pandemic have created a volatile swings and compliance costs for the renewable fuel program in recent years making it hard for all stakeholders to plan and invest and meet the program's requirements. it's my understanding that oregon hasn't experienced the same volatility in the compliance cost with its clean fuels program. my question is how are the flexibilities built into oregon's low carbon fuel

standard along with additional cost containment and other measures in the programs that differ from the federal program. how do they help to mitigate the compliance cost spikes? >> thank you for that question. i think a lot of it is the ability of the agency to monitor the cost. the prices that are delivered in california and washington and idaho and for the past year or so we haven't seen a significant comparison. those are states that also don't necessarily have additional fuel

standards. we do keep track of those places pricesand we are legislatively required to have cost-containment mechanisms in the program to be able to monitor those fuel prices and so i think it is a combination of the monitoring but haven't caused these volatilities in the fuel prices in oregon. >> a quick follow-up it is my understanding oregon tracks the costs and surrounding state fuel costs as part of its implementation of the low carbon fuel standard. very briefly or their theresurrounding states that dot have the low carbon fuel standards today that have higher fuel costs than oregon? >> thank you for that question, chair carper. so as i previously stated, the most recent analysis of the data that we have been looking at is we do compare the fuel prices

both retail and wholesale to the states of washington and california idaho. we've shown we do not have any additional standards in place there and feel confident that the prices of the fuel in oregon isn't being disproportionately impacted by the fact that we do have a low carbon fuel standard. recent court decisions prevent the blends to 15% known as e- 15. this coming summer unless congress or the administration takes further action at the same time the epa over the course of several different administrations has been slow to

improve the advanced applications for the new pathways and fuel for the renewable fuel standard question. in your mind with the approval of additional advanced biofuel applications and. >> it most certainly wide. the easiest path to bring down the prices to blend more biofuel. basic supply and demand. the more blended in particular higher blend like he 15, the more created and that's how you bring down the price. so not only is that going to be addressed but you will be introducing a lower cost fuel supply for consumers and there are also technologies languishing in the epa currently producing cellulosic ethanol that they are not getting credit for because the application has been sitting around for five

years. so if there's more innovation we do need some certainty and predictability and for the regulations to keep up with the market and regulation. >> thank you for those responses. >> in your remarks you were pretty clear about the exemption. obviously i mentioned that in my opening remarks and you are probably aware the case that i brought forth in west virginia of two favorable court decisions from the fourth circuit. shouldn't epa take into consideration that the courts have actually taken into consideration making regulatory decisions and that this was causing hardship to this small refinery, how would you respond to the epa blanket denial of

everything when the courts have actually come forward and said it's not a sound decision? >> you are exactly right. for the 2016 to 2018 compliance, the fourth circuit demanded of thedecision to deny hardship ref to west virginia. if they produce about 23,000 barrels per day and it's isone of the smallest refineries in the country. the court rejected the decision because the epa didn't consider the facts of the specific case. its location, how it distributes its fuel, the fact 70% of it is then production with diesel. epa then took another shot and

denied the petition even though it had been vacated by the court and again determined that it was an eligible. the second time the fourth circuit vacated the decision this time finding epa had arbitrary and capricious and trading different than any other small refinery. so now this is the third attempt to prevent west virginia from receiving hardship relief. essentially what the epa is proposing to do is for every other small refinery in the united states will be denied hardship relief if the epa proceeds on this path. ironically, on the basis that every refinery in the united states from the largest multinational oil company to the tiniest small refinery in west virginia has exactly the same cost of compliance.

it doesn't matter that a large company can export. it doesn't matter a large integrated company has access and makes millions in speculation. everybody's cost is the same and so i always go back to the study prepared for congress which explains the hardship that a small refineries will suffer as a result of their inability to blend, as a result of their inability to take massive amounts of capital and joint venture. so yes, you are correct, senator. this is the third attempt to divest. >> and specifically. >> thank you. i was looking through your chart and it talks about where we see that gas prices going into who gets hurt the most and it talks

about the rising cost of transportation fuel, low income and many low income communities. if you have to pay an extra ten to $15 to pay your car up, that hits that person that at the end of the month is looking for an extra ten or $15 to help pay their electric bill or some other bill that's also rising at the same time. you also talked about the cost of blending is about 28.5%, 28 to 30 cents per gallon, so there is a cost to their. then you also mentioned to me before we got started that as we are moving forward, there are some guardrails epa needs to have as we are moving forward that we can provide for them. if you want to talk about that issue i'd like to hear that but i also like to hear your opinion on the overall cost of what we see now, high cost of gasoline and how we can deal with the issue of who is hitting the

hardest and there's a proposal to get rid of the gas tax that's 18 cents that's not even close to this. >> first, let's talk a little bit about the government mandated energy transition because we are the largest oil and gas producer in the world and we are very concerned certain policies are seeking to constrain north american production platform before the alternatives already. it's going to have -- we are going to produce a lot of alternative fuels and technologies, but if we proceed between 2010 and 2020, the united states alone was the application of biofuels provided over 80% of the increase in demand for liquid fuel, so that's the first thing we need to think about.

we should treat this north american production platform as a strategic and economic asset which we need to be careful before we decided to disrupt it so that is the biggest program that we have to keep the gas prices under control. the next thing is we are fighting over a small body because in the mandate, we would still be blending anywhere from eight to 10%. ethanol is a valuable feedstock. it helps to make octane requirements and other biofuels. but if we proceed with a mandate, we kind of prohibit innovation and alternatives that come forward because we have no idea what they are going to look like. then the final point, this is devastating for low income communities as you can see from that chart. everyone who wants to proceed should keep in mind i don't believe the american people

will. >> senator cardin was here earlier and i think now joins us by web x remotely. >> i appreciate this hearing very much. it's long overdue. the history of the renewable fuel standards is something that needs to be understood and we need to update this so i appreciate your leadership. there's many competing priorities. we have energy security issues and the environment concerns for climate change. we have the cost issues.

it affects the cost she was not just here and within the food stock so i would like to know what can we do if we want to focus on development and growth of domestic advanced biofuels derived from nonfood based stocks how should we be adjusting the policy with regards to the renewable fuel standards? >> i think the way to do this is to allow a lot of the alternative biofuels to compete for the liquids market and for those that have promise we should have a good research and development program and even support for deployment but we

should allow a large opportunity for consumer choice and competition to take place between manufacturers and processors of fuel to deploy these into the marketplace. >> i will go ahead and follow on those themes of choice and competition, two things we wholeheartedly do support. they need options at the pump and it's unfortunate come june 1st 1 of the lowest cost options available to them is going to be eliminated because the refineries so we've got to reintroduce the higher blends that's giving consumers one low-cost choice. when it comes to competition as we all pursue lower carbon intensive energy, that's very important and critical to that is making sure the modeling and

incentives are technology neutral. in this country the past when so let's make sure we are looking at the full lifecycle analysis of the available solutions. we are going to need everything to achieve these goals to make sure it reflects up to date science, innovation taking place within agriculture to bring down the carbon intensity and then we will have a competitive environment with a choice for consumers. >> i would mention in that regard, we both serve on the senate finance committee and we had looked at proposals to try to have a neutral in regards to the tax issues and reward those that are lower in the carbon emissions and help our environment. so, we agree with that. the problem is today's structure does reword certain high carbon sources and we don't really have a level playing field.

i don't know if the other panelists would respond to this or not. >> yes, thank you for the question. i think what i would say this is what the low carbon standard does. it really does reword the carbon intensity of the fuel, so as you mentioned going from a plant-based to a waste oil for the biodiesel, for example, it means the fact that they do have lower emissions means that they do have higher incentives, low carbon fuel standards, so those incentives bring down the cost of those fuels. so, that is the low carbon fuel standard and i think it's been working really well for the lowest. >> that some of the debate we are having right now.

>> the standard giving choice to consumer. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. before we return i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record of various materials demonstrating the strong economic growth including the statement from the assistant secretary for the policies at the department of treasury from january 31, 2022. according to the statement, growth grew 5.5% over the four quarters of 2021. fastest annual pace in 37 years. this is in addition to the materials i submitted earlier to show the energy prices today are still lower than they were in 2007 and today's prizes at the e pump are driven by growth and fuel demand as the economy emerges from the pandemic. without objection. next senator inhofe will be followed by senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chair man and before you start the clock, i want to experiment with

something i haven't tried before. i have two questions. the first question has four parts. rather than the position of having to write it down fast i'm going to ask my staff to hand her the written copy of those four questions, which i will read now. first of all, ms. johnson -- >> the time is expired. [laughter] >> i didn't do that to you. >> okay, go ahead. >> denial of the small refinery exemptions which we have in oklahoma to drive the prices up and does the data support the assertion that the exemptions lower the blending and please describe your understanding of the stakeholder engagement regarding the proposed rule and is there data to support the claim the epa refineries would

contribute to the closure of the refineries and lost jobs? anything that's already been answered we can go over that fast. >> thank you, senator and thank you for the list of questions. so, with respect to the first question of whether denial of small refinery exemptions will drive compliance costs higher and gas prices higher it is a certainty. if we publish the proposed denial, the parties holding the rin's, smaller refineries need for compliance will be in the position to demand exorbitant prices because small refiners will be captive buyers on the eve of the compliance deadlines. multiple compliance deadlines on top of one another because epa has been so delayed in its rulemaking. this is assuming rin's are available at all. so, my small refineries do not have the rin's that they need for compliance.

they are physically unavailable, not no more 2019's are available for the compliance, number 2020s are available for compliance because as epa described, parties uncertainty about with the ultimate volumes will be are holding onto their excess rin. so it is a recipe for crushing small refineries. it is a recipe for escalating rin prizes. they will get much worse if the epa moves forward with its proposal. gas prices will increase with rin prices for parties that can partially or fully pass through the cost, for example large integrated oil companies and large exempt retail chains and small refineries will be forced to violate the law without hardship relief, shutdown, curtail or go >> those are the department of energy's prediction. with respect to your second question, senator, does the data support the assertions that lower blending of

biofuels. two parts. first of all, the epa relates to 2020 and 2021, impossible to blend more, those years have closed. so, no, biofuels blend rate will go down. and essentially the other proof, 2016-2018 time frame when the prior administration granted more hardship relief. during the time when small refinery hardship increased so did the blend rate and the simple reason is small refineries, cannot meaningfully impact the blend rate. the blending is done downstream. the only question is believe it or not small refineries are going to make massive wealth transfer to the large integrated oil companies and

large except blenders, that hope for compliance. your third question, stakeholder engagement with the refiners regarding the proposed rule. small refiners were blind sided by epa's proposal to retroactively deny all 2019-21 petitions years after the statutory deadline to issue their decisions had passed, epa checked a box, they met with us on october-- i'm sorry, on august 25th of 2021, they shared no substance about their plans to issue retroactive mass adjudications and denials for small refineries. the proposal matches entirely instead the asks of the biofuel industry which seems to have meaningful engagement with the epa and the epa engaged with the usda and by the way, you, congress, decided that the

appropriate consultation was with the department of energy, not ag. and the department of energy, as i've said, has determined that epa's plans to deny hardship relief shut down refineries. your last question, senator, whether there's data to support the claim that epa's denial would contribute to the closures and i won't repeat what i said previously, but essentially, a number of small refineries do not have the compliance if they're denied relief they will be captive buyers in a market with escalating prices and epa acknowledged that there was a shortcoming in production for the 2019 compliance year and that are available in the markets are not in the hand of small refineries, so small refineries will necessarily violate the clean air act

because they will not have the ability to get what they need for compliance which will then force them to decide between spending money on that if they have it, shutting down and/or going into bankruptcy, i hope i've answered your question. >> done it in just the right amount of time the gentleman's expired, briefly. >> i have one more question, is there anything, i know you talked about this, and you answered the question, and addressed this, also, but are there anything-- in terms of the risk associated with an entirely electric fleet, that you didn't adequately cover? >> yes-- just briefly, if you would, please, briefly. the biggest problem we're energy independent now, in order to move to electric fleet

we have to move to critical materials in which we're highly dependent and some of them sourced from countries not necessarily friendly to the united states. >> if i may just correct one, you know, one question that i thought was very interesting, it's important to understand that oregon has the fifth highest gasoline prices in the country. so it may be lower than some other adjoining states bu , but gasoline prices are high. >> thank you very much. senator whitehouse, you're up. >> thank you for being here, i've long supported the biofuels and ethanol standard, but it's kind of been an act of faith that some day the market would come around and that the corn ethanol in particular was kind of a pathway effort that

would let cellulosic ethanol come forward. i'm interested in your testimony about the carbon intensity of the ethanol and biodiesel that oregon uses, that it has decreased, i'm wondering how confident you are in the measure of carbon intensity of your corn ethanol fuel stock. >> yes, thank you for that question, senator. so we do use the model to calculate intensities in the state of oregon which is the accepted national model to do so. with respect to the ethanols that we're receiving in oregon, the import of that fuel, i mean, it is producers, and so, we can keep very close track of

the different ethanols that we're getting and even the corn ethanols and what we're seeing is the incremental decreases in the carbon intensity. and ethanol over the past six years, it's incrementally going down probably about 10%. the carbon intensity has had more of a significant decrease, but it is steady and it shows that there are values in a low carbon fuel standard to draw down those intensities. and these are more efficient and better at the carbon. >> you mentioned cellulosic, what's the market share. or in your portfolio if you

know better than the national market. >> thank you for that, senator. as far as cellulosic, we don't have any cellulosic in the state of oregon and that comes into oregon it's not cellulosic, but it's decreasing in carbon. >> how much is corn? >> it's 100% corn. >> there we go. one of the things that i think we need to do in order to find a pathway to climate safety is to put a price on carbon that seems to be fairly commonly held view among economists and banks and so forth. and among people who are looking hard at the climate problems for emissions reduction solutions. and at present, the absence of one is a really massive subsidy

for the fossil fuel industry. the international monetary fund calculates it north of 600 billion dollars per year just in the united states. 600 billion dollars per year is an enormous number and provides a very strong motive for a massive political elections lobbying operation by the protected and subsidized fuel to defend and protect its subsidy politically. so, we're in a kind of a difficult position here in congress. i'm wondering, back to you again, if there were a price on carbon, how would that effect the ethanol portion of your fuel market? >> yeah, thank you for that question. so it affects the way that the low carbon fuel standard works is that we are-- that the monetizization, kind

of the value of the fuel? the credit prices, so, this is a market that we do not control. it's a market that credits that are traded within the program and currently speaking, the credits in the state of oregon are trading at about $125 per ton and it's been higher, it's been lower and we've published that on a monthly basis to show transparency to the market and so, you know, there is certainty in what that credit price is, that is associated with the carbons, and so that's how we do it in the low carbon fuel standards. >> our time is up, chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator cramer. >> thank you senator capito and everyone for being here. >> this is a topic that perplexed me since the day i

got to congress. and it's not the topic that per plexes me, but the conversation never changes. it was created during a scarcity of natural resources now we have abundance of natural resources, in the meantime we have some other policy decisions, an administration pushing right now up to $12,500 per electric vehicle subsidy to change the demand for electric vehicles. i'm going to just state some facts and then i'm asking to ask just for some feedback. so we had this debate over this constantly moving target, right? and several of us have had this discussion, but, and what i would say would be as a result of lazy legislating, which i'm convinced is a historical phenomenon in this country, administrations have been given an awful lot of leeway to

determine things like rvo's even when they're stated in the law. obviously, the hardship, the small refinery hardship waivers, another tool and get upset because for four years it's one way, four years another way, four years another way and i know a couple of you and i have had this discussion, but it seems to me the end of this year we'd kind of like-- well, for the last decade several people i've discussed this with would like to deny at the end of '22 the rules, rvo's, in other words, the epa and administration has even more more unilateral authority after this year. and i guess i would-- i'd like to just have a little discussion from the panel, what's your understanding-- start with you, miss johnson, what's your understanding of

the act when it the rvo's switch over or epa gets carte blanche to set the rvo's, in my view, if nothing happens and they get that authority? >> thank you, senator, i think that's an excellent question and something that keeps me awake at night because i see this freight train heading towards the highest possible rvo's to try to break through the blend wall and to promote e-15. the problem is that epa had discretion in how to set up the program and it's set up the program in such a way that it distorted competition. growth energy has stood shoulder to shoulder with the american petroleum institute which represents a large refineries, preventing closing the blend loophole. gross theory just keep pushing,

just keep pushing, at some point e-15 will happen. e-15 won't happen before every small refinery is shut down because right now we're counting on volunteer blending. what we call the blender loophole. small refineries do not have the ability to blend. larger refineries have the ability to blend more than they produce, until this market distortion is fixed, it's a recipe for destroying those refineries that cannot blend. so, if we want to keep pushing e-15, if we have in fact determined that e-15 is results in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which is something we all don't agree on, and was interested in cast caps. and limitations to speculate in the market and the cost of a

rin, obligaing blenders, proposals to fix the things that are renewable fuel blending have not occurred. if we go straight ahead we are going to collateral damage our industry. >> first of all, i want you to be able to respond to that. couldn't a future administration, instead of pushing e-15, eliminate, could they go to zero? would that be possible or ungl or something like that in the law? >> senator, thank you for the question. so, yes, after 2023, there are no congressionally set blending requirements. so epa has greater flexibility in terms of setting the blending obligations, a few important things, they still have some criteria that they need to consider, jobs creation and energy independence and environmental impact and i think, you know, one of the things that we've all suffered from in every sector is the lack of certainty and stability. and so, if there is an

obligation that needs to mean something. if there's a deadline, it means to mean something. and one of those is set blending requirements for multiple years in advance similar to what ms. wind was talking about in oregon and could address some of the volatility returns. >> thank you, and maybe another round, mr. chairman. the biggest point is 2022 is here now. for 10 years people looked at me, don't worry, that's in the future. well, it's-- i'd rather come up with something with everyone in the room. >> as long as it includes us. >> as long as you're in the room with me, i'm good. thank you. [laughter] >> thank you. >> senator duckworth, i think you're out there on webex. if you are, please procedure. senator duckworth?

no? the senator live here and in person and we'll come back to senator duckworth. you're recognized and then i have senator stabenow after you by webex. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'd like to begin by asking consent three documents into the hearing record, one is an economic study published in the national academy of science called environmental outcomes of u.s. renewable fuel, the second is a study by the university of georgia called analyzing the downstream impact of u.s. biofuel policies. and the third is an article entitled u.s. bread and donut maker urge biden to roll back biofuel requirements. i want to share a personal-- >> is there objection? hearing none. >> thank you. thank you very much. we've already heard testimony that the rsf mandate is adding

about 28 to 30 cents a gallon to the wholesale cost of gas on average and of course, at a time when fuel prices are extremely high, and inflation is extremely high. it works a hardship on consumers. and i believe we should look at every avenue to provide relief to consumers. you know, when i'm in cheyenne on the ranch, i grew up in, in the house i grew up in, i lived right next door to a small refinery that lost its small refiner exemption. furthermore, they were unable to, when refining for hydrocarbons, they were absolutely unable to purchase

non-hydrocarbons to blend to meet the renewable fuel standards. so, they converted the oil refinery to a refinery that now refines soy bean oil. that refinery in our little town, in the state with the smallest population in the nation, went from 260 livable wage jobs to 60 livable wage jobs. we lost 200 employees in cheyenne, which is a huge number, you know, our little community. so, this has had an enormous impact on our communities, so -- and this happened during the previous administration's tenure. so i didn't see him slow walking the loss of the small

refiners exemption. i saw them putting the hammer down and costing small communities like mine hundreds of jobs. so miss johnson, and mr. -- when congress created the fuel mandate we predicted that the program would disadvantage small refineries and of course, it has. it increasingly precludes refineries from selling the product they produce and require them to buy products they don't produce if they can get them. so this squeezes the smallest firms first and most severely. higher cost producers are harmed the most and first in time. so is this an effort to just make sure that much as we did with banks, you're too big to

fail or too small to succeed? and in the case small refiners, are they too small now to succeed? >> senator, i might just -- when you think about the american sort of refining complex, it's-- we traditionally had a lot of oil production produced and processed on the gulf coast and then the products moved up to the-- up the continent, but of course, with the emergence of production in north dakota and the energy independence in the u.s., our smaller refiners and regionals became much more important and i think they provide a vital role and as i've said, i think the solution remains in other words, for all of these different facilities with their different cost structures and different markets to adapt, they need an open market and the fundamental

problem they all face is these mandated requirements to blend to certain targets, which do not necessarily yield any benefits even to the farmer. the program is, as i said, we're fighting over very small volume and if we were to open it up and have some broad, just some broad support for the-- you know, moving biofuels forward. we would all be a lot better off and those kinds of dislocations would tend to disappear. >> ms. johnson, same question? >> senator, i really appreciate your question, it reminds me of something one of my small refineries said to me. >> we dance between the toes of giants and what that means is the smallest refinery in cheyenne, wyoming, the smallest in west virginia, smallest in whatever rural community from pennsylvania to california dance between the toes of giant, integrated,

multinational oil companies until the renewable fuels standard came along and said you know what? we're going to tilt competition in favor of the large integrated oil companies, but don't worry, we've got your back. congress said specifically, we recognize that the volume mandates and the inability of small refineries to have access to capitol to become large integrated companies that don't have access to pipelines, that don't have access-- that disproportionally have diesel fuel and blend stocks, don't worry, we've got your back, we'll be okay and we can provide an exemption. small refineries blend every drop of blend stock they possibly can, but they don't always have access and they don't always have the ability. so what happens is that they are captive buyers in a wildly inflated rin market and that's how they are harmed and i just want to be clear, when we talk

about 2019, 2020, 2021 where epa proposed to deny hardship relief, not one more drop of renewable fuel can be blended so what we're talking about epa compelling small refineries to make massive wealth transfer to large integrated oil companies, because they don't have access to feed stock, because they cannot blend. it's un-american. >> well, and that should be the focus of some of the work that we do to a better renewable program. and that's for the integrated companies that succeed and all of the small business for sale. and they're once again moving people out of small rural

communities and into the bigger areas that have the bigger refineries, that's happening in so many industries that is having a profound effect on america's jobs and demographic. there has to be a way to encourage renewable fuels at the same time you don't make it all about the small sale and the big survive and thrive. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much for these questions. senator duckworth, have you joined us yet on webex? >> yes, i have, mr. chairman. >> senator duckworth, you're recognized. >> thank you. >> in some of the comments made on today's hearing demonstrates.

there's seemingly no end to the list of the opponents of the program seek to win on american biofuels. critics now appear to be blaming biofuels for rising retail gas price, notwithstanding the reality. at the pump largely determined by a, oil prices and b, basic supply and demand. could you address the claim that rin prices and biofuel production are somehow responsible for increasing retail gas prices? >> thank you, senator, and yes, those are false claims. so the price of the rin has no bearing on the price of fuel at the pump and that's entirely separate markets and the dominant factor, driving the consumers at the pump is the price of crude oil in addition to supply and demand. that's something affirmed by our government agencies, and other modeling and i think what's really important to understand, it's the role of biofuel in bringing down the price of fuel for the consumers and the evidence today is the

price of e-15. so consumers of 31 states today. they can go up to the pump and they could put in standard 87 that's 10% blend. some of them could choose 88 octane, that's a 15% blend. when they have a little more ethanol that brings it down, they're saving up to 10 cents per gallon and there are also stations where you can buy zero percent ethanol. a premium not to have ethanol. and biofuels like ethanol help to bring down the cost of gas prices. >> thank you, and how does big oil describe the rin, it's impressive that oil providers provide this more than 15 years ago. my understanding is that epa, under the last three administrations, the american petroleum institute and numerous oil companies are all on public record confirming that oil refiners large and

small recover rin costs downstream and are therefore not irreparably harmed by the amount of money to apply a rin. could you help us understand how despite the arguments of big oil over many years, oil refiners have managed to purchase rin and stay in business? >> thank you for the question. yes, so the rin afords refiners flexibility in terms of how they demonstrate compliance. they can blind biofuel like ethanol and have a rin or purchase the rin and they have the flexibility to do this and the rss has been in place since 2007. so more than a decade for the businesses to understand the annual obligations and make the decisions accordingly. and again, important to understand some of the rin marketplace and the volatility that you see when you have refiners who are choosing not to blend and wait until the 11th hour and then seek some type of exemption or waiver or extension from the agency. i think that's where you're seeing the volatility come into

play, but the bottom line, when it comes to consumer price at the pump. the more biofuel, the more they'll save. >> and i'd like to ask unanimous consent into the record, analysis, from 2015, 2017 and 2021, that confirm what she explained along with two documents that countered the recent study. one from the renewable fuel association and the other from the national corn growers association, indicating that the usda carbon was lower than gasoline and according to the epa they have not expanded crop land, but decreased them by existing crop land not by expanding acres and according to the usda, the amount to produce a bushel of corn has fallen since the creation of rff. >> is that your unanimous

consent request? >> yes. >> is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. >> thank you, i also ask unanimous consent to include in the record for this hearing records from environmental health and engineering, the report addressing biofuels and greenhouse gas reduction. the cycle associates report documenting 1 billion metric tons of reduction attributed to biofuel use since 2007. third a study published by usda scientists, titled the greenhouse gas benefits. and reducing emissions and finally for a study published by the argon national laboratories, reducing the carbon footprint and the esg emissions. >> is there an objection? hearing none, so ordered. >> thank you, these studies confirm what we already know. america's grown and blended

biofuels for emissions for years and play an integral part in the efforts. i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much. senator, you've been patient, but senator stabenow has been patient as well on webex. if you don't mind, i'll let her go first, thank you for your patience. senator stabenow, you're there. >> i am and thank you to senator ernst, i appreciate working with her on these issues and appreciate very much you doing this hearing and i want to take just a step back, way back for a moment and kind of frame this as he think just as it's been framed as big refiners, small refiners and so on. this is really about whether we're going to have continue the dirtiest kind of fuel or have cleaner fuels, if you go back 100 years henry ford and thomas edison first tried to do a vehicle with a battery, but could not get the public

support, government support to help them create the innovation and two years later the biggest permanent tax credits for oil and gas were embedded in our federal tax code and again they're 100 years when folks thought at that time picked a winner and they won. and now we're trying to balance that out with giving opportunity to biofuels, flex vehicles, wind, solar and so on. all of which start and stop. it's not a consistent policy. it's not embedded in the tax code. so i want to ask, when we look at from a business standpoint, the importance of policy and regulatory certainty, when you're making investment decisions, innovation decisions and so on. how important is that? >> thank you for the question, senator. that's incredibly important. i think there's a very good example in terms of my industry is producing right now

cellulosic biofuel. that's above and beyond, but we're not getting credit for it because pending epa review over five years, so we as a nation, we're leaving carbon reductions on the table. and the impact, you have innovators on the sidelines, you see a lack of a marketplace moving forward and therefore, they're going to sit this one out. and stifles the innovation and the investments that we need to continue to bring down the carbon intensity of corn ethanol. we're doing a great job of that and to get our industry to net zero and participating in the hard to electrify space and that's the place where we're going to be able to perform as an important feed stock. >> thank you, one more time for the record, do biofuels, are biofuels responsible for high gas prices? >> no, quite the opposite. the more biofuels we introduce into the fuel supply, the more we bring down the price at the

pump. >> thank you, and it's also in rural michigan. one other question i have to ask as be is who now only is a supporter of biofuels and jobs, but also electric vehicles being made in my great state. both are important to reducing car nonemissions and the -- carbon emissions, and those who are making the electric vehicles, and renewable fuel standards as well. the uaw is the largest in iowa, and making farm equipment and consistently talk about the fact that they are supportive. so, could you-- does growth energy agree that both selective vehicles and biofuels are critical to

reducing carbon emissions and petroleum use? >> yes, let me add that we appreciated uaw submit strong remarks in support of a robust one. there's no one size fits all solution. we'll need every tool in the toolbox. the benefits of biofuels, those are going to be for the immediate in the long-term. in the immediate term, 270 million cars on the roads today. so biofuels allow us to have a solution for the cars and bring down emissions, to clean up the emissions and do so affordably in a way for all consumers. in the mid to long-term. we're a strong industry today that allows us to have the innovation that we're continuing to do to further drive down carbon intensity of our low carbon fuel and into the electrified space. for that we need accurate carbon modeling and incentives provide a fair, level playing field for all of the parties who want to be able to compete

and participate. >> thank you, i agree. and mr. chairman, i'll yield back and yield back to my friend from iowa, senator ernst. >> senator, patience is rewarded. >> thank you, i appreciate that, thank you, mr. chair and i ask for unanimous consents to put this in. >> i think we're setting a record for unanimous consent. >> and for members of the committee as well, just looking back, the average closing price of crude oil in 2020, it was $39.68 a barrel. and the average closing price in 2022, so far, is $85.72 a barrel. and today, it was 95.46 per

barrel of crude oil. is that due to the rfs, to our witnesses, emily? >> i'll go ahead and take that one. absolutely not. the primary factor in terms of the cost of fuel at the pump is the cost of crude oil. it's nothing to do with the rfs. >> thank you, a point, i think that members are trying to make today is the cost of fuel is, because of the rfs, it's not, it's about the price of oil. so i respect that and i hope that our folks out there listening are paying attention to that, the price of our fuel is the price of the oil. so we've had rsf around for a number of years, and congress acts for that to be established so we could refuse our greenhouse gas emissions.

the folks across the midwest, our farmers, our producers, responded to the call to congress. and they developed systems that produce clean, reliable energy sources. and i also reject the premise that oil refineries, and their rural communities are more important than my rural community. as we're looking to 2023 and beyond, america's farmers and the biofuel sector are best positioned to work with this administration and others to put the renewable fuel standards back on track, and be part of the solution to secure a clean energy future. as much as the biden administration themes of an all electric world, the reality is liquid fuels are here to stay. with 98% of cars and trucks today and nearly 80% of new vehicle sales projected in 2050

running on gasoline or flex fuel, biofuel is the key pathway to decarbonizing the transportation sector, and the rfs is the policy engine to make this possible. congress passed the energy policy act of 2005 and energy and security act of 2007 which mandated in part to help reduce america's dependence on foreign nations. folks, i firmly believe that energy security is national security. while president biden claims to support the energy economy, he's turning his back in favor of electric vehicles which will only make us more dependent on china, science is on our side here, too. biofuel has enabled the u.s. to cut emissions over a decade. between 2008 and 2020 the rfs

saved nearly one million metric of carbon emissions and it's only getting clean. ethanol is less intense stiff than oil and biodiesel. -- biofuel can further reduce greenhouse gas emissions with carbon capture and skwes sequestration and with many of our iowa farmers are already doing. let's follow the science as use biofuel as part of a clean energy policy. it's not only the clean energy source, biofuel is also great for our economy and our pocket books. iowa corn and soybean farmers had record high crops in 2021. the biofuel accounts for over 5 billion of gdp, generates 2.6 billion of income for

households and supports nearly 46,000 jobs in iowa alone. in my rural area. ethanol is also the cheapest form of fuel for consumers right now, by about 50 cents. 50 cents. and certainly, with record high inflation, it only makes sense to make this fuel source more readily available, and that's why i continue to urge the administration allow summertime sales of e-15 as soon as possible. it will not only support our consumers, it will also support the nearly 300 retail stations in iowa who want to provide a cleaner choice at the pump. folks, the rfs is the law and refiners have had over 15 years to come into compliance. blend renewable fuels or by rin. it's your choice. any claim that rin prices are increasing gas prices, it is a

bunch of hogwash. refiners claim they need exemptions because rins cost them money, that the last three administrations say that rin prices do not cause harm to refiners. small refiner exemptions go against congressional intent and the supreme court reinforced this. a strong rfs supports rural america and increases consumer access to affordable, home grown, clean burning biofuel today, tomorrow, and we also hope for many years to come. and thank you, i will yield back. >> thanks, senator. again, thanks for your attendance, thanks for your patience and your questions and comments. several members and witnesses have asserted that the increase of gasoline at the pump is attributable to crude oil prices so i should look at the

numbers and back to february of 2021, the price of oil at the pump was 62.28, 62.28, and the price of today is 94, roughly $94 per barrel, an increase of about 51%. so, those are interesting numbers. all right, i've got a couple of questions and senator capito you may have some wrap-up questions as well. before i do that, is senator wicker, just going to try to get here. senator wicker, are you out there anymore. not able to come. thanks. a couple of questions, the first one that i'd like to ask is, or the next one i'd like to ask miss wind with respect to eligible fuels. like the renewable fuel standards requiring, fuels be derived by fuel by sources, low

carbon fuel standard programs like oregon are generally intended to be both neutral and technology neutral. with this in mind, the oregon fuel program has a broader demonstration of transportation than the renewable fuel standard. how has the broader fuels benefitted the program and how has this encourage investment in producing cleaner fuels in your states? >> yes, thank you for that question, senator carper. it's true, the state of oregon with the fuel standards, we do basically value any of the transportation fuels that are lower carbon than gas and diesel. in addition to biofuels and electricity, we have renewable natural gas and propane and renewable and we'll be investing more in hydrogen as well. what we'd like to see is that

even with natural gas and with propane, that we switch from the fossil version, and even with a glitch of fossil diesel, there are benefits from the propane and the natural gas. so, you know, if those are the fuels that because of the lower cost of those fuels, are what is leading to more infrastructure and more vehicles and fuel space, and then switching to the renewable version and lower the carbon intensity more, those are the types of things that we also see in the state of oregon and will likely continue to see as we move into the future for the clean fuel program. >> thank you, and a follow-up, also, with the restrictions on what qualifies in advanced fuel, other renewable newly

standards, could a fuel program like oregon's clean fuels program provide more opportunities for your member companies to participate in the current structure of the renewable fuel standard? >> yes, we're a low carbon fuel and we appreciate the concept of a low carbon fuel standard. importantly as you've stated, senator. making sure this is carbon neutral. was where it comes into play. the full cycle analysis of biofuels like ethanol. that you're considering the low carbon farming practices that continue to bring down the carbon intenity of our fuel. if you have a program that's truly technology neutral and the current science and innovation that take place and allows for use of an e-15, that's a place to play and help to achieve some of our

collective low carbon goals. and add that's complementary to the rfs. and talking about the stats to continue, making sure the lowest of the low will move into a market. >> i've got two more quick questions and then senator capito, we've got a vote underway as well. and for the entire panel, i'd ask -- i appreciate the perspectives, i think we all do, the perspectives that our panel has shared with us. if we want to compliment our staffs for pulling it altogether. thank you for joining us, in person and remotely. and i hope this dialog can help with action to support the future of this important program and with that said i also recognize the challenges in forging a bath forward for

the renewable fuel standards and in closing, just if you will, where you believe there might be common ground for all of us, on this panel as we have this issue going forward and we will. would you like to go first? >> certainly, thank you. i heard a lot of concensus about the importance of competition, about the importance of marketplace certainty and the importance of consumer choice. as we make sure that we drive toward low carbon fuel options for consumers that are affordable and available and this is a place where biofuels really have a role to play. what we need is a renewable standard that is in force, so there is some certainty and those making business decisions throughout the fuel supply chain, including agriculture and refining, and we understand what the obligations are and we bring down that volatility, and we look forward to seeing the

epa fix and finalize the blending obligation for 20, 201 and 22, as expeditiously as possible and that certainty is good for all parties. >> senator, do you have one more question? >> thank you, mr. chair. just briefly. because i think i've gotten most of the for my questions, but i would like for emily, would you respond to-- about the state, give a statement or thoughts on the anti-ethanol study that was done earlier this week? >> i appreciate the comment, thank you, yes, i'm familiar with that and it's concerning when you look at manipulation of the science and data, ut unorthodox methodology that leads to fictitious and erroneous positions. you look at the totality of science and concensus of epa and the national labs and the resources board and oregon's department of environmental

quality, and of course, many scientists. ethanol is lower carbon than glean and that advantage continues to increase. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> senator capito has one last question and ask that the reminder of my time go to three of our witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i do have to run really quick after i make a comment or two. i think it's been a very interesting hearing and i think there is concensus that there's a lack of certainty, maybe certainty in different areas that you might share different areas that don't have certainty, but you're looking to us to provide some of the certainty so at that epa can move forward. in my view. nothing screams lack of certainty than having something revoked two years later. that's unconscionable nonator what is happening. a producer, a refiner, a coal

miner, ev car maker, if you have the okay and you have the permit to move forward. how can you possibly conduct business and somebody is going to come back and revoke it? that to me is lack of certainty. and the corn may work for the climate, i'm not going to-- i don't know, what is the life cycle, how long does it go? what are producing ethanol corn or growing corn or getting crude out of the ground? i mean, i think we need to have some consistency here and certainty here that we're using the same measurement data because i think it confuses the american public, frankly, and many of us here who are making those decisions, i just want to thank you, mr. chairman. i don't really have a question, i just thank the witnesses for

being and our members for asking some good questions. >> that's valuable. and as you know, this committee is pretty good at finding the middle and complex difficult issues, unanimously in some cases and this is a hard one. and we look forward to working with your team and others on this committee, trying to find a path forward. i'd like to say if it's appropriate, this is not a perfect situation. i'm going back to the panel again, and ask a question, i call common ground question and ask each of you to take a minute where you believe all of the common ground is and i think only one had an opportunity to respond. so let me ask our other witnesses if they would respond as well. miss wind, why don't you go first? >> thank you for the question, senator. i think i would-- >> common ground. >> yes, common ground.

and so, i think would echo what ms. gore and ranking members have mentioned. it's something that we hear quite a bit from the stakeholders that participate in the market. certainty, as far as regulatory certainty established for our program and why we are taking our current, and expanding standards out to 2035 and i think along with certainty and transparency in what we do, you know, in the ways that we do and the information used to establish carbon intenintensity well the credit pricing and the transactions for that. i mean, it's something that is how we implement the program in oregon and i think that shows really well.

>> thank you, ma'am. >> and mr. pole-- did i get it right? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one of the problems maybe we should try to do a better job giving a common set of facts so-- >> sometimes that helps. >> yeah, sometimes that helps, and one of the things i'd like to ask the committee do. let's have the information agency publish data on what the domestic price of gleans gasoline is. there's discussions crude oil is causing the prices to go up. of course it is, but there are other components in transportation fuels. if we could get them to work on this, a concensus on where are the hot spots, so to speak, beyond crude oil that are driving up gasoline prices.

>> thank you for that suggestion. miss cole, same question. >> common ground is that smaller refineries do not oppose a biofuel. where we depart is the ability of everybody to share in the ability to blend or pay high rin prices, but i'd say we have commonalty in wanting lower emitting biofuels, where we depart on that point, also, whether or not ethanol is a lower emitting fuel because as we've been talking about, the recent study suggests that ethanol could be higher than petroleum based fuels. so to the point, information is key. senator ernst explained that blending is a choice. >> it's not a choice when you

don't have access to biofuels. instead of resisting freedom of information act requests relate today how much each refinely is paying, and what is the actual cost of compliance, we understand they're for compliance, but not necessarily in the hands of those who need them for compliance. whose hands are they in? more forth coming data would certainly help disspell some of the disagreements so i think that would be important. there are substantial barriers to blending, which i agree with, there are, i think we disagree what those are. but there are substantial barriers, we have to have a change the renewable fuel standard if we want it to be sensible and not distort

competition and if we want to bring down the price of gasoline and diesel. >> thank you, i have a quick question and ask you to be brief in your response because we have a vote underway and i don't want to miss that vote, but my understanding that the previous administration, compared to the obama administration, waivers for refineries, integrated companies like exxonmobil, is that your understanding? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. in the previous administration, epa increased the number of small refinery exemptions by a factor of six, that was a six-fold increase over finally exemptions, demand destruction and without any information or transparency in the theme of information as to how it is that they determined that those particular refiners met the narrow threshold that is, you've got to demonstrate disproportionate economic harm

as a result of our compliance. so we're pleased to see that this epa is taking a different approach and really looking to follow the law and the narrow scope of that relief avenue which is available. >> thank you for that response. well, in closing, i believe that we've had what, great participation from the witnesses and in person, i'm grateful for all of that and grateful for our staffs and pulling together a great panel and this is not an easy issue. it's the first time we've had a hearing on in almost like six years and long overdue, it's helpful for me and helpful for my colleagues and it's a good start and again, this is how much of this committee as we work together, we work across party lines and try to get as we can and find concensus. i want to thank you all for joining us today. if done collectly, they help to

safeguard the economic and boost opportunity for farmers and greenhouse gas emissions and i look forward to continuing the conversation and working with members of our committee and the-- and as we look to the future, i believe we can encourage greater sustainabilities for the fuel that empower our lives. before we adjourn, housekeeping, senators will be allowed to submit written questions for the record through close of business on wednesday, march 2nd. we'll compile those questions, panel and send them to you and we'll ask you to respond, if you will, by wednesday, march 16th. and with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you all.

[inaudible conversations] ... [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> congress returns from its presidents' day break. later today the house returns a 2 p.m. eastern and it is expected to vote later in week e week to expand health care benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the senate is back at 3 p.m. eastern. senators voting to begin work on

legislation to prohibit states from restricting access to abortions as well as to reform the u.s. postal service. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2, online at c-span.org with our free c-span now video-out. >> -- video app. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the annual conservative political action conferee