student at atime. cox, bringing us closer . >> cox supports c-span as a public servicealong with these other television providers give you a front row seat to democracy . >> tv every sunday on c-span features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. live at noon eastern on in-depth, author and journalist sandy noonan will be our guest taking calls on immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. his books include true tales from another mexico, dreamland and most recently the least of us about the neuroscience of addiction and deadly impact of synthetic drugs and at 10 pm eastern on "after words", kelly wild reports on the rise of the flapper movement and other conspiracy theories disseminated through online platforms. she's the author of off the edge of the flat servers,

conspiracy culture and why people will believe anything. she's interviewed by reason magazine editor jesse walker. watch book tv on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org, booktv.org. >> representatives fromthe clean energy sector and petroleum industry spoke about the implementation of the epa renewable fuel standard program and its potential impacts . thiswill be a hearing by the senate and public works committee and runs exactly 2 hours .

>>. [inaudible] pleased to call this hearing to order. today we examine the environmental protection agency renewable fuel standard program which includes management and implementation challenges as well as opportunities to encourage greater deployment of more sustainable fuels . our staff tells me that our committee has not held an oversight hearing on this topic in since about 2016. this is going on six years but to help inform our discussion we're fortunate to have an expert panel of witnesses joining us today. and we want to thank all of you for participating in this meeting and discussion. winston churchill's s credited

with saying a lot of things. one of my favorite quotes is we look forward, we see so we're going to take a moment to understand the history of this program and how we got to where we are today. in early 2000 our nation's energy future didn't look all that promising. americans were consuming more and more gasoline and diesel fuels. we are in credit increasingly relying on oil to fuel this growth and exports are increasing. global oil prices were without on the rise without any indication of slowing down and consumers were paying more at the pump every year. at the time a barness bipartisan group in congress took several steps to improve our nation's energy future and i would say with the leadership of president george w. bush, among those steps we createdand expanded the renewable fuel standard under the clean air act . our goals included providing economic opportunity for

farmers while also lowering our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel we burn in our cars and trucks and vans . since the implementation of the program we've come a long way to achieving our goals, economic growth in agricultural communities is expanding at our fuels have e become significantly cleaner than they were two decades ago . in fact the renewable fuel standard presents opportunities for people in delaware and any other state to seize. like many of our colleagues on this committee i still support the goals of the renewable fuel standards. having said that there have been a number of challenges when it comes to the implementation of the program as we know. for example the amount of advanced renewable fuels in this country is far less than 36 billion gallons that congress and the president mandated in 2007 to be used

by 2022. that shortfall is partly do to unforeseen market challenges and is partly due to epa's delay in improving new fuelsto enter the marketplace . but make no mistake advanced renewable fuels are being produced that have the potential to replace gasoline , diesel and fuels on a day by day basis and today's combustion engines with no loss of performance. many of these advanced fuels have been approved for use in state renewable fuel programs in states like oregon. however epa has been slow to make decisions on new advanced biofuel applications and pathways for usage. at the same time the clean air act prohibits some of the advanced renewable fuels that qualify for state programs as renewable fuel into the federal program. we must find better ways to allow new advanced renewable

fuels to qualify for the renewable fuel standards and doing so would be good for our environment, it would help refineries meet their obligations and further support a growing domestic biofuel industry. another challenge in implementing the renewable fuel standard is volatility and compliance costs for refineries. years of mismanagement under the previous administration coupled with the unexpected changes in fuel supply and demand caused by the pandemic collectively wreaked havoc on the compliance market known as the wind market. what is the wind market? epa tracks compliance with the renewable fuel standard by using tradable credits referred to as a renewable identification number. refineries and importers can generate wins either by blending biofuels or by purchasing wins from another party through what's known as thewind market .

the huge price swing and costs from $.30 to almost two dollars per gallon of renewable fuel in less than two hours, two years have created financial uncertainty forjust about everybody. especially those who are required to comply with the renewable fuel standard . that in turn is made difficult forobligated parties to make forward thinking investments in producing cleaner fuels . i'm going to sneeze. maybe not. all right. excuse me. we must have, we must help reduce the volatility and compliancecosts for this program to be successful . as we we are exploring ways and i sometimes work to see what's working in our states and see if we can really replicate some of them. many states like california,

like oregon have been low carbon fuel standards in these set standards have advanced cleaner fuel usage, consumer and compliance costs low while fostering local clean fuel investments and job creation. as we will hear today these state programs fuel flexibility, longtime patentability and cost containment provisionsnot included in the renewablefuel standards . maybe they should be . in closing as one of the strongest supporters of electric vehicles in the senate i know it's important to remember we are yet in a post-liquid fuel world. we must retain our domestic capabilities to produce and refine a motor vehicle you'll power line about ensuring these fuels are asclean as possible . we look forward to our witnesses today but before we do that let me turn to senator capito.

you're looking right and you recognize for your opening statement. >> it's nice to be back in the nation's capital so i appreciate that. >> i want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. the renewable fuel standard as the chairman defined now known as rfs is an important topic our committee and but we haven't had that hearing since 2016 so i think the long gap between here it speaks to the thintricacies of the program but it's the fact that thepotential faultlines between opponents, supporters and would-be reformers do not always a line between one party or another . there are a few issues i would like to cover during this hearing. small refinery exemptions is one, changes to the program coming in the year 2022 and the need for accountability from epa'soffice of air including the need for a

nominee to head it . i'd like to highlight my concern about the two actions the epa announced. first, in december the agency proposes an all-time high renewable volume obligation for 2022 that does not really reflect market realities and i'd be interested to hear what our panel has to say about that. i'm sure this volume obligation will raise costs when a time when gasoline is high in and of itself. impacting american consumers in the economy. also in december epa announced a proposal to deny all pending small refinery exemptions. which provide critical relief to small refineries experiencing unusual hardship that is imposed by the rfs program. this action runs counter to the congressional intent under the clean air act. epa's proposed action will negatively impact a small

refinery located in northern west virginia. irvine has already won 2 court cases in the fourth circuit finding the epa acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in defining it small exemption petitions. oregon is one of the number of small refineries that have two traditions pending before the epa. it's unprecedented and drastic steps to propose a blanket denial of outstanding small refinery hardship decisions is especially puzzling as we see increasing gasoline prices and several small refinery closures around the nation. eliminating good paying jobs and some of our rural communities as well. ultimately this proposal will only lead to more litigation and increase uncertainty near the rfs with american consumers bearing the cost of

it already record high inflation. i urged the epato reconsider its proposal to provide relief for small refineries and the families and businesses being harmed by elevated fuel costs . i look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on this issue. next i'd like to touch on an issue many of us agree upon and that is our liquid fuels as the chairman touched on this are still very very important. i can tell you firsthand liquid fuel is not going away anytime in my state of west virginia. forcing a single technology approach such as insisting on 100 percent electric vehicles disregard the important fact that communities have different needs for transportation solutions. it may be true electric vehicle sales are slowly but surelyincreasing liquid fuel is not used exclusively in passenger vehicles . it's important for heavy-duty trucks and our airplanes to name a few. so what issue i like to hear about today is how important

our liquid fuels and you think liquid fuels are going away anytime soon. this conversation on liquid fuels especially important as the rfs program enters a new phase next year. when congress and acted the rfs annual volume included for the calendar years 2006 through 2022 but after 2022 epa has the power to determine the annual volume amount and the chairman pointed out we're not even hitting the amounts we're supposed to be hitting as it is. epa issued a rule to do that but i have concerns about how epa plans to take action on this program without anyone in the senate confirmed role in the office that handles the rfs program. the rfs of office of air and radiation at epa is the office in charge with air emissions and climate commissions, and it handles the renewable fuel standard and many other complex regulatory programs. yet we have been waiting for more than a year for the administration and president to name a nominee to that

office. i talked about this more than once in archimedes. said principal deputy administrator job often has certain served as lead political official in regular medication with his former boss climate czar in the white house. no incoming administration has waited this long to send up a nominee for this critical position since its creation, the previous record was 260 daysset by president clinton . if epa is deciding what actions related to the future of this program administration needs to send the office of air and radiation nominee who can be accountable to congress. with that mister chair i yelled back my time thank you very much for those comments. now we turn to our esteemed panel of witnesses and couple minutes in we really are from them in this order. first the queen fuel program

manager at the oregon department of environmental quality. second we hear from chief executive officer of growth and energy and third we hear from. [inaudible] would you repeat what would you just say your name for us? lucian, the p is silent. it really is. thank you. next, the president of the energy policy research foundation and finally last but not least we will hear from leanne johnson coat, partner at brookings. before witnesses begin their testimony i will turn it over to our colleagues senator merkley to introduce one of our witnesses. the floor is yours cclass thank you mister chairman. and ranking member capito and

fellow committee members. we will get throughthe renewable fuel standard and as we look around , at all the visible e measurable signs of the global time and climate change we need to adopt cleaner forms of energy and end our dependence on carbonemitting fossil fuels . it's plain to see and i believe we have an incredible opportunity to reduce emissions electrifying our cars and trucks. investments we've made in infrastructure and jobs act as well as the ones we want to make and buildback better or important steps . but there is no doubt that sustainable liquid fuels are going to play an important role in four years to come as we strive to tackle the challenge of global climate chaos. not all of these solutions are going to start with the federal government. we're going to see state innovate and we need to learn

from them. this is something we've recognized back home in oregon as your after year we confront fiercer wildfires, devastating our forests, historic droughts, devastating our ranching and farming communities. and having a huge impact on the health of our links and streams. and classifying emotions reading havoc on rc life on the oregon coast. and certainly on our fishing community. so oregon has got to do more through the oregon clean fuels program. since it began almost 6 years ago is a resounding success. through this program are state has reduced a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels and put us on track to meet our goal within the next three years. i think the success we had

back home in oregon can and ought to help inform the discussion for our nation regarding the federal fuels policy. oregon dance as an example of the fact that a low carbon fuel standard can work in the transportation sector. which is why i'm delighted to introduce my fellow oregonian , previously from hawaii but now many decades in oregon is miss corey on wind, manager of the clean fuel program. she is a proud graduate of oregon state university with a degree in bio resources engineering and has been in and roman are of the department of environmental quality for three weeks the last three of them in fuel and transportation quality. as head of the clean fuel program miss wind is responsible for coordinating between the state, fuel importers. and clean fuels industry to ensure everyone has the tools and assistance necessary to transform our fuel market. he works to ensure our rules and regulations aligned with those of neighboring states.

certainly washington and california. to help makesure the state along the west coast are moving in the same direction . so i'm thrilled that she is with us today. through the miracle of electronics, to share her experiences about what has worked in oregon and how thosesuccesses can be implemented on a larger scale . thank you mister chairman. >> thank you very much and now we will begin our witness testimony running the with miss nguyen and i'd appreciate if you start with your statement. go right ahead. >> good morning members of the committee. for the record my name is corey and when and i work for the oregon department of environmental quality. thank you for the invitation to you today about the oregon clean fuels program which is oregon's version of the low carbon fuel standard and i'd like to thank senator merkley for that very nice

introduction and for your continued leadership in addressing the climate crisis. so the clean fuel program is one of oregon's most successful statewide policy for addressing the state contribution to global climate change. the program began in 2016 and thus far program's success and progress can be summarized in three distinct outcomes. so first the companies that are producing biofuels are making those fuels more cleanly and delivering them in greater volumes or about . the carbon in intensity of the ethanol and biodiesel oregon uses has decreased and we've seen significant increases in the blending of biodiesel and renewable diesel in recent years. renewable forms of diesel, natural gas, propane and electricity have entered the oregon market since the

beginning of the program and have emerged as commercially viable and cost-effective replacement for fossil versions. electricity will become increasingly important as the new regulations and incentives for vehicles and infrastructure are implemented. and all of these fuels have played an important role in reducing about 6 million tons of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and displacing 1 s billion gallons of fossil fuels in oregon. second, the transition from fossil fuels to biofuels and electricity is reducing tailpipe emissions in oregon and improving the public health of oregonians. in addition to reducing greenhouse gases , low carbon fuels also in less carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter compared to toxic fuels and reducing these pollutants has saved oregonians millions of dollars in avoiding health

costs over the years. this is especially important for oregon's historically overburdened communities are located near transportation corridors , multimodal facilities and distribution hubs. third the program has spurred innovation and investment impacting the price. the program has fostered $100 billion a year plus market where investments are being made to increase the production of lower carbon fuels, spark new innovations in technology and deliver these fuels across the state. these investments have allowed the transition from fossil products to happen without any significant rise in retail or wholesale prices when compared to our neighboring states. even those that do not have fuel regulations and in fact the program has lower the cost of many low carbon fuels and has created a powerful

financial incentive to decolonize the transportation sector. the clean fuel program that we created in oregon takes the best parts of the renewable fuel standards and combined with the best parts of the low carbon fuel standards so the renewable fuel standard creates a base demand for biofuels needed to begin the transition to lower carbon fuels and the lower carbon fuel standards ensure the lowest of the low carbon fuels comes to oregon. participants to the assessed value from the renewable fuel standards with a credit from the low carbon fuel standards as both are necessary to provide the necessary incentives to fuel providers to continue to lower their carbon intensities. the market also benefits from the long-term certainty from the low carbon fuels and programs that have established targets through

2030 is currently in rulemaking that extended targets and establish standards through 2035 . we have not done this alone. from the signatories to the pacific coast collaborative. since 2013 british columbia, washington, oregon and california have worked together to harmonize best practices for policy alignment, program design and implementation to create the largest market for cleaner low carbon fuels on the west coast. this collaboration has grown to other states that are now also looking for strategies to reduce transportation emissions. one can build a strong federal support of agriculture and biofuels industry. zero emission vehicle standards and investments in electric vehicle charging an alternative vehicle fuel infrastructure. that concludes my testimony for today. i'm happy to take any questions you might have.

thank you again for the invitation to be here. >> thank you, we would like to find out what works and do more ofthat and sometimes the states come up with good ideas we can benefit from so thank you for your testimony . next we will hear from miss gore, nice to see you nice to see you chairman carver, ranking member capito and members of the committee. i'm emily score,ceo of the world's largest biofuel trade association. the rfs remains the nation's most successful clean energy policy yet it's full potential as a climate solution remains untapped . for the past eight years a lack of an accountability and failure to comply and slowed progress on carbon reductions but today as congress looks to reduce the carbon intensity of our nation's transportation fleet it is imperative biofuels like ethanol, the most affordable

and abundant source of low carbon i octane fuel are part of our transportation mix now and into the future but let me be clear: there is no path towards net zero emissions by 2050 without biofuel. 98 percent of the cars on the road today use liquid fuel eia projects gasoline reflects fuel our vehicles willdominate new sales through 2050 . we can see progress in carbon reductions with today's infrastructure, today's vehicles and a homegrown supply chain a robust and binding renewable fuel standard and acceleration towards nationwide year-round use of lower-cost biofuel. today the rfs hazard is 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. expansion of biofuel cuts emissions, drives energy innovation and vital manufacturing jobs and lowers gas prices for american drivers. but since 2013 the rfs has been undermined through the use of waivers, small refinery exemptions and

compliance deadline exemptions read most of these administrative actions would have been to appease the unfounded claims of a select few looking to subvert the rfs, slowing progress . epa's recent proposal delayed as they are right some of these wrongs. they include the required biofuel in 2022. a long overdue remedy for 2016 generalwaiver and an end to the abuse of small refinery exemptions . epa takes another step by seeking to reduce the blending obligations finalized two years ago. this retroactive change exceeds the agency's authority and creates market disruption and uncertainty epa needs to finalize the proposal as soon as possible . looking forward to achieve our shared clean energy goal we need year-round access to higher blended ethanol. nationwide the 15/co2

emissions by more than 17 million tons, support 180,000 new jobs and save consumers more than $12 billion in annual fuelcosts . unfortunately refiners incessantly sued to prevent from being sold through much of the country. not only have enterprise consumers of the lower-cost fuel they eliminated and easy path for their own rfs compliance. without action consumers will lose access to their fuel adoption when americans drive the most. congress or epa must restore market access so drivers can save up to $.10 per gallon every time they fuel up. tin addition to reducing emissions like light-duty vehicles fuels are poised to play a greater role in decolonizing other forms of transportation. bio refineries are already deploying carbon capture and wind and solar energy and incentivizing sustainable farming practices, all to

drive further innovation and further reductions in our rbcarbon intensity. we see promise in new and emerging low carbon fuel markets and hard to electrify sectors like aviation, marine and heavy-duty vehicles. to lead our nation to clean energy transition wemust have a healthy and thriving biofuel industry . we must have a strong and growing rfs must move towards the 15 as the nation's standard fuel . don't be.be the rfs is not does not harm refiners.. ministrations of court time for this. claims to the contrary are a smokescreen to diver energy away from american energy. undermining the rfs and delaying the rollout means increasing gas prices for american consumers. gas prices are given by the price of crude, not the cost. america's farmers and biofuel producers are ready to work with the administration and congress to restore and anput the rfs back on track. thank you and i look forward

to your questions. >> thanks very much for joining us for your testimony. >> i had a shot at your name and i think i'm getting close again . thanks, you are recognized, please proceed. >> can we to up the taurus please. >> chairman carver, ranking member capital, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to make some comments on the epa's renewable fuel standard and management of the program. the energy nt of policy research foundation we been aroundsince 1944 . i want to thank senior director max brassiere for helping me with the testimony and preparation of the charts. the first thing i like to say is that in all our work over the years we've testified here actually 2018.

i mean, 2016. we have always said that biofuels and particularly ethanol represent a very important component of the fuel supply for us. it's a very cost-effective way to get octane and extend the supply. basic criticism of the program is not with biofuel, it's with demand. so let's go to the first part. as you can see in the first chart and chairman carver talked about this already. we're not hittingthe original targets of these energy security acts . in fact there's a lot of reasons for that. you can see now where about 20 billion against the initial proposed target of 36 . so the basic reason we're not hitting the target is because our expectations were wrong. there's a lot of uncertainty in the future of oil and gas rises and supply and demand. in 2007 expectations were

that gasoline demand was going to grow dramatically by about 30 percent over the next 20, 30 years. in fact, it declined dramatically . this made it more difficult to incorporate biofuels because when biofuels become a large percentage of the gasoline pool, the costs rise. they're actually quite low cost can save money up to around 10 percent, above 12 percent. you can see this. this is actually very interesting and we testified in 2016, we informed the committee that there was a certain price pricelist to the program. but if you tried to drive these i/o fuels by mandates , above 10 percent of the gasoline fuel, the compliance costs escalate. and as chairman carver pointed out, it's ourone way to understand what the program costs . we estimated using the cbo

scenarios alone increase in the cost of the program for dell and to consumers could be anywhere from $.30-$.50. well, today the iran prices are driving up the cost of gasoline about 28 and a half cents. you can see this in something called the crack spread, i'm not going to bore you with this but in a way the spread is what it costs to take crude oil and turn it into gasoline diesel fuel and other petroleum products. you can see here when we had a period and helios want to talk about this but before epa changed the rules on how to treat the credits under the exemption, the rent program was brought as the sole refinery exemptions were driving down rent prices because it essentially increased the volume. but that program has ended. combined with the acceleration in prices to come out of the building we

now have high prices and these are reflected. the other issue i want to point out is that we are now answering a period of very high oil prices. and in this period preceding this, prices were low and a lot of the costs were massed because of as ms. gore pointed out a big percentage of the cost of the program of gasoline and products is crude oil. and i'd like to show you here from california. the problem is yes, crude oil might be icontributing about two dollars but an array of programs on the low carbon fuel standards, rfs. federal taxes, all of these are contributed to the cost. so we just have to keep this in mind. one of the components of high

gasoline prices are these programs. now, i think i'll just flip to the end of my comments here. but as we go forward, and the future is very uncertain. and i really encourage congress to one, give some guidance to epa because unless we have a set of programs which are robust against uncertainty will likely dislocations and this is a problem withthe program . it's the mandate. >> thank you very much. and last but not least, into misspoke and we thank you for your testimony. pleaseproceed . >> thank you chairman carver, ranking member of the committee for the opportunity to talk about theourenewable fuel standard . i spent the entirety of my 30 year career representing the

petroleum refining industry and particularly small refineries. i know their companies, i know their people, i know their communities and now i also know the very real threat they face as a result of epa's proposal to end small refinery hardship relief on the renewable fuel standards i'm referring course to what senator capito describes, epa's 2021 proposal to issue a blanket denial of all pending small refinery hardship petitions. the epa's deadline to issue their decisions was 90 days after the petitions were submitted. instead, they now tend to deny them retroactively causing small refineries to enter the market to buy grins at their near record highs. most important and most telling is the fact that epa's proposed denial did not reference its legally required consultation with the department of energy and

the department of energy's conclusions that if epa acts as a proposed to do small refineries will be at risk of beshutdown and bankruptcy. notwithstanding that device, are legally required consultation epa is moving ahead with its plans. certainly this was material information to parties asked to provide comment on the face of small refineries. senator, i'm sure you are aware of the fact that gas prices are at their highest level and 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 will not only violate the law , it will exacerbate these already adverse economic conditions that our country faces. harm to refineries and to the us economy will be arms for

our sake because denying small refinery hardship relief cannot and will not affect one gallon of biodiesel. no biodiesel lending will be lost. congresses direction the department of energy and a 2011 report determines that small refinery hardship would grow increasingly volume mandates increase. because it's the volume mandates increase, rent prices increase. when rent prices increase, small requires cost increase and that is because small refinery hardships are caused by their limited ability to blend not their unwillingness to blend. epa's 2021 proposed denial concludes that a small refinery with limited access to renewable fuel blends, no downstream lending capability , no retail capability, no

pipelines to access lucrative product markets will have the exact same cost to the penny to comply with a renewable fuel standard as the largest integrated laoil company in the united states. companies that have the ability to export their fuel and avoid the rfs mandate completely. companies with the ability to blend others fuels. fuel produced by small refineries to generate access grins and the ability to take those excess and train them speculate in them in the holy unregulated $30 billion rent market. large integrated refineries records in their public records earning tens of millions of dollars in profits speculating. lai listen to a hearing talking about the harm to the biofuels industry from grantingsmaller refinery

hardshiprelief . which is a fiction . small refineries for small disproportionately produce diesel. not gasoline. they blend as much ethanol as they can gasoline is a small part of their productions. the data demonstrate that there is zero correlation between small refinery hardship relief f and blend rates generally so in years when the hardship relief was granted, more than in prior years there was zero impact on the lens. so this is a question that we have to have miss laura explained to us because there's clearly nocorrelation between the two .forcing small refineries to buy grins and record high prices will result in their failure. it will result in their closure and will result in their bankruptcies according to the department of energy and epa needs tostep back . >> have you concluded your

remarks? thank you so much. before we begin questions i'm going to ask unanimous consent to place on the record materials on historic fuel and energy crisis. hearing no objection, so ordered. miss nguyen. the past administrations mismanagement of the renewable fuel standard along with the ongoing fuel impacts of the pandemic have created viral swings and compliance costs for the renewable fuels program in recent years. making it hard for our stakeholders to plan and d invest to meet the program's requirements. it's my understanding they have not experienced the same compliance costs whether it's clean fuels program. my question is how do the flexibilities built into oregon's low carbon fuel standard along with the additional cost containment

and other measures within oregon's program differ from thefederal program ? how do they help to mitigate compliance costs spikes? >> thank you for that question chair carver. so i think a lot of what is diligent in the program is the ability for agencies to monitor the costs. we do our neighboring states do retain the wholesale prices of fuels that are delivered in california and washington and in idaho and for the past years we've been operating rwe have not seen this increase in comparison to those spaces. those are states that also don't necessarily in the state of idaho don't have additional fuel standards. we do keep track of those prices and we are

legislatively required to have cost-containment mechanisms in the program to be able to monitor those prices. so i think it's the combination of the monitoring and cost-containment mechanisms that have not caused these large fuel prices in oregon . >> is my understanding that oregon tracks consumer fuel costs and surrounding state consumer fuel costs as part of its implementation on the low carbon fuel standard. very briefly, arethere surrounding states that do not have a low carbon fuel standard today that have higher fuel costs in oregon ? >> thank you for that question chair carver. as i stated in the most recent analysis of the data we've been looking at, we do compare our prices both retail and wholesale to the

state of washington and california and idaho. it is noted that our fuel prices in oregon have shown that we're lower than even the state of idaho so they do not have any additional fuel regulations in place there. so we feel confident the prices of the fuels in oregon are not being disproportionately impacted by the fact that we do have a low standard. >> one question if i could on the 15 in advanced biofuels. miss laura, recent court decisions prevent fuels to 15 percent known as this coming summer unless congress or the ministration takes further action , at the same time epa over the course of several different administrations has been slow to improve advanced biofuel applications for new pathways fuels for the renewable fuel standard

question. in your mind with the approval of biofuel applications and congress acting to allow the 15 to be sold year-round mitigate some of the volatility in the renewable fuel program costs that were seen today? >> it most certainly would. the easiest path to bring down the price is to blend more biofuel. his basic supply and demand. the more biofuels blended and hires like more created and that's how you bring down the price. so not only is that going to be will address the stated cost but you're going to be introducing a lower-cost fuel into the fuel supply for consumers. and there are also technologies , languishing in epa that i got producers currently producing cellulosic ethanol, they're not getting credit because the application has been sitting around for five years

. so there's more innovation we can do to bring low-costfuels to the table but we do need some certainty and some predictability and for the regulations to keep up with the marketplace and innovation . >> i have plenty more questions but i'll yield at this point to the center. >>. >> ms. johnson in your remarks you are pretty clear about the small refinery exemption read obviously i mentioned that in my opening remarks of my concern . and you're probably aware of the case that i brought forward in west virginia who has two favorable court decisions from the fourth circuit. shouldn't epa take into consideration that our courts had actually taken into consideration making regulatory decisions and that this was causing hardship to this small refinery, how would you respond to epa's blankets denial of everything in the course of actually come forward have said and

said it's not a sound decision? >> senator, you're exactly right. so for the 2016 to 2018 compliance years, the fourth circuit court of appeals vacated and remanded epa's decision to deny hardship relief to argonne west virginia. argonne produces about 23,000 barrels per day.it is truly one of thesmallest refineries in the country . and the courts summarily rejected epa's decision because epa did not consider the facts of oregon's specific case. its location, how it distributes its fuel. the fact that 70 percent of its then production was diesel and remanded to epa. epa then took another shot at argonne and again, denied their petition even though it had been vacated or remanded

by the court . and again, determined argonne was ineligible. the second time the fourth circuit vacated epa's decision again this time finding that epa had been arbitrary and capricious in treating oregon differently than any other small refinery so now this is the third attempt to prevent west virginia from receiving hardship relief essentially what epa is proposing to do is oregon and every other small refinery in the united states will be denied hardship relief if 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 northwest virginia has exactly the samecost of compliance . that it doesn't matter that a

large integrated oil oil company can export, it doesn't matter that a large company has excess rings and makes millions in speculation . everybody's cost is the same . so i always go back to the doe study prepared for congress which explains the hardship that 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're correct senator. this is the third attempt. >> and we specifically in the law made provisions for a small refinery exemption. >> specifically made provisions for each petition to be decided on its merits . >> your last chart, i'm listening to your charts because we have in our book talks to me about where we see gas prices going and who really gets hurt the most. and their thoughts about the rising cost of transportation fuels, harm low income and

many minority communities. we know that you have to pay an extra $10-$15 to fill your car up. it's that person then at the end of the month islooking for an extra 10 or $15 to help pay their electric bill or some other bill has also rising at the same time . you talk about the cost of blending about 28.5 percent or $.28-$.30 per gallon so there's a cost there. and then you also mentioned to me earlier before we got started that you think as we're moving forward there's some guardrails that epa needs to have as we're moving forward. that we could provide for them. if you want to talk about that issue i'd like to hear that but also your opinion on the overall cost, what we see now. high cost of gasoline and how we can deal with the issue of who's hitting it the hardest. there's proposals out here to get rid of that gas tax tbut

that's $.15 . it's noteven close to this . >>. >> first about the government mandated energy traffic because we are the largest well and gas producer in the world. we are very concerned that certain policies are now seeking to constrain the north american production platform before the alternatives are ready. going to have, we're going to produce a lot of tvs and produce a lot of alternative fuels and technology. but if we do see with between 2010 and 2020, united states alone plus the application of biofuels. world increase in demand for liquid fuel. so i think that's the first thing we need to think about. we need to treat this north american production platform as a strategic and economic asset which means be very

careful before we decide to disrupt it. that's the biggest incentive, the latest program we have to keep gas prices under control. the next thing is that we are fighting over a small volume. because in the absence of a mandate we would still be blending anywhere from 8 to 10 percent. ethanol is a valuable stock. it helps to meet octane requirements and other biofuels but if we proceed with the mandate, we kind of go prohibit innovation and alternatives to come forward because we have no idea what the fuels of the future really are going to look like. and then your finaliepoint, this is devastating for low income communities as you can see from the chart . everyone who wants to proceed with these exotic fuels of the future should keep in mind that i don't believe the american people will react very positively if we go into period of sustained high gasoline prices.

>> thanks very much senator senator cardin, if you're there please proceed withyour questions . >> chairman carver, i appreciate this very much. this hearing is long overdue. the history of the renewable fuel standards is something that needs to be understood. and we need to update this i very much appreciate your leadership on these issues. there's many competing priorities. we have energy security issues, we have the environment and our concerns. we cost issues that we just talked about. and by the way, there is lots of governmental subsidies in regards to energy affect the cost issues, not just here. then the food stock.

i've been wanting to get the view from our members of the panel as to what we can do if we want to focus on development and growth of domestic advanced biofuels derived from nonfood based food stocks, how shall we be adjusting our policy in regards to renewable fuel standards ? don't be bashful. >> i think that the way to do this is to allow a lot of alternative biofuels to compete in the marketplace for the liquids market. for those fuels which have a lot of promise and we think are substantial public long-term public benefits, we should have a good research and development program, even some support for possibly deployment but in the end we should allow a large opportunity for consumer choice and competition to

take place between manufacturers of fossil fuels to deploy these into the marketplace. >> i will go ahead and follow on those themes of choice and competition, to themes thatwe wholeheartedly support. when it comes to choice , consumers do need choices. they need options at the pump and it's unfortunate that come june 1 one of the lowest carbon low cost options available to them is going to be eliminated because the few refineries do and one import. we got to reintroduce higher lens of biofuel, year-round access to the 15. when it comes to competition, as we all pursue lower carbon intensive energy that's very important . c critical to that is making sure that the modeling instances and performance

standards are technology neutral. in this country let best win. let's make sure we are looking at all like psychoanalysis ofall the technologies , of all the available solutions. we're going to need everything so make sure the marketing reflects up-to-date science and innovation taking place within agriculture to bring down carbon intensity and then you will have a competitive environment with choice for consumers. >> i would mention in that regard senator carver and i both serve on the senate finance committee . we had oolooked at proposals to try to have it neutral in regards to the tax issues and reward those that are lower in carbon emissions and help our environments. we agree with that. the problem is that today's structure does reward certain high carbon sources and we really don't have a level playing field. i don't know if the other panelists want to respond on this or not. >> thank you for the

question. this is coriander win. this is what the core of a low carbon fuel standard does. so it really does reward the carbon intensity of that fuel. as you mentioned going from a plant-based fuel to a waste oil for biodiesel for example, i mean the fact that they do have lower emissions mean that they do hire have higher incentives and a low carbon fuel standard so those higher incentives bring down the cost of those fuels. that is how it is stored in a low carbon fuel standard and i think it's been working well to present the lowest of the less carbon fuels. >> that's the debate we're having now with the price of carbon . i think we would have to stay competitive standards getting choice to the consumer.

>> thank you senator cardin and before we turn about to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record demonstrating strong economic growth including a statement from an assistant secretary for economy policy at the department of treasury from january 31 2022. and according to the statement real gdp growth profile and ahalf percent over the four quarters of 2021, fastest annual pace in 37 years . >> covid. >> .. before your start my heart, writer experiment something. questions but the first has four parts so rather

than put her in the position of writing this down, am going to ask my staff to enter a written copy of those four questions which i will read now. first of all, -- >> time has expired. [laughter] >> i didn't do that to you. >> all right, goo ahead. >> denial of the refinery exemptions which we have in oklahoma, gas prices absent does the data support exemptions of floor landing -- please describe your understanding of this engagement with refiners regarding this and is there data to support the claim their denial of hardships and refineries would contribute to closure of american refineries and lost jobs?

anything already answered, i ask you go ahead and go over that. >> thank you for the list of q questions. in respect to your first question whether denial of all refinery exemptions will drive compliance costs higher gas prices higher, it is a certainty. if it publishes proposed denial, parties holding small refineries need for compliant will be in the position to demand exorbitant prices because small refiners will be captive buyers on the eve of the compliance deadlines. multiple complaints deadlines on top of one another because epa has been so delayed. this is assuming it's available at all. my small refineries doll not hae what they need for compliance, physically unavailable, number

2019 appliance, number 2020 available for compliance because epa describes parties uncertainty about what the ultimate volumes will be are holding onto excess rent so it's a recipe for crushing small refineries and escalating prices. they will get much worse if they move forward with its proposal. gas prices will increase for parties that can partially orro fully passed through their costs. large oil companies and exempt retailer chains and small refineries will be forced to violate the law without hardship relief, shutdown, curtail or go bankrupt . those are the department of energy's predictions. in respect to your second question as the data support assertions small refinery lexemptions lower blending of biofuel, i want to cancer in two parts. first, epa current proposal relates to compliance 2019, 2020

and 2021. it possible to blend in more fuel, those years have already closed shouldn't. no biofuel blending will be going down. essentially the other proof is discussion about the 2016 -- 2018 timeframe when prior administration granted hardship relief more than historically. during the time when small refinery hardship increased, started going great. the simple reason is small refineries cannot impact blend rates, the blended rate is done downstream. the only question is whether or not small refineries will make wealth transfers to a large integrated oil companies and exempt blunders. your third question was to

describe stakeholder engagement with refiners regarding proposed rule. small refiners were b blindsided by epa's proposal to retroactively deny1 petitions years after deadline to issue their decisions to pass. august 25th 2021, they shared no substance about their plans to issue retroactive adjudications and denial for small refinery. proposal matters entirely instead the biofuel industry which he seems to have had meaningful engagement. it seems to engage the usda and you've decided the appropriate consultation with the department of energy edits determined epa's

plans to deny hardship relief will result in the shutdown and closure of refineries. the last question first whether there is data to name the denial would contribute to composure of refineries and lost jobs that i won't repeat what i've said essentially a number of refineries do not have what they need for compliance and if they are denied relief, captive buyers in the market with escalating prices and epa acknowledged shortcoming in productions for the 2019 compliance what is available in the market are not in the hands of small refineries. they were necessarily violate this act because they will not have the ability to get what they need for compliance which will force them to decide

between spending money they have it shutting down and going into bankruptcy. i hope i answered each question. >> is there anything -- i know you talked about this and answered the question and adjust this but there anything in terms of risks associated with an electric fleet to adequately cover? >> just briefly if you would. >> we are energy independent now. to move to electric- fleet, we moved to critical materials which we will be highly dependent. some sourced from countries not

necessarily friendly to the united states. if i may correct -- one question i thought interesting, oregon has the fifth highest gasoline prices in the country. it may be lower than others joining states but gas prices are quite high p. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman and thanks for being here. i have long supported the biofuel and ethical standards but it's been an act of faith sunday the market would come around and corn ethanol in particular was pathway effort but ethanol and other forms come

forward so i am interested in your testimony about the carbon intensity of ethanol and biodiesel organ uses disk decreased, i'm wondering how confident you arere in the major of carbon intensity of your corn ethanol fuel stock. >> thank you for that, senator. we do use this to calculate this in the state of oregon, with respect to the ethanol we are receiving an organ, the import of that fuel, it is producer specific so we can keep close track of the different ethanol's we are giving and what we are seeing is decreases in the

carbon intensity so for ethanol the past six years has continued to go down in about 10%, carbon intensity of biodiesel significantly decreased but it steady and shows value low carbon fuel standards to continue on those carbon intensities. these are getting more efficient and energy inputs and that is reflected in this resource. >> you mentioned ethanol -- what is the market share within ethanol market? org in your portfolio if you know that better than the national market. >> thank you for that, we don't

have ethanol coming into the state of oregon so what is coming to organ, it is decreasing in carbon intensity. >> how much if it is corn? >> one 100% corn. >> okay, there we go. one of the things we need to put a price on carbon, that seems to be commonly held view among economists and banks and so forth and among people working hard for emissions reduction ucsolution at present, the absee of one is a massive subsidy for the fossil fuel industry, international monetary fund

calculates it north of 600 billion dollars a year just in the united states, 600 billion a year is an enormous number and provides strong motive for massive political elections lobbying operation by productive subsidized fuel to defend and protect subsidy politically. we are in a difficult position here in congress. i'm wondering if there is price on carbon, how would that affect the ethanol portion of your fuel market? >> thank you for that question. in effect, the way for fuel standard works is the monetization value of the fuel is in the credit crisis treated in the program so it is a market

we do not control, it contributes to the credit prices within the program. in the state of oregon, they are treating about $125 a ton, we published that on a monthly basis sharp transparency to the market. there is certainty and what that price is associated with carbon so that is how we do it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator kramer. >> thanks to all of you for being here. this is a topic that's perplexed me since the day i got to congress, it's not the topic that perplexes me as much as the debate, it never changes.

a lot has changed since 2005 and 2007 maeve created a time of scarcity and resources. of course we now have an abundance of natural resources. in the meantime we have another policy decision, and administration pushing up to 12,000 $500 in electric vehicle subsidy to change demand for electric vehicles. i'm just going to state some facts and ask for some feedback. we've had this debate over this constantly moving target, several of us have had this discussion and what i would say, as a result of lazy legislating which i am convinced is a historic phenomenon in this country, administrations have been given a lot of leeway even when stated in the law, obviously hardship refinery

hardship waivers, another tool. we get upset because for years it's one way and for years it's another and for years it's another. i know a couple off you and i have had this discussion, it seems to me at the end of this year we -- for the last decade, several people discussed this and would like to deny at the end of 2,022,000 new role in place that rb owes are no longer -- they are involved but not required, the authority to set rb of. epa and administration has more unilateral authority after this yearis. i would like to have discussion from the panel, what is your understanding of the act when they switch -- epa gets launched

in my view, authority in 2023, if nothing happens and they have the authority. >> thank you, i think that is an excellent question and something that keeps me awake at night. i see this freight train heading toward the highest possible rbocs to try to break through the wall and promote e15. the problem is that epa had discretion how to set up the program set up in a way that distorted competition. growth energy stood shoulder to shoulder with the american petroleum institute representind hogreater refineries, preventing closing the blender loophole. essentially, growth. as just keep pushing, just keep pushing, just keep pushing as sometime e15 will happen. it won't happen before every

small refinery is shut down because right now we are counting on volunteer blending, what we call the blender loophole. small refineries do not have the ability to bend, large refineries blend more than they produce. until the market distortion is fixed, is a recipe for destroying those refineries that cannot blend so if we want to keep pushing e15 if we have determined that e15 is resulting in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which is something i don't think we agree with, we need to fix the structure of the program. as interested in the discussion of -- very many times limitations on the ability to speculate in the market, limitations on cost, obligating blunders, all of these proposals

to fix the things preventing renewable fuel blending have not occurred. if we cope straightahead, we are going to collateral damage are industry. >> i want you to be able to respond to that but couldn't the future administration is that of pushing e15, just eliminate, click they go to zero without be possible? 1 gallon or something like that. >> give a question, yes, after 2023, there are no congressionally set blending requirements so epa does have greater flexibility in terms of setting blending obligations. a few important things we still have criteria they need to consider, jobs creation, energy independence, environmental impact and i think one of the things we've all suffered from in every sector is lack of certainty and stability so if there iss obligation that needs to meet something, if there's a deadline third needs to meet something a lot of things we

look forward to his opportunity to set funding requirements for multiple years in advance similar to what she was talking about and that would address volatility concerns. >> i wish we had more time but the biggest thing, 2022 is here now. for ten years now people have said don't worry, it's in the future so we have to come up with something in it rather, put something in the room. >> thanks. i think your out there, if you are, please proceed senator duckworth. no? live and in person, welcome back, senator duckworth who can

retrain us -- senator, you are recognized. then senator stefan out after you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to begin by asking consent to enter three documents, one in b the national academy of science called environmental outcome of renewable. analyzing the downstream impacts of u.s. biofuel policies and a third is an article entitled don't makers urge biden to roll back fuel requirements. >> is their objection? during the -- okay. >> thank you very much. we've already heard testimony that rfs mandate as about 28 -- 30 cents a gallon to the wholesale cost of gas on average

and at a time when fuel prices are extremely high. inflation is extremely high, it works a hardship on consumers and i believe we should look at every avenue to provide relief to consumers. when i am in cheyenne on the ranch and the house i grew up, i lived right next door to a small refinery that lost its refiner exemption. furthermore, they were unable -- when refining hydrocarbons, they were unable to purchase non- hydrocarbons to blend to meet the renewable fuel standards.

converted the oil refinery to a refinery that referred soybean oil. that refinery in our 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 in our little community. this has had an enormous impact on our communities. this happened during the previous administrations tenure so i didn't see them slow walking small refiners exemption, i saw themt putting the hammer down and costly small

communities like mine hundreds of jobs so ms. johnson, when congress created the biofuel mandate, we predicted the program what disadvantage small refineries and of course it has. increasingly precludes refineries from selling the products they recruit produce and requires byproducts they don't produce. if i can get them. this squeezes the smallest firms first most severely, higher cost producers harmed the most and first in time. is this an effort to make sure as much as we help with thanks, too big to fail or too small to succeed?

in the case of small refiners, are they too smalls to succeed? >> i might just -- think about the american refining complex, traditionally have a lot of oil production produced and processed on the gulf coast and products moved up the continent but with the emergence of production in north dakota energy independence in the u.s., smaller refiners became more important than provide a vital role that i think the solution remains in order for the facilities cost structures and market to adapt, they need an open market and the fundamental problem they face is mandated requirements that blends through

certain targets that do not necessarily yield any benefit even to the farmers. the program, we are fighting over small volume. if we were to open it up and have broad support moving biofuel board, we be better off. these locations would disappear. >> ms. johnson, same question. >> i appreciate your question, it reminds me of a small refinery said to me, we dance between the toes of giants. what that means is the smallest refinery in wyoming, smallest in west virginia, whatever rural community from pennsylvania to california, dance between the toes of giants integrated multinational oil in place until renewable standards came along

and said we are going to tilt competition in favor of oil companies but don't worry, we've got your back. congress had specifically will recognize the mandates inability of small refineries to have access to capitol to become large oil companies that don't have access to pipelines disproportionally produce diesel fuel don't have access to blend sock, we've got your back, he will be okay and we can provide exemption. a small refineries blend every tropicana but they don't always have access or the ability. there buyers in a wildly inflated market and that's how they are harmed and want to be clear when we talk about 19, 2020 and 21 where epa proposed

to deny hardship relief, not one more draft of can be blended so what we are talking about is epa compelling refineries to make massive wealth transfers to large integrated oil companies because they don't have access to feedstock because it cannot blimp. it's un-american. >> and families, that should be the focus of some of the work we do to have a better renewable fuel standard program because we are just assuring that only the big integrated companies will succeed and small businesses will fail. one, they are moving people out of small rural communities and into bigger areas that have

bigger refineries. it is happening in so many industriesin that has a profound effect onn americans jobs and demographics. if there has to be a way to encourage renewable fuels the same time you don't make it all about the smallest fail and big survive and thrive. thank you and i go back. >> thank you for those questions. senator duckworth, have you joined us on webex? >> yes, i u have. >> all right, you are recognized, thank you. >> thank you. some of the comments made today demonstrates no end to the list

proponents of the program on american biofuels. critics appear to blame fuel rising prices, allie largely determined by oil prices and basic supply and demand. could you address the claim that these prices and biofuel productiony are somehow responsible for increasing retail gas prices? >> thank you and yes, false claims. the price has no bearing on the price of fuel at the pump, those are entirely separate markets. the dominant factor driving the prices is the price of crude oil in addition to supply and demand, affirmed by government agencies modeling and what is really important to understand is the role ofnt biofuel bring down the price of fuel for consumers and the evidence is the price of efficiency

consumers of 31 states safely can go to the pump put in a standard 87, 10% blend, some could choose 88, 15% blend may have a little more ethanol that brings the price down from saving up to 10 cents a gallon and there are stations where you can buy 0% fl, a premium up to 50% ethanol. >> thank you. based on how big oil describes purchasing this, it's impressive oil refiners survive more than 15 years ago. my understanding is epa the last three administrations, american patrol industry and numerous companies are on record confirming oil refineries large and small cover these costs downstream and not harmed by the amount of money they've paid.

could you help us understand how despite the arguments are big oil over many years, oil refiners managed to persist rain and stay in business? >> thank you for the question,xi this is how i demonstrate compliance with the rfs. they can blend biofuel like ethanol and purchase it so they have the flexibility. we have more than a decade of business is to understand annual applications accordingly. it's important to under stand the volatility qc when you have refiners choosing not to blend or wait for the 11th hour seek an exemption or waiver or extension from the 1 agency, that's where you see the volatility, and but the bottom line when itom comes to consumer price of the pump, the more

biofuel, the more they safe. >> thank you. e.i'd like to ask consent to enr into the records epa analyses 2015, 2017 at 2021 confirming along with the two documents studied garnering attention this week. another from the national corn association indicating among other things, usda found carbon intensity was 39% lower than gasoline and according to the apa, they've not extended, it has decreased on existing land, not extended acreage and according to the usda, the amount of fertilizer required hasui dramatically once the creation of rfs. >> is that your unanimous consent request? is their objection?

>> i ask unanimous consent to conclude with this hearing, reports from environment to health report addressing biofuel and greenhouse gas reduction. 2020 report documenting 1 billion metric tons of reductions attributed to biofuel use in 2007. third, a study published by usda in 2021 on the greenhouse gas corn ethanol assessing recent evidence that found culture practices reducing a mission in a study published by argonne national laboratory finding ethanol producing carbon footprint and diminishing dh g emissions. so ordered. >> thank you. these studies confirm what we already know, blend of biofuel reducing emissions for years and they play an integral part of these efforts.

thank you. >> all right, thank you. you've been patient but senator sabin has been patient as well. if you don't mind, i'm going to let her call first. are you there? >> i am, thank you, appreciate working with her on these issues and i appreciate during this hearing, i want to take a step back for a moment and i think this has been framed as big refiner, small refiner so this really is about whether we have continue dirty fuel or cleaner fuel and if you go back, thomas edison first tried to do a vehicle with a battery but could not get public support governor to help them create innovation and two years later, the biggest

permanent tax credits were oil and gas embedded in our federal tax code and they've been there 100 years. at that time, they picked a winner and they want so now we are trying to balance that out t giving opportunity to biofuel, electric vehicles, wind, solar, they start and stop, it's not a consistent policy, not embedded in the tax code so i want to ask when we look from the importance of policy and regulatory certainty making investment decisions, innovation decisions and so on, how important is that? >> thank you for the question, that is incredibly important, a good example in terms of my industry producing right now biofuel, one 100% and beyond in terms of reductions but we are

not getting credit for it because the technologies have been impending review for over five years. as a nation we are leaving robin reduction on the table and the impact, invaders on the sidelines because a lack of certainty lack of marketplace moving forward so it's going to sit this out so it stifles the innovation and investment we need to continue to bring down carbon intensity of corn ethanol which we are doing a great job of be able to get our industry to net zero and participate in electrified space and that is a place where we can both perform an important stock. >> just one more time for the record, our biofuel responsible for high gas prices? >> no, the opposite. the more we enter into the fuel supply, the more we bring down the price of the pump for everyh driver.or >> thank you it is also jobs in rural america certainly in rural

michigan step one other question, somebody who's not only at the border of biofuel jobs but also electric vehicles made in my great state, both are important reducing carbon emissions and transportationus sector it is important for the record to say that's why auto workers who make great automobiles and electric vehicles strong to support the fuel standards as well and the uaw largest private union in iowa with members employed by companies making farm equipment, they've consistently talked about the fact that they are supportive. growth energy agree both electric vehicles and biofuel are critical reducing carbon emissions and petroleum use? >> we appreciated strong remarks

to epa in support of robust rfs. we have ambitious chemicals and no one-size-fits-all solution, who will note every two on the toolbox, biofuel along electrification. the benefits will be for the immediate, mid and long term. immediate term, 270 million cars on the road today, biofuel allows us to have a solution for those cars to bringn down emissions and cleanup emissions and do it affordably in a way for all consumers. mid to long term, if we are strong industry today, it allows us to have innovation we are continuing to do to further drive down carbon intensity of low carbon fuel but also participate in this space. we need accurate carbon modeling and make sure incentives provide their level playing field for the parties who want to be able to participate. >> thank you. i agree. i will yield to my friend from

iowa, senator ernst. >> patients is rewarding, thank you. >> thank you so much, i appreciate that. i asked for unanimous consent to submit comments from the renewable fuel association and clean fuel alliance. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you so much. to address the issues brought forward by our witnesses and members of the committee, looking back at the average closing price of crude oil and 2020, $39.58 a barrel. the average closing price in 2022 so far is $85 and 72 cents a barrel. today it was $95.46 a barrel.

is that do to the rfs? >> absolutely not. the primary factor in terms of cost of fuel at the pumpp will e the cost of crude oil which is nothing to do with the rfs. >> thank you. i think our members are trying to say today the cost of fuel is because of the rfs, it's not, it's about the price of oil. so i reject that and i hope folks out there listening are paying attention to that. the price of our fuel is theon price of the oil so we have had rfs around for a number of years and the reason is because congress asked for the rfs to be established. so we could reduce rittenhouse gas emissions. the folks across the midwest, farmers and producers responded to the call to congress and

develop systems that produce clean, reliable energy sources. i reject the premise that oil refineries and rural communities are more important than my rural community. as we look to 2023 and beyond, american farmers and the biofuel sector are best positioned to work with this administration and others to put renewable fuel standards back on track and be part of the solution to secure clean energy future. as much as the biden administration dreams of an all electric world, the reality is the court fuels are here to stay. 98% of cars and trucksni today nearly 80% of new vehicle sales projected in 2050 running on gas or flex g fuel is a key pathwayo d carbon icing the

transportation sector and rfs is the policy engine that makes this possible. congress passed the energy policy act 2005 and energy independence purity act of 2007 mandating rfs to help reduce america's dependence on foreign nations. i firmly believe energyy securiy is national security. while president biden claims to support america's clean energy economy, he's turning his back on the rfs in favor of electric vehicles which will only make us more dependent on china. science is on our side, too. biofuel enabled the rest to cut emissions from the transportation sector for over a decade. between 2008 and 2020, rfs saved nearly 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions and

it's only getting cleaner. the latest research shows corn ethanol 46% less carbon intensive than petroleum based gasoline and bio diesel 74% less carbon intensive than petroleum based. it can further reduce greenhouse gas emissions with carbon capture and thisof technology on from conservation practices which many of our iowa farmers are already doing so let's follow the science use biofuel as part of a clean energy policy but it's not only the clean energy source. biofuel great for our economy and pocketbook. iowa corn and soybean farmers have record high crop yields in 2021. biofuel industry accountsar for over $5 billion of gdp, generate 2.6 billion of income for households and supports nearly

46000 jobs in iowa alone in my rural area. ethanol is the cheapest form of fuel for consumers right now by about 50 cents. with record high inflation, it only makes sense to make fuel source readily available and that's why i continue to urge the administration allow summertime sales of e15 as soon as possible. it will not only support consumers, it will support the nearly 300 retail stations in iowa who want to provide a cleaner twice at the pump. rfs is the law and refiners have had 15 years toth come into compliance. blend renewable fuels or by this, it is your choice. any claim that the prices are increasing gas prices, it's a bunch of hogwash. refiners claim they need exemptions because it costs them

money but the last three administrations said the prices do not cause harm to refiners. small exemptions go against congressional intent and the supreme court reinforced this. a strong rfs support rural america and increases consumer access to affordable homegrown clean burning biofuel today, tomorrow and we hope for many years to come. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you for your attendance and patience and your questions and comments. my fellow members and witnesses, increase of gasoline at the pump is attribute it to crude oil prices so i asked, actually look at the numbers. if you go back to that by 2021, the price of oil at the pump was

$62.28. the price of today is $94, roughly 90 for a barrel, an increase about 51%. those are interesting numbers. all right, i've got a couple of questions you may have backup questions as well. senator wicker, senator wicker, are you out there anywhere? no, okay, thanks. a couple questions, the first i would like to ask more next one is when -- in respect to eligible fuels, this standard requires audible liquid and fuels and electricity derived from renewable bio sources from a low coming fuel standard generally intended to be fuel

neutral andne technology neutra. with this in mind, the program has a product definition of transportation in the federal renewable fuel standards. how has this definition of transportation benefit your program and how does it encourage investment producing cleaner fuels in your estate? >> thank you for that question. in the state of oregon low carbon fuel standards, we do evaluate the transportation fuels that are lower carbon than gas and diesel. in addition to the biofuel and electricity, we do have renewable natural gas, propane and renewable propane and investing more in hydrogen as well. what we like to see even with natural gas and propane we switch to renewable but even

fossil gasoline benefited from natural gas. those are the fuels that because of the lower cost of the fuels leading to infrastructure and alternative fuel space and then switching to the renewable versions and carbon intensity even more than those of the things we see in the state of oregon and likely will continue to see as we move into the future of these programs. >> thank you. a follow-up question with restrictions on what qualifies advanced people under renewable fuel standards, could this neutral program like organs clean fuels program allow

opportunity for your company's to participate in the current structure of the renewable fuel standard? >> thank you for the question, yes. we are low carbon fuel so we appreciate the concept of low carbon fuel standard. and partly as you stated about making sure it technology neutral that's rather common modeling comes into play and with got to make sure you evaluate the full lifecycle analysis of biofuels like ethanol considering all low carbon farming practices that continue to bring down ardent intensity of you also if you have a program truly technology neutral reflecting current state of the innovation taking place in the industry that allows of higherer biofuel plans, it's a place where we can play and can help in terms of achieving collective low carbon roles. i will add a complementary, the programs work well in tandem,

the value stack to continue making sure the lowest of the low would go into a market likea in oregon. >> i thought to mark questions, this is a question for the entire panel and i ask -- i appreciate perspectives, i think we allci do, our panel has shard with us, i want to complement our staff for pulling you altogether and thank you for joining us in person and remotely but i hope this can inform action to support the future of this important program. i also recognize the gentleman forging a path forward for the unimodal fuel standard set of fine everyone and the potential need for conferencing.

in each of you to take half a minute to tell us what -- where you believe there might be common ground for all of us as we deliberate this issue going .orward >> thank you, i heard a lot of contentions about competition, the importance of marketplace certainty and consumer choice. as we make sure we drive toward low carbon fuel options for consumers are portable and available, biofuel has a role in this to play. we need renewable fuel standard that's enforced so there is certainty in business decisions throughout the fuel supply chain including agricultural and biofuel so we understand the obligations and bring down the volatility so we look forward to seeing epa fixed and finalized obligations for 20 and 21 and 22

as expeditiously as possible and that certainty will be good for all parties. >> thank you. >> very briefly, i think i've got most of the answers for my questions but i would like emily, would you respond, statements or thoughts on the anti- ethanol study done earlier this week? >> i appreciate the comment, yes i am familiar with that enter this concerning when you look at the manipulation of the signsns and data and unorthodox methodology that leads to fictitious erroneous conclusions. he got a piece of work untethered from reality and the totality of signs and consensus of epa, department of energy national labs, california air resources, oregon's department of environmental quality and scientists. ethanol is lower carbon than

gasoline and that continues to increase. >> thank you. >> one last question and then i want to take the remainder of my time to go to three witnesses. >> i do have to run quick after i just make a comment or two, it's been an interesting hearing, i think there is consensus that there is lack of certainty, maybe in different areas you might share different areas that don't have certainty but looking to us to provide certainty so epa can move forward. in my view, nothing screams lack of certainty than having an exemption revoked two years later, that's unconscionable no matter what is happening, a court producer, refiner, bullfighter, anything and ev

clockmaker if you have the okay process you will have the permit to go forward, how can you conduct business if somebody comes back two years later to provoke it? i think thatbo us lack of certainty o. i do have a study that shows from the university of wisconsin u.s. corn -based ethanol works for the climate, i'm not going to argue that, i don't know. i think we need the lifecycle, when does it start and how long does it go? kind of emissions are included in producing ethanol from corn or growing corn or getting crude out of the ground i think we need consistency here and certainty that we use the measurementis data with the american public and many of us here making those decisions, i don't really have a question, i just think the witnesses and thank you for asking good

questions. >> this is pretty good at the middle and complex difficult issues. unanimously in some cases if this is a hard one and i look forward -- we look forward to working with your team and others on the committee and a path forward. it's not a perfect situation, we got to do better. i asked a common ground question and i would ask each of you to take a minute to let us know where you believe there is common ground. let me ask are other witnesses if they would respond as well. >> thank you for the question, i want to echo what was mentioned

on certainty. it's something we hear quite a bit from the stakeholders that participate in these markets. as far as regulatory certainty and standards established for our program why we are extending standards to 2035 to provide certainty and i think along with certainty, transparency and what we do in the way we do with the information used to establish this as well as the mark aspects, credit pricing of transactions, it is something on the pillar of how intimate the program that has served us really well. >> q.

did i get it right? >> i was thinking one of the problems isma maybe we should ty to do a better job getting fact- >> sometimes that helps. >> one thing i would like to ask the committee do is less happy information agency publish data for us on what the price of gasoline is in the wholesale domestic price of gas is. let's have them break down the component, there's discussions of crude oil c causing prices to go up. of course it is but there are other components in the manufacturing of transportation fuels and i think if we could get them to do a little more work on this, we might get some consensus or sense of where the hotspots so to speak beyond crude oil driving up gasoline prices are. >> thank you for the suggestion.

>> i think common ground is our refineries do not oppose biofuel so biofuel that is lower in emitting not a problem. where we depart is the ability of everybody to share and blend or pay reasonably high prices but i would say we have commonality wanting lower emitting biofuel. i think where we depart on that also is whether or not ethanol is in fact lower emitting fuel because as we have been talking about, a study suggests ethanol could be 24% higher emitting greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum-based fuel cell information is key, senator ernst explained lending is a choice, it is not a choice when you don't have access to biofuel so i think this could help enormously, insteadld of resistg

freedom of information act request related to how much is each refinery paying, what is the cost of compliance? we understand it's available for compliance but not in the hands necessarily of the people who need them for compliance, whose hands are they in? more forthcoming data would certainly help dispel some disagreements so i t think thats important. there are substantial barriers to planting which i agree with, there are, i think we disagree on what the barriers are there are substantial barriers. we have to have a change in the renewable fuel standard we want it to be sensible and not distort competition and if we want to bring down the price of gasoline and diesel.f >> thank you looking. i have a quick question be brief

in your response i don't want to miss it but my understanding the previous administration, if we can increase these issues compared to the obama administration including waivers tfor refineries owned by freigt companies like exxon mobil. ...

really looking to follow the law in the narrow scheme spoke with that relief which is available >> thank you for that response. in closing, let me just say we've had great participation hear from the witnesses but also from the members in person and remotely . i'm grateful to our staff for putting on a great panel and this is not an easy issue. it's the first time we've had a hearing on it and almost 6 years and it's been long overdue. it's been helpful for me and we've raised as many issues and questions as we've answered but it's a good start and this is how much of this committee as we work together we work across party lines and we tried to get to yes as fast as we can and find consensusbut i want to thank you for joining us today . we help sales guard safeguard a nation's energy security and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. i look forward to renewing our conversation and working with members of our committee, our colleagues and other stakeholders to improve renewable fuel standards programs and as we look to the future it is my belief we can encourage greater sustainability and empower our lives. before we adjourned some housekeeping. members will be allowed to submit written questions for the record through close of business wednesday, march 2. we will compile those questions and send them toyou and asked you to respond if you will fight wednesday, march 16 . with that this hearing is adjourned. thank you.

>>. [inaudible]

>>. [inaudible] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, operating technology, empowering opportunity in committees big and small. charter is connecting us.

>> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy . >> i'm pleased to nominate judge jackson for his extraordinary qualifications, the experience and rigorous judicial record to the court. >> i'm truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination and i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken in discharging your constitutional duty in service of our democracy with all that is going on inthe world today . >> president biden nominates judge ketanji jackson brown to succeed retiring judge stephen breyer on the supreme

court. if confirmed, judge jackson would become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court . follow the process from the announcement all the way through the confirmation process on c-span, c-span.org or biden downloading the free c-span now app. >> next a hearing on how the covid-19 pandemic has affected fema in ways that simplify the disaster relief process for survivors. members of the house transportation subcommittee heard from emergency management professionals including chris currie, director of thegovernment accountabilityoffice . this hearing is two hours 30 minutes . >> before i begin i'd like to take a moment moment of personal privilege to tell you all that erin davis is leaving our committee. i hate to hear that because he spent a greatmember of this team and certainly an asset to me and all of us , providing