[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS:
CONSUMER AND TECHNICAL
RESEARCH NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-925 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota VACANCY
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. , Chair
CHRIS STEWART, Utah SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JULIA BROWNLEY, California
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY WEBER, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Robert L. Darbelnet, President and CEO, American Automobile
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Hon. Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government Relations, American
Motorcyclist Association
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Mr. Mike Leister, Member, Board of Directors, Coordinating
Research Council
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Discussion....................................................... 41
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Robert L. Darbelnet, President and CEO, American Automobile
Association.................................................... 56
Hon. Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government Relations, American
Motorcyclist Association....................................... 58
Mr. Mike Leister, Member, Board of Directors, Coordinating
Research Council............................................... 61
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
CRC Research on Mid-Level Ethanol Blends......................... 66
CRC Project CM-136-09-1B......................................... 83
Durability of Fuel Pumps and Fuel Level Senders in Neat and
Aggressive E15, CRC Report No. 664............................. 91
Letter to Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart from Matt Gruhn,
MRAA President, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas... 96
Letter to Hon. Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, from Hon. Wayne Allard, Vice President,
Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association........ 98
Letter to Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart from Hon. Wayne
Allard, Vice President, Government Relations, American
Motorcyclist Association....................................... 101
Letter to Former Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris from William
Woebkenberg, Mercedes-Benz Research and Development, North
America........................................................ 104
Memo from Coordinating Research Council, Inc.(CRC)............... 106
Letter to Subcommittee on Environment from Renewable Fuels
Association.................................................... 108
``Getting It Right: Accurate Testing and Assessments Critical to
Deploying the Next Generation of Auto Fuels,'' by Patrick B.
Davis.......................................................... 111
Letter to Subcommittee on Environment from Algae Biomass
Organization................................................... 113
Letter to Subcommittee on Environment from Growth Energy......... 116
MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS:
CONSUMER AND TECHNICAL
RESEARCH NEEDS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris
Stewart [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Stewart. The Subcommittee on Environment will come
to order. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to today's hearing
entitled, ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blends: Consumer and Technical
Research Needs.''
Before we begin, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank my esteemed colleague, Dr. Andy Harris, for his service
to the Committee and to his leadership as Chairman of the
Environment Subcommittee. We congratulate him on his
appointment to the House Appropriations Committee but regret
the loss of an active Member of this Committee. We thank him
for his leadership and wish him the very best of luck in his
new committee assignment.
I am Chris Stewart. I am the Vice Chairman of this
Subcommittee. I have been asked to pinch hit for Dr. Harris in
his absence and hopefully we can stumble through this without
too many incidents. I appreciate the presence of the witnesses
with us today as well as other Members of the Subcommittee.
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, the biographies, and the truth in testimony
disclosures for today's witnesses.
I know recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Welcome to this afternoon's hearing of the Environment
Subcommittee entitled, ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blends: Consumer and
Technical Research Needs.''
This legislation hearing builds upon work of this Committee
pursued last Congress involving technical aspects of the
Environmental Protection Agency's approval of mid-level ethanol
blends for use in certain vehicles. Relying on a single set of
narrow tests, EPA approved fuel with up to 15 percent ethanol,
known as E15, for use in 2001, model year and newer passenger
vehicles. Concurrently, and for the first time in the history
of the Clean Air Act, EPA conducted a bifurcated fuel system,
prohibiting E15 use in all other engines and vehicles.
Unfortunately, the more E15 is studied, the more concerns
are identified. In addition to potential widespread impacts on
vehicle engines, EPA has led a haphazard transition to E15
usage, marked by regulatory confusion, bungled implementation,
and a lack of consumer education. Today's hearing is not a
forum to discuss whether corn ethanol is good or bad, but
rather it is designed to answer questions like: What have we
learned about the effects of E15 since 2010? What types of
research would be helpful before there is more widespread use
throughout the United States? And finally, what types of
research and development should be required ahead of the
introduction of new fuels in the future?
Toward answering these questions, our witnesses will be
commenting on discussion draft legislation in your packets.
This bill would require that EPA contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to assess the state of the science
regarding E15, including research needs, gaps in understanding,
recent testing, and consumer education efforts. This draft is
substantially similar to H.R. 3199, bipartisan legislation co-
sponsored by Congressman Sensenbrenner and passed
overwhelmingly by the full Science, Space, and Technology
Committee last year.
That legislation was also endorsed by a diverse coalition
of groups concerned about EPA's E15 science, including everyone
from the Friends of the Earth and the National Turkey
Federation to the American Petroleum Institute and Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers. For example, the now-President of the
Environmental Working Group testified to this Subcommittee last
Congress that, ``Our comprehensive review of the available
scientific data indicates that E15 and higher ethanol blends
could have significant adverse impacts on human and
environmental health.''
This hearing is focused on technical and consumer concerns
about the potential engine damage, warranty issues, and
misfueling associated with EPA's approval of a bifurcated
fueling system. The Clean Air Act does not allow a waiver for a
new fuel if it would result in the failure of emission
standards in cars manufactured after 1974. Recent research has
found major problems resulting from the use of mid-level
ethanol blends. This research has identified negative impacts
to the engine durability, on-board diagnostics, fuel pumps, as
well as non-road marine, outdoor power equipment, and
snowmobile engines. Additional research has shown that
consumers are completely unaware of this dramatic change, a 50
percent increase in the amount of ethanol per gallon, in the
fuel they are putting in their vehicles and engines.
Earlier this month, the National Marine Manufacturers
Association conducted a survey that found of the 17 stations
currently registered to sell E15 in a handful of States, six of
those stations, fully 35 percent, had failed to label the pumps
according to EPA's requirements. Confusion over misfueling has
been magnified by the agency's handling of blender pumps and
non-approved vehicles. At one point last year, EPA even
proposed a completely impractical and unenforceable mandate
that all customers would have to buy at least four gallons from
any E15 blender pump. This is not promising for the widespread
adoption of this fuel, especially as the vast majority of
vehicles and engines in America are either not approved for the
use of E15 or may have their warranties voided by its use.
While EPA's Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy has
repeatedly stated that the agency is not currently requiring
the use of E15, the agency has aggressively supported the
Renewable Fuel Standard, the underlying mandate that will
undeniably, at some point in the future, have to force fuel
ethanol blends to exceed 10 percent. And to be clear, RFS
further guarantees that E15 is just the tip of the iceberg. RFS
mandates 16 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended for
the sale in 2013. Over the next 10 years, this requirement will
grow to 36 billion gallons.
This policy is looking more and more like a monument of the
folly of central energy planning and has entailed negative
environmental outcomes, rising food costs here in the United
States and in third world countries, and even outright fraud
involving biofuel credits. This absurdity was demonstrated late
last week when Ms. McCarthy, reportedly expected to be
nominated for EPA Administrator, expressed excitement at her
``personal milestone,'' that the first credit for cellulosic
ethanol had just been issued. What she failed to mention is
that her agency had mandated 8.65 million gallons of this
phantom fuel be paid for by consumers in 2012, even though
virtually none existed.
To reiterate, this hearing will not examine the RFS, but
rather focus on its downstream impacts related to the technical
and consumer research needed on the effects of E15 on all
engines, as well as explore a potential path forward that is
based on science and expert testing, not on politics. As our
witnesses today will testify, there is increasing evidence that
American consumers may have to pay the price for EPA's cart-
before-the-horse approach to E15 science.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart
Welcome to this afternoon's hearing of the Environment Subcommittee
entitled ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blends: Consumer and Technical Research
Needs.''
This legislative hearing builds upon work this Committee pursued
last Congress involving technical aspects of the Environmental
Protection Agency's approval of mid-level ethanol blends for use in
certain vehicles. Relying on a single set of narrow tests, EPA approved
fuel with up to 15 percent ethanol--known as E15--for use in 2001
model-year and newer passenger vehicles. Concurrently, and for the
first time in the history of the Clean Air Act, EPA created a
birfurcated fuel system, prohibiting E15 use in all other engines and
vehicles.
Unfortunately, the more E15 is studied, the more concerns are
identified. In addition to potential widespread impacts on vehicle
engines, EPA has led a haphazard transition to E15 usage, marked by
regulatory confusion, bungled implementation, and a lack of consumer
education. Today's hearing is not a forum to discuss whether corn
ethanol is good or bad; rather, it is designed to answer questions
like: What have we learned about the effects of E15 since 2010? What
types of research would be helpful before there is more widespread use
throughout the United States? Finally, what types of research and
development should be required ahead of the introduction of new fuels
in the future?
Toward answering those questions, our witnesses will be commenting
on discussion draft legislation in your packets. This bill would
require that EPA contract with the National Academy of Sciences to
assess the state of the science regarding E15, including research
needs, gaps in understanding, recent testing, and consumer education
efforts. This draft is substantially similar to H.R. 3199, bipartisan
legislation sponsored by Congressman Sensenbrenner and passed
overwhelmingly by the full Science, Space, and Technology Committee
last year.
That legislation was also endorsed by a diverse coalition of groups
concerned about EPA's E15 science, including everyone from Friends of
the Earth and the National Turkey Federation to the American Petroleum
Institute and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. For example,
the now-President of the Environmental Working Group testified to this
Subcomiittee last Congress that ``Our comprehensive review of the
available scientific data indicates that E15 and higher ethanol blends
could have significant adverse impacts on human and environmental
health.''
This hearing is focused on technical and consumer concerns about
the potential engine damage, warranty issues, and misfueling associated
with EPA's approval of a bifurcated dueling system. The Clean Air Act
does not allow a waiver for a new fuel if it would result in the
failure of emission standards in cars manufactured after 1974. Recent
research has found major problems resulting from the use of midlevel
ethanol blends. This reserach has identified negative impacts to engine
durability, on-board diagnostics, fuel pumps, as well as nonroad
marine, outdoor power equipment, and snowmobile engines. Additional
research has shown that consumers are completely unaware of this
dramatic change--a 50 percent increase in the amount of ethanol per
gallon--in the fuel they are putting in their vehicles and engines.
Earlier this month, the National Marine Manufacturers Association
conducted a survey that found that, of the 17 stations currently
registered to sell E15 in a handful of States, six of those stations--
35 percent--had failed to label the pumps according to EPA's
requirements. Confusion over misfueling has been magnified by the
Agency's handling of blender pumps and nonapproved vehicles; at one
point last year, EPA even proposed a completely impractical and
unenforceable mandate that all customers would have to buy at least
four gallons from any E15 blender pump. This is not promising for the
widespred adoption of this fuel, especially as the vast majority of
vehicles and engines in America are either not approved for the use of
E15 or may have their warranties voided by its use.
While EPA's Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy has repeatedly
stated that the Agency is not currently requiring the use of E15, the
Agency aggressively supports the Renewable Fuel Standard--the
underlying mandate that will, undeniably, at some point in the future
have to force fuel ethanol blends to exceed 10 percent. And to be
clear--the RFS further guarantees that E15 is just the tip of the
iceberg. The RFS mandates 16 billion gallons of renewable fuel be
blended for sale in 2013. Over the next 10 years, this requirment will
grow to 36 billion gallons.
This policy is looking more and more like a monument to the folly
of central energy planning, and has entailed negative environmental
outcomes, rising food costs here in the United States and in third-
world countries, and even outright fraud involving biofuel credits.
This absurdity was demonstrated late last week, when Ms McCarthy--
reportedly expected to be nominated for EPA Administrator--expressed
excitement at her ``personal milestone'' that the first credit for
cellulosic ethanol had just been issued. What she failed to mention is
that her Agency had mandated 8.65 million gallons of this phantom fuel
be paid for by consumers in 2012, even though virtually none existed.
To reiterate, this hearing will not examine the RFS but rather
focus on its downstream impacts related to the technical and consumer
research needed on the effects of E15 on all engines, as well as
explore a potential path forward that is based on science and expert
testing, not politics. As our witnesses today will testify, there is
increasing evidence that American consumers may have to pay the price
for EPS's cart-before-the-horse approach to E15 science.
Chairman Stewart. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an
opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart.
Renewable fuel from biomass, specifically corn-based
ethanol, is a complex issue, and as this hearing demonstrates,
the ethanol content in our Nation's fuel supply has been the
subject of much debate. In this Committee, we often cover
policy areas about which there is disagreement in basic
ideology and world view.
But when we are faced with issues on which there is
agreement, we should recognize that and work toward consensus
solutions.
For example, the Renewable Fuels Standard was first
included in an energy bill that passed the House and the Senate
with bipartisan support. That is a statement we don't say
frequently enough. One thing that many of us do say frequently
is that we need to put this Nation on a path toward energy
independence. Our reliance on foreign oil causes concerns in
every sector, businesses and consumers worry about constantly
fluctuating prices at the pump, our generals see a strategic
disadvantage to relying on resources provided by countries with
which we have experienced significant conflict, and many of our
constituents rightly worry that continuing our current use of
fossil fuels will harm our fragile environment.
The Renewable Fuel Standard represents a bipartisan
acknowledgement of the role that alternative fuels play in
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. From my time in the
Oregon legislature, I know well the concerns that some have
about blend levels in gasoline, and I know that various States
have made exceptions to accommodate these concerns. It makes
sense to fully understand the impacts of our renewable policies
before requiring consumers to comply.
What does not make sense, however, is refusing to address
the problem altogether. The blend wall should not be a reason
to give up on renewable fuels. It should be a reason to promote
technology that will meet the growing supply of renewables.
Advanced ethanol, cellulosic biomass, and developments in these
fields are only going to increase the supply of blended fuels
in the market, and these advancements will help us bring--come
further toward energy security.
This hearing is supposed to examine, among other things,
scientific, technical, and consumer impacts of EPA's decision
to allow introduction by waiver of E15 in the market, and that
is to allow, not to require. And we will also take comments on
a draft bill that Mr. Sensenbrenner is circulating that would
prevent the EPA from complying with its Congressionally
mandated responsibilities under the Clean Air Act until
additional research is performed on E15.
The Department of Energy conducted much of the science that
the EPA used in making its waiver decision. Although I agree
that the EPA should not base decisions on incomplete
information, neither should this Committee. I am concerned that
in the hearing charter and in the witness testimony, the main
literature that is being used to refute the EPA's science on
E15 is being provided by a group that is largely financed by
the American Petroleum Institute and several automobile
manufacturers
In a Committee where science is paramount, I find it
perplexing that the scientific studies we are discussing were
largely funded by the oil industry, which has an obvious
financial stake in the outcome, and this context is also worth
pointing out at the outset that following the release of the
study from the Coordinating Research Council, the Department of
Energy did release a response questioning the methodology of
the research.
Clean and sustainable renewable fuels are already part of
our economy. Investing in clean and renewable energy has and
will continue to create jobs, reduce our impact on climate
change, reduce our reliance on foreign fossil fuels, and
strengthen our national security. We should work toward
realizing a future of producing home-grown renewable fuels, and
to meet that challenge, it is this Committee's responsibility
to focus on the science and technology that will help get our
country on the road to a sustainable energy future.
With that, I look forward to all of the witnesses'
testimony and to what I hope will be a productive discussion
about the scientific and technological implications of
alternative fuels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Chairman Stewart. Renewable fuel from biomass,
specifically corn-based ethanol, is a complex issue. And, as this
hearing demonstrates, the ethanol content in our Nation's fuel supply
has been the subject of much debate.
In this Committee, we often cover policy areas about which there is
disagreement in basic ideology and world view. But when we are faced
with issues on which there is agreement, we should recognize that and
work toward consensus solutions. For example, the Renewable Fuels
Standard was first included in an energy bill that passed the House and
Senate with bipartisan support. That is a statement we don't say
frequently enough.
One thing that many of us do say frequently is that we need to put
this Nation on a path toward energy independence. Our reliance on
foreign oil causes concern in every sector. Businesses and consumers
worry about constantly fluctuating prices at the pump. Our Generals see
a strategic disadvantage to relying on resources provided by countries
with which we have experienced significant conflict. And many of our
constituents rightly worry that continuing our current use of fossil
fuels will harm our fragile environment.
The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) represents a bipartisan
acknowledgment of the role that alternative fuels play in reducing our
dependence on foreign oil. From my time in the Oregon legislature, I
know the concerns that some have about blend levels in gasoline, and I
know that various States have made exceptions to accommodate these
concerns. It makes sense to fully understand the impacts of our
renewable policies before requiring consumers to comply. What does not
make sense, however, is refusing to address the problem altogether. The
``blend wall' should not be a reason to give up on renewable fuels; it
should be a reason to promote technology that will meeet the growing
supply of renewables. Advanced ethanol, cellulosic biomass,
developments in these fuels are only going to increase the supply of
blended fuels on the market. Those advancements will help bring us
further toward energy security.
This hearing is supposed to examine--among other things--
scientific, technical, and consumer impacts of EPA's decision to allow
introduction of E15 in the market. And we will also take comments on a
draft bill that Mr. Sensenbrenner is circulating that would prevent the
EPA from complying with its Congressionally mandated responsibilities
under the Clean Air Act until additional research is performed on E15.
The Department of Energy conducted much of the science that the EPA
used in making its waiver decision. Although I agree that the EPA
should not base decisions on incomplete information, neither should
this Committee. I am concerned that in the Hearing Charter and in the
witness testimony, the main literature that is being used to refute the
EPA's science on E15 is being provided by a group that is largely
financed by the American Petroleum Institute and several automobile
manufacturers. In a Committee where science is paramount, I find it
perplexing that the scientific studies we are discussing were largely
funded by the oil industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the
outcome of this debate.
Also, because the Department of Energy conducted the research on
which the EPA based its decision, it is important to note for the
record that the Majority invited neither the Department of Energy nor
the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss the science and
extensive testing on which EPS based its decision.
Clean and sustainable renewable fuels are already a part of our
economy. Investing in clean and renewable energy has and will continue
to create jobs, reduce our impact on climate change, reduce our
reliance on foreign fossil fuels, and strengthen our national security.
We should work toward realizing a future of producing home-grown
renewable fuels. To meet that challenge, it is this Committee's
responsibility to focus on the science and technology that will help
get our country on the road to a sustainable energy future.
With that, I look forward to all of the witnesses' testimony and to
what I hope will be a productive discussion about the scientific and
technological implications of alternative fuels.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
At this time I would like to introduce the witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Robert L. Darbelnet, the President
and CEO of American Automobile Association, known to most of us
as AAA. Mr. Darbelnet has become AAA President and CEO in
November 1994, after serving 11 years as CEO of the Canadian
Automobile Association in Quebec. He currently serves as
Chairman of the Global Mobility Alliance and Trustee of the AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Our next witness is the Honorable Wayne Allard, Vice
President of Government Relations for the American Motorcyclist
Association, or AMA. He previously served from 1997 to 2009 as
a U.S. Senator for the State of Colorado. Senator Allard served
as the Ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee of the
Senate Appropriations Committee. Before that, Senator Allard
was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to
1997.
And the final witness today is Mr. Mike Leister, a member
of the Board of the Directors of the Coordinating Research
Council. He chairs the American Petroleum Institute Fuels
Subcommittee and is a member of the API Economics Work Group
and belongs to the American Fuels and Petrochemical
Manufacturers Fuels Advisory Subcommittee. Mr. Leister has a
Master's of Science in chemical engineering and a Master's of
Business Administration.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Darbelnet for five
minutes to present his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT L. DARBELNET,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Darbelnet. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here on behalf of AAA to share our views on this
issue. I realize that you and your colleagues often deal with
extremely complex questions, but the subject matter before us
today is really quite simple, and that is that allowing the
sale of E15 at this point in time is premature and
irresponsible.
In our view, there are three prerequisites for the
introduction of a new fuel. The first one is adequate testing
to ensure that the product that is being brought to market is
safe. In this instance, that has not occurred. Granted, the EPA
has conducted extensive testing, but the focus of that testing
has been on the impact of E15 on emission controls, not on the
broader effect of the product on the engine itself.
Industry testing reveals true and genuine concerns, and you
will hear more about that later this afternoon, but clearly
from our research or our review of the research, I should say,
premature engine wear, potential fuel pump failures, and a
series of other less-significant consequences can occur if this
fuel is used in vehicles that were manufactured more recently
than last year. Even the Renewable Fuel Association advises
retailers to beware of the dangers and the damage that can
result from putting E15 in underground storage systems. They
speak of possible leaks and fires. Clearly there is something
here.
The second requirement, in our view, for introducing a new
fuel to market is coordination between regulators, fuel
retailers, and auto manufacturers. Now, the record is clear in
that that has not occurred. A number of the retailers in this
country are opposed to the sale of E15 and at the present time
do not intend to bring it to market. Virtually every OEM or
auto manufacturer in this country has indicated that using E15
in vehicles that were manufactured more recently than last
year, with the exception of Porsches, will tell you that you
could use it in a vehicle that is older than that, virtually
all of the OEMs have said do not put this fuel in your tank
unless you are accepting of the fact that it will void your
warranty.
And the third requirement for introducing a new product is
outreach to consumers to mitigate the risk of misfueling, and
that hasn't occurred either. Again, the record is clear. We
conducted research recently that shows that 95 percent, 95
percent of the motoring public in this country does not know
what E15 is, let alone whether they should be putting it in the
tank of their vehicle.
And to further complicate matters, the EPA ceded to
pressures to tone down the message on the warning label which,
incidentally, is rather small and generally lost in all of the
advertising which is on today's fuel pumps, but they agreed to
tone down the message on that label from what was initially
contemplated and would have started with the word ``warning''
to something less significant, in other words, ``attention.''
Now, I want to make clear the fact that AAA is not opposed
to ethanol for automobiles. E10 is compatible with almost every
vehicle on the road today. Automobiles, I should say, because
you will hear from my colleagues that the same is not true for
other types of vehicles. But for automobiles, E10 is safe. Our
issue is not with ethanol. We see the benefit of reduced
dependency on fossil fuel, we see the benefit of bringing to
market alternative options for consumers.
However, as I said at the outset, the sale of E15 at this
point in time is irresponsible, and it should cease until
adequate testing allows regulators, retailers, and auto
manufacturers to reconcile their viewpoints to agree on which
vehicles can safely consume E15, and to make sure that the
consumer is adequately informed of the risks that follow the
use of E15 in today's automobiles.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Darbelnet follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Senator Allard for five minutes for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD,
VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION
Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
congratulate you on Chairing your first Committee.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you. It is really quite exciting.
Mr. Allard. Acting Chairman Chris Stewart and Ranking
Member Suzanne Bonamici and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide comment on ``Mid-Level
Ethanol Blends: Consumer and Technical Research Needs.''
I was in public office for 26 years, but I still shake my
head over the ability of the Federal Government to reach, or
maybe I should say overreach, into the lives of the American
people and the power wielded by bureaucrats to do so.
One case in point is E15, a gasoline formulation that
contains up to 15 percent ethanol by volume, which could damage
motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle engines.
The American Motorcyclist Association believes extensive,
independent testing needs to be done before E15 becomes more
widely available. The key for the AMA and our members is that
E15 must be proven safe for motorcycle and ATV engines. To the
best of our knowledge, E15 is not approved for use in any
original-equipment motorcycles or ATVs, and in fact, its use
can void many manufacturer's warranties.
As of today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
only approved the use of E15 in model year 2001, and newer
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
This list does not include motorcycles or ATVs.
How is the Federal Government going to prevent
motorcyclists from inadvertently putting E15 in our gas tanks
or gas cans when getting gas at a blender pump with a single
hose?
Here is what the EPA--here is where the EPA overreached.
Initially, the EPA decided that you must buy at least four
gallons of gas from that blender pump. Not one gallon, not two
gallons, not three gallons. Yes, the government mandated you
buy at least four gallons to dilute the residual E15 in the
hose.
The EPA revealed the four-gallon minimum mandate to the AMA
in a letter last August responding to AMA concerns that E15
could be put in motorcycle and ATV gas tanks inadvertently when
consumers use blender pumps. Unlike an automobile or SUV that
has a large fuel tank, the residual fuel left in a fueling hose
could be detrimental to the performance of motorcycle or ATV
engines due to the small size of their fuel tanks and the
higher concentration of ethanol that would, therefore, be
present in the fuel.
In addition, the use of E15 will lower fuel efficiency and
possibly cause premature engine failure. In off-road engines,
the effect can even be dangerous for users.
Another problem with that new EPA policy is that not all
motorcycle and ATV gas tanks hold four gallons or more gallons.
Not only did we find it unacceptable for the EPA to mandate
that everyone, including our members, buy minimum amounts of
gas, but that the EPA answer simply would not work because of
the sizes of many motorcycle and ATV gas tanks and the fact
that off-highway riders take containers of gas with them on
their trips. Most times these containers are much smaller than
four gallons.
We stress that the EPA needed to come up with a better
solution, so on February 7, in response to concerns expressed
by the AMA and power equipment makers, the EPA issued new
guidelines to help ensure that motorcyclists and others don't
inadvertently use E15 fuel.
Under the new option, retailers who use a blender pump to
see E15 and E10 fuel through the same hose must also have a
separate E10/E0 fuel pump. Those retailers would be required to
have a label on the blender pump that reads passenger vehicles
only. Use in other vehicles, engines, and equipment may violate
federal law.
Retailers would also be required to have signs indicating
the location of the dedicated E10 or lower fuel pump. There
would be no minimum fuel purchase requirement at that pump.
Now, we can only imagine how many motorists and
motorcyclists will be lining up at that single pump to get E10
or lower fuel. Retailers who want to sell E15 also have the
option of having a dedicated E15 pump or hose or a pump that
dispenses E15 and higher ethanol blends through a single hose.
If a blender pump dispenses multiple fuels that include E15 and
higher ethanol blends, the EPA may require a minimum purchase
requirement.
The AMA has repeatedly expressed concerns to government
officials and federal lawmakers about possible damage to
motorcycle and ATV engines caused by the inadvertent use of E15
when the new fuel becomes widely available. The AMA has also
asked that motorcycles and ATVs be part of any scientific study
into the effects of E15 to ensure that the new fuel blend would
not damage those engines.
It is my sincere hope that this Subcommittee continues to
be proactive on this important issue affecting motorcyclists
and ATV riders. The AMA and its members stand ready to serve as
a resource for you and your staff as you further deliberate
making our Nation's fuel supply safer for all users.
Again, I wish to thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member,
and the Subcommittee for holding this legislative hearing on
E15.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Senator. On a personal note, I
will note that your home State of Colorado is almost as
beautiful as my home State of Utah, and I look forward to
joining you on your next motorcycle ride through the land.
I now recognize Mr. Leister for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE LEISTER,
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Leister. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me here
today to testify on mid-level ethanol research programs
conducted by the Coordination Research Council, CRC. I am a
Senior Fuels Policy Advisor for Marathon Petroleum Corporation,
but today I am here to represent CRC. I am currently a member
of the CRC Board of Directors, and I am a past President of the
Board.
CRC is a research organization that has been around for
more than 70 years. You may not have heard of it much before,
but it has done significant research throughout the two World
Wars and since then. About two-thirds of the CRC budget is paid
for by automobile manufacturers and the American Petroleum
Institute. The remaining funding is paid for on a project-by-
project basis by outside organizations. CRC is the gold
standard of vehicle and fuels research.
In recent years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Department of Energy, the California Air Board, the
National Renewable Energy Lab, and even the Renewable Fuels
Association and Growth Energy have contributed significant
funds to CRC research projects.
I would like to stress at the outset that my testimony for
CRC does not engage in any advocacy. CRC stays out of advocacy.
We try to conduct straightforward research and report the facts
that have been learned. CRC leaves it to other parties to apply
political interpretation to these results. My written testimony
has some additional background on CRC.
Shortly after the enactment of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, the auto, oil industries, and even DOE
and EPA recognized that substantial research was needed to
assess the compatibility of higher-level ethanol blends with
existing vehicles and small engines. The Coordinating Research
Council developed and funded a comprehensive, multi-year
testing program. In the early stages of this program, DOE and
NREL participated in the design of various projects and even
helped write some of the preliminary reports. The CRC has spent
close to $14 million looking at mid-level ethanol blends
research over the past years, and we are committed to finishing
the projects that we have underway.
Attachment One of my testimony lists the CRC programs and
their schedules. The chief programs in this area are, first of
all, the durability of the engine itself, particularly engine
valves and valve seats. That program has been completed. The
durability of the vehicle onboard fuel storage and handling
equipment. That project has also been completed. The
computerized onboard diagnostic system, or OBD, which the
driver often sees as the check engine light coming on and off,
that project is still ongoing, and finally, the last major part
of our research has been the vehicle evaporative emissions
control system, which minimizes the release of fuel vapors to
the atmosphere, and that project has been completed.
This comprehensive set of test programs will be completed
this spring with the OBD Program being completed. However, the
test results on at least two of the programs, the engine
durability and the fuel system durability, suggest that E15 has
the potential to damage millions of vehicles in the current
U.S. fleet.
CRC, along with EPA and DOE, participated in all eight of
the mid-level ethanol stakeholder meetings that have been held
since May of 2008. On each occasion, we shared our research
schedule and preliminary test results. However, EPA chose to
ignore this research. Instead of waiting for CRC studies to be
completed and thoroughly evaluated, EPA improperly used data
from a DOE catalyst durability program and drew conclusions
about E15 effects that the DOE Program was simply not designed
to evaluate.
My testimony today will highlight the results of the CRC
E15 research on engine durability and fuel system durability.
On engine durability, that research demonstrated that E15
and E20 could cause engine damage, specifically excess valve
and seat wear under certain driving conditions in some of the
existing vehicles that were expected to be sensitive to ethanol
concentrations. Two out of eight models tested in the program
failed on E15 and E20 but not on E0. The failures that occurred
were compression failures, and they can result in the loss of
power, increased emissions, and high repair costs for the
consumer.
On fuel system durability, the research identified an
elevated incidence of fuel pump failures, fuel system component
swelling, impairment of the fuel level measurements in some of
the vehicles tested. E15 can cause erratic and misleading fuel
gauge readings and cause improper check engine light
illuminations. Fuel pump failures will stop the flow of fuel to
the engine, which can result in breakdowns on the highway or
busy streets. A fuel system components problems did not develop
when CRC tested E10 or E0 on these components.
Discovering these problems was not really very surprising,
because valve and valve seat upgrades are typically what an
auto manufacturer does to make a vehicle E85 compatible. Fuel
pumps and level sender problems are also not surprising,
because these components also are typically upgraded to make
flex fuel vehicles for E85.
I would like to point out that CRC only tested a small
sample of vehicles, engines, and components in the current U.S.
vehicle fleet, and that most of the sampled vehicles, engines,
and components demonstrated no problem with E15; however, the
problems uncovered represent serious concerns over the useful
life of millions of the vehicles in the current fleet. Until
2012, no vehicles in the U.S. fleet, except for flex fuel
vehicles, were really designed to handle E15, so it was not
surprising these problems were found.
CRC simply believes that the research demonstrates that
millions of the vehicles, engines, or components in the U.S.
fleet could be damaged by E15.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leister follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Stewart. I would like to thank the three of you
for your sacrificing your service and making yourselves
available to us today for your questions and your expertise.
Reminding the Members that Committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes.
The Chair at this point would open the round of
questioning, and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
A concern that I think many of us have, and this is
bipartisan, it is something that I think is unanimous
throughout, you know, leadership in government and that is the
risk of unfunded mandates from the Federal Government, where
rules and regulations may be imposed without authorizing any
funds to offset the actual cost of those rules or regulations.
And I think this may be a potentially good example of that,
and, again, it would be bipartisan if that were the case. If we
were to start receiving calls from our constituents who had
significant damage to what would for many of them be one of the
largest investments they are making short of a home or some
others, the automobile that they drive, and if they did receive
damage from that because of these rules, my question to you is,
who is liable if the consumer were to experience engine damage
because of the use of E15 in engines?
And I think you have answered the question, but if you feel
like you would elaborate, what is the likelihood of that
happening, and you know, what would you do to recommend that we
avoid that situation?
Maybe, Mr. Darbelnet, we could begin with you.
Mr. Darbelnet. Certainly. Thank you for that question.
Clearly, the liability that would result from that
occurring should not rest with the consumer. At the same time,
none of the other parties that seem to have an interest in
making E15 available are willing to step forward and assume
liability. In fact, there have been efforts on their part to
avoid liability, which I think is an indication of their
recognition that there is an issue here that needs to be dealt
with.
I think we should also observe that the damage that we are
concerned about is probably going to occur over a period of
time, and so we will not immediately discover the full
magnitude of the problem, and by the time it is apparent, I
suspect it is going to be difficult to trace back the problems
of the fuel that may have led to the damage, because if you
have been driving for a year or two and using this fuel and you
have damage, was it when you bought it at service station A or
when you bought it at service station B or service station C?
So really what we need to do is to adequately test it before we
make it available for sale. That is the solution.
Chairman Stewart. Well, I just have to interject. I am just
shocked that no one is stepping forward to claim responsibility
for this potential liability, but of course, they wouldn't, and
like you said, it is ambiguous and difficult to determine in
some cases.
Would either of the two of you like to address the same
question?
Mr. Allard. Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that we
don't recommend to our members that they purchase a motorcycle
that is not covered by a manufacturer's warranty, and when
these are covered by warranty, in all clear conscience we can
recommend that they buy that fuel or buy that engine or
whatever.
So those warranties are put out there to protect the
consumer any liability that they may assume.
Chairman Stewart. And I would just hope that the
legislation considers the impacts of that and that we don't
leave our constituents with a significant liability that they
have no means of controlling.
Mr. Leister, would you like to address that question as
well?
Mr. Leister. I think Mr. Darbelnet----
Chairman Stewart. Let me ask just very quickly if we have
time for this. Why is the testing of the Coordinated Research
Council conducted better or more appropriate than the EPA
relied on? Are there differences in the underlying studies.
Yes.
Mr. Darbelnet. You appear to be looking at me, but I might
want to defer the question to someone else. However, I would
offer that we haven't really challenged the EPA research on the
basis of did they spend enough time looking at the effect of
the fuel. Our concern with their research is the scope. It is
my understanding that what they were looking at was the effect
of E15 on emission control systems. They did not address the
effect of E15 on the other components of the engine that were
discussed by one of the previous testimonies.
Mr. Leister. Basically, the EPA testing was an attempt to
try to figure out whether E15 was a problem in vehicles. There
was a vast lack of knowledge in this area. The fact that they
chose to maybe not run as strenuous a test as necessary doesn't
degrade from the fact that they did a test, but it really
wasn't designed to test the whole vehicle, as Mr. Darbelnet
just discussed.
The CRC Program was actually designed by auto
manufacturers, and the tests were what auto manufacturers would
use to test their own equipment before they would sell it to
the public, and as that, it had a higher standard than EPA
developed for their tests.
Chairman Stewart. All right. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Bonamici for five minutes for her
questioning.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses. Before I begin my questioning I just
wanted to say a word about the witnesses and the hearing
record. Because the Department of Energy conducted the research
on which the EPA based its decision to grant the E15 waivers,
it is important to note for the record that the majority
invited neither the Department of Energy nor the EPA to discuss
the science and extensive testing on which the EPA based its
decision.
In addition, since the Department of Energy released a
critique of the study performed by the Coordinating Research
Council, the group that Mr. Leister is here representing, this
conversation would have benefited from a Department of Energy
presence on the panel.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Subcommittee staff got word
of Mr. Leister's appearance at this hearing at such a late hour
that inviting the Department wasn't an option for us.
So, accordingly, I am planning to submit various materials
for the record that help to represent an alternative viewpoint
in this debate. Although they don't necessarily represent the
views of all of the Democrats on this Committee, it should help
bring some balance to the record.
I wanted to ask, just to establish for the record, and I
think Mr. Darbelnet, perhaps you would have the answer to this,
do you know how many gas stations there are in the United
States?
Mr. Darbelnet. I don't know the exact number, but there
are----
Ms. Bonamici. Approximately.
Mr. Darbelnet [continuing]. Thousands and thousands and
thousands. Probably, let us say, 100,000 or more.
Ms. Bonamici. About 100,000.
Mr. Leister. One hundred and sixty-nine thousand.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Leister. Do you know how many
of them are selling E15?
Mr. Darbelnet. My understanding is that there might be
somewhere between 10 and 20, the number I heard most recently
was 18, that are currently selling it, which is precisely why
we think this ought to be addressed now. It is going to be easy
to stop when it is only 18. It will be difficult to stop when
it is 100,000.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I just think it is important to
establish for the record that we are talking about somewhere
around a dozen and a half out of hundreds of thousands. So just
for the record.
And, Mr. Darbelnet, I know the AAA, of which I am a proud
member, is an organization focused on benefits of membership,
peace of mind on the road, money saver, and that is, I think,
something that we all appreciate. I am sure that you hear
frequently from your members, as I do from my constituents,
about the high price of gasoline, and I know that studies have
shown that drivers can save up to 83 cents per gallon because
of increased ethanol production.
So I just wonder about motorists who drive cars that even
manufacturers say can use E15. Should they be allowed the
option of buying E15 and setting aside the uniqueness of places
like Oregon and New Jersey where we are not allowed to pump our
own gas? It is very quaint, but that puts it in a different----
Mr. Darbelnet. Well, thank you for that question and for
your support of AAA as a member. With regard to the potential
savings per gallon, the numbers that I have seen are far less
than 83 cents per gallon. There may be some unique
circumstances that you are aware of that would cause the
differential to be of that magnitude, but the indications we
have are that if it is not price parity, the savings is quite
modest, and if one factors in the lesser miles per gallon
traveled with E15 than with E10 or pure gasoline, the savings
is then reduced because you are not getting as many miles per
gallon for the gallon that you bought.
However, clearly we are in favor of options for consumers.
Our concern currently is not that E15 should never be brought
to market. Our concern is that the consumers do not know
whether they should put E15 in their vehicle or not, and there
is a huge difference of opinion between the EPA that says you
can use it in any vehicle manufactured after 2001, and the
people who actually make the cars who say that it shouldn't be
used in virtually 95 percent of the vehicles that are on the
roads today.
And it seems to me that with your assistance, we owe it to
the traveling public to reconcile viewpoints from the auto
manufacturers and the EPA so the consumer is not caught in the
middle not knowing who to believe.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I truly believe also in
consumer education.
I want to ask Mr. Leister, while we have time, when the
Coordinating Research Council put out the study on the
automobile impact of E15, the Department of Energy did point
out some problems that they found with the research. I know
that Department of Energy's Vehicle Technology's Program
presented an analysis that concluded that the methodologies
were significantly flawed in their words.
It is my understanding, for example, that no engines were
tested with E10, which represents more than 90 percent of the
gas in the United States, and at least one of the tested
automobiles is already the subject of a recall involving valve
problems.
So can you describe to us how this CRC study compared in
terms of scope with the Department of Energy testing? For
example, the number of vehicles, the number of miles driven,
and did the Energy Department's critique cause you to revisit
your methodology?
Mr. Leister. Certainly the Energy Department's critique
caused us to relook at our program, and API has issued a letter
that you can reference. I believe it was sent to the Committee
here, outlining various rebuttals there. CRC will just stick to
the facts here. DOE decided to do basically a catalyst
emissions test. They ran the vehicles to get the catalyst hot
enough to get an equivalent life over the life of the vehicle.
That is not a very strenuous test, and it is not even the way
the average public drives their cars.
CRC, because there is no standard test for engine
durability, took the advice of the various auto manufacturers
that are members of CRC and developed a composite test based on
their experience, and those tests did show some compression
leakage, but more important than that, the compression leakage
that we determined wasn't the final result. The compression
leakage was a signal for us to send the vehicles back to the
manufacturers. So each manufacturer got their own vehicle back,
tore it apart, and looked at it, and it was only two out of the
eight that actually had a problem with the valve seats.
As far as the vehicles being under a recall, I am not aware
that any of the vehicles we tested were under a recall for a
valve problem.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. I thank the Ranking Minority Member, Ms.
Bonamici.
The Chair would like to note for the record that the
minority had the opportunity to invite any witnesses of their
choosing but chose not to at this time, and that I think would
help explain some of the choices or the appearances of the
witnesses with us today.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sensenbrenner for his
questions.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes. Thank you very much, and Mr.
Chairman, I am glad that you pointed out that the Democrats did
have a chance to invite a witness, and they failed to do so. So
the complaint that we heard from the Ranking Member, I think,
rings very hollow.
The other thing that really irritates me is casting
aspersions on research that is done because it is financed by
somebody who may have a party, an interest. The thing is, is
that I think that anybody who sells a product wants to make
sure that their product is the absolute best that it can be,
and maybe part of the motivation of that is to avoid liability
problems, but I think part of the motivation is to keep
America's edge in terms of developing new products, whether it
happens to be fuel, whether it happens to be motor vehicle. And
who is supposed to do that if those that manufacture or sell
the products don't do it? I don't think the government can come
up with something that is objective, and here what we have
heard from all three of these witnesses is that the only thing
the EPA test did was the impact of E15 on emission systems, not
on the engine itself, not on the components parts of the
engine.
As a result, the thing that the opponents of this waiver
have been harping on is that the study was really not complete.
You know, it was kind of, you know, trying to diagnose a skin
cancer by doing a CAT scan or an MRI.
Now, you know, having said that, the draft bill that I
have, which I hope my minority party colleagues will cosponsor,
will have a truly objective analysis being done by the National
Association of Sciences, so that nobody can say that the study
was done by somebody with a financial interest or was biased
because they wanted to advance a regulatory agenda.
Now, I have a couple of questions of Mr. Leister.
Why did the CRC move forward with its studies if E15 was
already approved for use?
Mr. Leister. Well, actually, we started our studies long
before the waiver request was even made. We started our studies
in 2008. That is why we actually tested E20 and E15. At the
time we started, we were not aware that E15 was going to be the
fuel of choice of EPA.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Was the EPA's response to your studies
objective, and were their results fairly analyzed from an
unbiased, scientific viewpoint, or was basically the EPA saying
that everybody should ignore what you have done?
Mr. Leister. You make it difficult because EPA actually
pays for some of our projects, and we would hate to lose their
funding.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, we won't talk about conflicts of
interest here.
Mr. Leister. You know, EPA did their analysis, and it
appeared that they were under a tremendous amount of pressure
to come up with some answers, and as a result, the more we
informed them that there was more research to be done and more
timely, the less interested they were in hearing about that. I
might point out that the research that was done, you correctly
pointed out that our members do this to find out what is
happening, you know, what our problems are. Two of the members
of CRC, the auto members, have used that research to actually
now make E15-compatible vehicles. One makes--has made vehicles
in 2012 and 2013 that are E15 compatible, and one has started
in 2013 to make vehicles that are E15 compatible.
I think that one says volumes for the fact they say the one
is--any other vehicles they made prior to that they won't
warranty with E15, and yet they are making ones that will, and
secondly, that they have seen what the problems were based on
the research, and they have fixed those problems.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I would like to squeeze in one more
question of Senator Allard. There are safety concerns, as well
as the other concerns, that have been expressed by the
witnesses at the hearing. For example, the Coast Guard told the
EPA that a waiver raised concerns relating to possible
reduction in level of safety for recreational boaters. So we
have got the recreational boaters.
And at least in my part of the country and maybe yours,
too, Senator Allard, we got snow blowers because everybody
would be marooned if the snow blowers didn't work, and then
during the summer we have lawnmowers. All of these small
engines have the same problems with E15, and many of them are
two-cycle engines where the increased ethanol would end up
reducing the lubricating capacity of the oil that has to be
mixed in with the engines.
What do you have to say about that, and you know, can you
broaden the complaint with the other small engines that I have
mentioned?
Mr. Allard. Well, I am not an engineer and probably can't
answer that very directly, but I can say that there is concern
among motorcyclists about the heat that is generated and the
safety of the engine when they are riding their motorcycle.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. I will rest my case on the Coast
Guard then. Thank you.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Seeing not another individual to my right, we will now
yield down to Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. I really don't have a lot of questions, Chris. I
appreciate that. I will note for the record that, unlike New
Jersey, in Texas we can pump our own gas. I figured that in
Texas we understand that consumers and businesses get it right
a lot more often than the Congress. I applaud you all for
testifying.
Thank you.
Chairman Stewart. All right. Well, thank you then.
And Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your
leadership and coming right out of the gate this way.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Straight at an important issue. This is an
important issue, and I will tell you something. Out in
California, nobody can tell me that I am getting, that I not
getting less gas mileage because of that ethanol, and quite
frankly, people think we Congressmen are rich. Well, I am not
rich, and it affects me, and what about those people who don't
make as much as those of us in Congress? Increase the cost of
filling up your tank, that just means you don't have as much
money to pay rent or feed your kids or take your family out for
a dinner.
So ethanol was first in place, and you are the experts
here, wasn't it first put in place, this mandate for ethanol,
to get rid of the lead in gasoline? Is that right? No. Why did
we have the mandate to begin with?
Mr. Leister. The original ethanol mandate, I believe,
started from a program EPA had to reduce carbon monoxide in
certain cities that were in non-attainment of the carbon
monoxide standard. I believe it was back in '91, '92,
timeframe. There were a handful of cities that had carbon
monoxide problems. There had been some splash blending of
ethanol for economic purposes prior to that, but the actual
regulation of ethanol was first put into place----
Mr. Rohrabacher. For carbon monoxide gas, and did that
lower the level of carbon monoxide?
Mr. Leister. Yes. At the time, the engine technology at the
time with carburated vehicles and that getting extra oxygen
from the ethanol actually did help reduce carbon monoxide.
Since that time, the new engines now automatically adjust. They
sense the oxygen coming out of the exhaust and adjust the
intake air, so you would no longer get that benefit from
vehicles today, but it was a benefit back in the early----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So in other words, we put this requirement
in to lower the carbon monoxide, but because technology, engine
technology has advanced, that that would be no longer necessary
today? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Leister. That is true, but even more important than
that, I guess, is that all the areas that were in carbon
monoxide non-attainment, except for maybe one, I believe, have
all come into attainment. They all came into attainment real
fast, even as engine technology was----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that true with motorcycles, too,
Senator?
Mr. Allard. Well, if you will recall, about the time I was
in the House serving with you, the issue was oxygenated fuels.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is right.
Mr. Allard. And we had the MTBE versus ethanol, and that
was a big debate, and it was to reduce the air pollution.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And was the air pollution level and would
it be better today or worse today if we didn't have ethanol in
the gas? From what I just heard, there it sounded like you were
saying even without ethanol the gas, the air pollution level
would not be any worse today.
Mr. Leister. Well, you got to understand there are a lot of
things we try to control in the air, not just carbon monoxide.
The other major one is ozone. Okay?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Leister. And ozone comes about because of knocks
NO2 emissions and volatile organic compounds or VOC
emissions. In 1995, reformulated gasoline was legislated and
regulated by EPA. That fuel is both lower in VOCs and lower in
NO2, and so it is used in areas that have a problem
with attaining the ozone standard, and it has helped, but in
the interim all the other gasoline in the country because of
various other EPA regulations has become a lot more, a lot
cleaner.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there anything else, is there another
impact, for example, particulates?
Mr. Leister. There is a particulate problem also.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Doesn't the ethanol contribute to that
rather than helping bring that down?
Mr. Leister. It is difficult to say. I say there are some
studies that show that particulates are reduced with oxygen,
the extra oxygen that is present. Under newer vehicles, that
effect isn't quite as large, and so there are some studies that
show that particulates have actually gone up as a result of
that, I believe.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Okay. Well, I think----
Mr. Leister. But----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. There are some studies like--
--
Mr. Leister [continuing]. It is really slight. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But let me just note this, that if you are
bringing down the miles per gallon that you are getting in your
car, which ethanol does, I mean, I will testify to that, so
that means you have to use more gas. You have to use more gas,
that means to get to the same place, that means you have to
have more, you are putting more stuff into the air.
Mr. Leister. You are, but----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But if you have to use more of it, that
means you got the same amount of stuff going up.
Mr. Leister. But the tier two standards that EPA put in
place in 2007 basically required engines and fuels to be 90
percent--have 90 percent less emissions than they had before.
That overwhelms most of these other effects that you are
talking about.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ninety percent based on miles per gallon,
perhaps.
Mr. Leister. No. It is actually----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No?
Mr. Leister. It is on a per-mile basis. So it builds in the
miles per gallon factor.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Well, thank you very much. Just
let me note that in California, we--at least those of us who
are filling up our tanks with gas, and we drive a lot out
there--we definitely believe that ethanol is costing us and
costing American families a lot of money, and I am not so sure
that it is worth exactly what we are paying for. Senator
Allard, one last thing. Did you say this is going to hurt the
engines for motorcycles?
Mr. Allard. Congressman, that is a concern that we have
because the manufacturer won't issue a warranty when you use
E15 in the engine, so we think there is a reason for that, and
we wouldn't recommend it to our consumers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. We are afraid of that, too, and that
also is a factor in determining what the pollution level is. If
you are going to destroy an engine, that means, in the end,
there is a lot more stuff going into the air when you add in
all of that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We
now recognize the full Committee Chairman, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman,
let me say I regret missing the witnesses' testimony today but
appreciate all of them being here, and Senator Allard, nice to
see you again, and welcome back.
What I am trying to do is, in my own mind, and I think this
will be helpful to all of us and helpful to others as well, is
sort of compiling a list of advantages and disadvantages of
E15. And what I would like to do is give you my list on both
sides and ask you all to comment to see if you agree or
disagree or if you can add anything to either side of the
ledger.
On the disadvantages, we have unknown impact of E15 on
various types of engines. We have had a study about emissions.
We haven't had any real study on the impact of the engines
themselves. Second, you get about 30 percent less gas mileage
if you use E15. That might be a disadvantage. Environment, you
can probably argue that either way, but the amount of energy,
probably fossil fuel energy that goes into growing the corn
necessary for ethanol is obviously not a positive impact on the
environment. And then fourth, I would put, well, maybe those
are my three. I was going to say, talk about more of the harm
to engines, but I think my first point covers them.
On the other side, as far as advantages go, price of
gasoline is going to be less costly. I would put that as a
positive, and then, again, on the environment you can probably
argue either way. There is less CO2 going into the
environment, but I have already mentioned the other side of
that.
What do you all think of that list of advantages and
disadvantages and Mr. Darbelnet, I guess we will start with
you.
Mr. Darbelnet. Thank you. Well, with regard to impact on
the engine, clearly that is one of our concerns, and I think
you are correct to have that on your list of negatives.
With regard to getting less miles per gallon, I would
agree. It will yield less miles per gallon, but I think the
differential is much smaller than 30 percent. Pure gas would be
the benchmark. E10 would probably get you slightly less than
four percent worse gas mileage.
Chairman Smith. The figure I heard was actually 33 percent
less. You think that is too much? Okay.
Mr. Darbelnet. From everything I have seen, it is between
four and six percent less, depending on whether you are using
E10 or E15.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Darbelnet. And as to the impact on corn, I am well over
the tip of my skis on that topic, but with regard to the
positives, less costly, yes, slightly, but one has to bear in
mind that you are getting less miles per gallon, and with
regard to the environmental impact, from our conversations with
our engineers, they think that overall it is pretty close to
being a wash.
So really, the only outstanding issue for us at this point
is the matter of impact on engines, and I think we should note
in the pluses the reduced dependency on fossil fuel that
results from using ethanol as an additive.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Environment you would call a wash and
less mileage, less cost, and unknown impact on engines on
negative impact?
Mr. Darbelnet. Negative impact.
Chairman Smith. Negative impact. So overall negative, I
guess.
Senator Allard, and by the way, I am just curious, if the
mileage is down six percent, is the cost going to be down six
percent or not?
Mr. Darbelnet. Well, that is part of the conversation. The
cost is less. Is it six percent. Sometimes it is six percent,
sometimes it is a little more, sometimes a little bit less.
Chairman Smith. We are coming up with another wash there.
Mr. Darbelnet. We are coming very close to a wash. I think
the big issue is the impact on the engine.
Chairman Smith. Great. Senator Allard.
Mr. Allard. Congressman, I think the big concern that we
would have is confusion at the gas tank, you know, with the
rules and regulations that are at the gas tank that are being
imposed upon the retailer. You know, I think that is a concern
that we have, and then because of that confusion, you put the
wrong kind of fuel in your engine, which the warranty will
stand up with.
Also, motorcyclists are concerned about the fact that if
E15 is used in a rural gas station, for example, and you are
out in a rural area, and you run out of gas, you don't have
much choice, and so it takes away consumer choice in some
instances.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, and Mr. Leister.
Mr. Leister. Again, I am talking for CRC, so I am going to
just try to stick with scientific facts rather than opinions
and political facts. Definitely we are concerned about the
impacts on the vehicles, the engines, and the components with
E15. We think millions of vehicles will be affected, so it is a
bad choice for the public.
As far as fuel economy, ethanol is 30 percent less energy
than gasoline. When it is blended at a 10 percent rate, the E10
mixture has a three percent less fuel economy. E15 would have 4
1/2 percent using just straight multiplication there.
And as far as energy and corn, there are a lot of studies.
California found that, you know, corn wasn't necessarily so
good for the environment, but then they changed their mind. EPA
found that corn was. A lot of this has to do with the way you
account for the energy that goes into the distiller's dried
grain.
However, if you are strictly looking at fossil energy going
to something to give you energy to move a transportation
vehicle, there is more energy of fossil fuel that goes into
making ethanol than you get energy out of the ethanol. But when
you add the distiller's dried grain in, the net result overall
is positive. So if you have a program where you are trying to
produce feed for animals, you might want to think about it.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Did you comment on engines? Did you
say it would be a negative?
Mr. Leister. Yes. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. So there is general agreement among
all the witnesses on a negative impact or a potential negative
impact on engines then. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
The Ranking Minority Member has requested a follow-up
question. We now recognize Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
holding up the whole side of the dais today.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the misfueling that I
know several of you have mentioned. Misfueling would be a real
concern, but it is not an unprecedented issue. Similar problems
were anticipated when unleaded fuel was introduced, and more
recently there were concerns about the ultralow sulfur diesel
that would result in widespread misfueling as well as
infrastructure challenges. For a couple of years, there were
two types of diesel in in the fuel supply: low sulfur diesel
and the ultralow sulfur.
Did the AMA or the AAA notice any significant refueling,
misfueling issues, and was the fuel industry generally able to
meet the challenge, and maybe you could talk a little bit about
some of the consumer information that went into informing
gasoline consumers about those issues. Senator Allard and Mr.
Darbelnet, perhaps. I don't know if, Mr. Leister, you want to
opine on that as well. Thank you.
Mr. Allard. Well, those--if I might respond, on the
misfueling issues, I guess you would say the four gallon, when
they required the four-gallon minimum, that was--that is a
problem for us because many times the tanks only hold three to
three and a half gallons. So the question came up then, what do
you do with the remaining fuels, and are you going to be
charged for the four full gallons if you don't use it? So that
is where confusion at the pump existed when we had that
mandate. Now----
Ms. Bonamici. But that only for the----
Mr. Allard [continuing]. The EPA has tried to correct that,
and they have now, as we understand it, you know, you do have a
choice on blender pumps as well as you have a dedicated pump
just for 10 to 0 on your ethanol levels. And then if you--or
you can just have single hoses, and you don't have an issue,
and you don't have the minimum.
And so it gets--it is very confusing, you know, by the time
you consider all the rules and regulations, and it is confusing
to our consumers, and it is hard to make wise choices as a
consumer when it gets confusing.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Senator, and I am interested, too,
in hearing about some of the efforts that have been made in the
past about different fueling options and informing consumers.
How has the industry gone about informing consumers when there
were other concerns about misfueling?
Mr. Darbelnet. Well, that is an excellent question, and it
reminds me of the transition that we encountered when we went
to unleaded fuel, which you referred to. As you may recall, at
that time they changed the size of the hole through which the
gas is put into the vehicle, and we changed the size of the
filler spout on the pumps, such that you could not fit the
nozzle from an unleaded pump into the tank of a vehicle that
wasn't designed to receive it. So unless you were going to use
a funnel to fill your car, there was virtually no risk of
putting unleaded fuel in a vehicle that should have leaded
fuel.
There is no discussion currently of anything of that nature
being done to prevent misfueling as it relates to E15, and
frankly, I think there is a limit to how many different sizes
we can come up with to address the problem.
So I think the misfueling risk is more significant in this
case than it has been in the past, simply because we don't have
some of the options available that we did previously.
Ms. Bonamici. And yet, Mr. Leister, and if you could just
clarify, I recall that you testified that there are
manufacturers now who are manufacturing cars that are made for
E15. Is that correct?
Mr. Leister. Yes. I will answer that first, and then I
would like to get back to the previous question, but, yes,
there are two manufacturers that I am aware of that have
announced, one that it is 2012, and 2013, cars are E15
compatible, and I believe their owner's manuals now state that,
and one that has done the same thing for their 2013, vehicles.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. So there have been adaptations, and
then----
Mr. Leister. There have been adaptations.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Your response to the prior----
Mr. Leister. I guess I would like to point out that for
unleaded gasoline there wasn't--there was a nozzle change, but
also from our point of view there was, we believe, significant
cheating as people could buy, for five or 10 cents, a little
plastic adapter called an emergency fuel system, where you
would plug it on the end of the nozzle, and it would make it
smaller to fit into the old hole.
So if you give people sufficient incentive, they will try
to go for the lower fuel, whether it is good for their car or
not.
Ms. Bonamici. Interesting commentary. Well, thank you very
much. I yield back my time. Thank you.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Knowing that we are needed on the House Floor for a vote in
just a few moments, the Chair would like to recognize Mr.
Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing. This is a very important
issue.
This will be a quick question because we need to go vote,
but, you know, some of the proponents of E15 and ethanol bring
up the point that in other countries they burn 50, 60 percent,
and some vehicles are burning almost complete 100 percent
ethanol. So what is the distinction here of the U.S. moving to
the ethanol blending versus what people will point to other
countries using? What is the difference?
Mr. Leister. Most of the time people reference Brazil when
they are talking about that, and the fact is, I think, most of
my auto manufacturer colleagues would tell you that the
vehicles that they sell in Brazil toady are essentially FFEs.
So they are designed to take higher levels. They are not U.S.
vehicles that shipped down there.
I would like to point out the early days of the program in
Brazil, the ethanol ate the cars apart, and so they had to
replace them with FFEs.
Mr. Neugebauer. Either one of you want to comment on that?
Mr. Darbelnet. I would simply concur with what was offered
in terms of a commentary.
Mr. Neugebauer. So I think the conclusion I am drawing from
listening to the testimony today is that there is a movement to
provide in the automobile industry an adaptation to that, but
what you are saying, it is not mature enough at this particular
point in time, and that if we force that process, then we could
be actually damaging the consumers that own vehicles.
Mr. Darbelnet. That is correct, sir. If one thinks about
how many new vehicles enter the fleet each year and the average
age of the fleet, it is going to take probably a decade to get
to a point where a substantial majority of vehicles would be
suitable for E15, unless there is some other discovery or
retrofit that becomes available or some further ingredient that
can negate the effect, but at the present time, there are
roughly just five percent of the vehicles on the road that
could safely burn E15.
Mr. Neugebauer. So nobody has come up with an additive or
something like that that helps.
So, Senator Allard, good to see you again. So what should
be the appropriate policy on this issue? You are an old
policymaker. What would you recommend to this Committee?
Mr. Allard. Well, I would withhold putting E15 on the
market until the research has been conducted that would assure
that motorcyclists, in this particular instance since I
represent the AMA, can use it without damage to the engine. To
me, that is the proper policies to have the right research, and
it hasn't been done at this point, at least for the type of
vehicle that I am representing at this table.
Mr. Neugebauer. And we are really not, I mean, you bring up
motorcycles, and we have been talking about automobiles, but
really we are actually talking about a lot of other products
that----
Mr. Allard. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer [continuing]. Use fuels that we need.
Mr. Allard. Well, I think you can generalize and say small
engines in general.
Mr. Neugebauer. Right.
Mr. Allard. Uh-huh.
Mr. Neugebauer. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
With that, we come to the conclusion of this hearing. I
would like to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony
as well as the Members for their questions.
The Members of the Committee may have additional questions.
If that is the case, then we would ask you to respond to those
in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from the Members.
The witnesses are excused with, again, with our thanks, and
this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]