    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           AVIATION AND THE EMERGING
                                USE OF BIOFUELS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 26, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-15

                                   __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-004                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    PAUL D. TONKO, New York              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              PETE OLSON, Texas
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
    CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
    KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
    ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    VACANCY
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                    HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona, Chair
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     PETE OLSON, Texas
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                    Wisconsin
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
    ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                  RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
                PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
                 ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
                KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
                ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
                        DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 26, 2009

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    13
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Statement by Representative Pete Olson, Ranking Minority Member,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    15
        Written Statement............................................    15

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
      Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
      Administration (NASA)
        Oral Statement...............................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    18
        Biography....................................................    21

    Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor,
      Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
      Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    22
        Written Statement............................................    23
        Biography....................................................    40

    Dr. Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and Environment,
      Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation
        Oral Statement...............................................    40
        Written Statement............................................    41
        Biography....................................................    45

    Mr. Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment Strategy,
      Boeing Commercial Airplanes
        Oral Statement...............................................    45
        Written Statement............................................    46

    Mr. Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real Estate
      and Security, Continental Airlines
        Oral Statement...............................................    52
        Written Statement............................................    54
        Biography....................................................    66

    Discussion
      Quantifying Priority Levels for Biofuels in the Aviation
        Industry.....................................................    66
      Biofuels Carbon Emission Reductions............................    69
      Cap-and-Trade Is the Wrong Route...............................    70
      Incentives to Encourage Alternative Fuels in the Aviation
        Industry.....................................................    71
      Reducing Aviation Particulates to Curb Pollution...............    72
      Reducing Real Carbon Emissions.................................    74
      Subsizing Algae as a Biofuel...................................    75
      Executive Branch Coordination of Biofuels R&D..................    76
      Possible Unintended Consequences of Biofuels Production........    77
      Where Is the U.S. in Comparison to Europe on Biofuels?.........    78

                 Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
      Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
      Administration (NASA)..........................................    82

    Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor,
      Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
      Administration.................................................    85

    Dr. Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and Environment,
      Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation...............    90

    Mr. Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment Strategy,
      Boeing Commercial Airplanes....................................    93

    Mr. Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real Estate
      and Security, Continental Airlines.............................    95

                 Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

    Global Warming Quotes submitted by Representative Dana
      Rohrabacher....................................................   100

                   AVIATION AND THE EMERGING USE OF BIOFUELS

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                           Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle
    Giffords [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

                                hearing charter

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           Aviation and the Emerging

                                Use of Biofuels

                            thursday, march 26, 2009
                             10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
                       2318 rayburn house office building

    I. Purpose

        The House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on
    Space and Aeronautics is convening a hearing to review the status of
    federal and industry research and development (R&D) efforts to develop
    and demonstrate the safe and cost-effective use of biofuels in civil
    aviation. The hearing will focus on the following questions and issues:

              What research is needed to determine the optimal
            characteristics of both aircraft engine technologies and
            biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while maintaining
            aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing performance?

              What are the most realistic aviation biofuel options
            over the long-term, and what will be required to achieve
            widespread use of biofuels in aviation?

              What steps, if any, is the Federal Government taking
            to assess the viability of biofuels for aviation or to
            facilitate their widespread use in aviation?

              What are the results of the recently completed
            aviation biofuels demonstrations?

    II. Witnesses

    Dr. Jaiwon Shin
    Associate Administrator
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice
    Chief Scientist
    Federal Aviation Administration
    Environmental Lead for the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
            Initiative

    Dr. Alan H. Epstein
    Vice President, Technology and Environment
    Pratt & Whitney
    United Technologies Corporation

    Mr. Billy M. Glover
    Managing Director, Environmental Strategy
    Boeing Commercial Airplane Company

    Mr. Holden E. Shannon
    Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security
    Continental Airlines

    III. Overview

        The convergence of high fuel prices with possible caps on harmful
    aircraft engine emissions has encouraged the aviation community to
    investigate alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuels that would be
    safe and cost-effective--both to use and produce. In 2006, for the
    first time in history, fuel became the single largest component of U.S.
    airline operating cost. According to the Air Transport Association
    (ATA), while consumption by commercial aircraft has stayed steady over
    a seven year period at about 20 billion gallons per year, jet fuel
    expenses have more than doubled over that same period. The aviation
    industry has achieved substantial improvements in fuel efficiency since
    the introduction of commercial jet aircraft in the 1960s through fleet
    modernization, air traffic management improvements and operational
    changes. However, despite such improvements, expectations of increased
    fuel consumption from projected growth in air travel and the
    possibility of higher fuel prices are forcing the aviation industry to
    try to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and find alternative sources
    of supply.
        So far, alternative fuels being considered for aviation include
    synthetic fuels, such as those produced using a process called Fischer-
    Tropsch, and a number of biofuels. While synthetic fuels made from
    coal, natural gas and other hydrocarbon feedstock are attractive
    because they can be easily integrated into existing aircraft systems,
    such fuels do not help address climate issues and as such are viewed by
    some as only near-term alternatives. In contrast, biofuels produced
    from a wide variety of plant material are characterized as ``carbon
    neutral'' and thus may help mitigate the impact of aviation on the
    environment. First-generation biofuels, commonly made from fermented
    sugars from wheat or corn; soy beans; and sunflower seeds are generally
    unsuitable for aviation jet fuel. If biofuels are to become successful
    in commercial aviation use, they will need to be high in energy, safe
    to use, capable of working well in sub-zero temperatures at high
    altitudes, cost-efficient to make, suitable for production in large
    quantities, and capable of burning cleanly.
        Of late, there has been significant activity in the development and
    testing of biofuels for aviation. U.S. research in the application of
    biofuels for aviation is being conducted by the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA); the Department of Defense (DOD); a
    consortium of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), airlines and
    aircraft manufacturers; and other partnerships. The airline industry
    views the primary benefit of using biofuels as being the enhancement of
    the industry's ability to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the fuels'
    entire life cycle.
        Recent tests using various biofuel blends, including well-
    publicized demonstrations by several commercial partnerships, have
    created high expectations, both in this country and abroad. Testimony
    at this hearing should provide the Subcommittee with an assessment of
    what research and tests are being done, who is doing it, what further
    research is needed, and whether a timeframe for the widespread
    availability of biofuel for aviation can be projected.

    IV. Potential Hearing Issues

        The following are some of the potential issues that may be raised
    at the hearing:

              What research is being conducted to validate the
            projected benefits of using biofuels in aviation with regards
            to their ability to reduce aircraft engine emissions?

              Is there an overall ``roadmap'' for conducting
            aviation biofuel research? Is the research performed by the
            Federal Government aligned with that conducted by the private
            sector? Are research results available to all?

              Can the development readiness of emerging biofuels be
            commonly characterized and measured using standard metrics?

              What has been learned so far from partnership
            demonstrations using biofuels? Are additional demonstrations
            planned?

              What research is being planned or conducted to
            determine the impact long-term and widespread biofuel use may
            have on aircraft safety, and engine performance/
            maintainability/reliability? Is more research needed? In what
            areas?

              Has the recent downturn in fuel prices and in the
            Nation's economy lessened the urgency of developing biofuels
            for civil aviation use?

              What key challenges need to be resolved before
            widespread use of biofuels in civil aviation can occur and what
            role should the Federal Government play?

    V. Background

    Issues Associated with Biofuels in Aviation
        Before biofuels can be used in civil aviation, a number of issues
    will need to be addressed. While not exhaustive, the following list of
    R&D tasks identified by NASA is illustrative of the scope of research
    that may be needed before widespread use of biofuels in the aviation
    sector can occur:

              Understanding combustion behavior for the new fuels
            and demonstrating long-term engine combustor performance and
            developing predictive models for combustor performance to
            enable low emission combustor design using biofuels.

              Understanding the emission characteristics of
            biofuels, in particular understanding the effect of biofuel
            constituents on the emission characteristics so that the
            biofuel can be optimized for reducing emissions in gas turbine
            engines.

              Demonstrating the biofuels' desired thermal stability
            under a range of temperatures encompassing high temperatures to
            freezing, lubricity, and no seal leakage.

              Demonstrating long-term performance of engines.

              Demonstrating long-term durability of engine
            components.

        The setting of fuel specifications is another significant issue
    recognized by the aviation industry. As indicated in an Alternative
    Aviation Fuels Q&A by the Air Transport Association (ATA) on their
    website, all aircraft and engines in the United States must be approved
    (technically, ``certificated'') by the Federal Aviation Administration
    (FAA) for use. To quote the ATA website's Q&A:

             ``FAA approval is specific to the fuel that is used and the
            particular aircraft and/or engine type. Any deviation from the
            FAA approval certificate requires extensive FAA re-evaluation
            and approval.''

        FAA's role is in certifying aircraft, not in the fuel. However,
    FAA's certification has a tie-in to the type of fuel utilized. As
    stated in ATA's Q&A:

             ``The FAA certifies aircraft and engines. An element of this
            certification is a listing of the operational requirements and
            limitations for the specific equipment that is being certified,
            which includes identification of the type of jet fuel approved
            for use in that equipment. Therefore, the FAA specifies what
            type of fuel is to be used but does not certify the jet fuel
            itself. Separately, airline fueling manuals, with which
            airlines must comply by law, are based upon the jet fuel
            recognized by the FAA. Before FAA identifies the fuel
            appropriate for specific equipment, and before airlines can
            include the fuel requirements in fueling manuals, the fuel
            already has been determined to meet the specifications
            necessary to be safely used in the relevant equipment. In the
            case of jet fuel, the applicable standard (also referred to as
            a ``specification'') is controlled by ASTM International, an
            organization devoted to the development and management of
            standards for a wide range of industrial products and
            processes. It is this specification that is included in FAA
            product approvals and required air carrier manuals.
            Periodically, through ASTM's established procedures, the
            specification is updated and revised by a specialized committee
            of experts. Proposed changes to the specification are carefully
            considered, and a formal balloting process is conducted to
            secure consensus before any revision is accepted. Fuels
            produced from alternative sources must complete this rigorous
            vetting process to establish that they meet the specification
            requirements to be safely used as jet fuel.''

        Alternative fuels such as biofuels will need to go through this
    vetting process before they can be used in civil aviation. The ATA
    website's Q&A further states:

             ``In light of this regulatory arrangement and the fact that
            the specification for Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel is identified in
            the FAA approval certificate, no other type of fuel can be
            utilized at this time in the United States. Much work needs to
            be done before alternative fuels can safely be used in
            commercial aircraft operations with approval from the FAA.''

        The importance of establishing alternative fuel specifications was
    recently highlighted in the Technical Appendix to the National Plan for
    Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure. In
    this document, released in December 2008 by the Executive Office of the
    President's National Science and Technology Council, opportunities were
    listed where additional R&D focus may be warranted. One such
    opportunity relates to alternative fuels. Specifically, the document
    states:

             ``Certification in a timely manner could help enable
            alternative fuels for the civil aviation sector. An area of
            opportunity identified for potential increased emphasis is R&D
            efforts appropriate to promote the development of private
            sector capabilities to produce alternative fuel (including
            renewable fuels) in the large quantities necessary to conduct
            tests essential for the certification process. These tests
            include evaluation of fuel specification and fit for purpose
            properties, turbine hot section tests, combustor rig tests, and
            engine and auxiliary power unit endurance tests.''

        A representative of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
    Initiative (CAAFI), a coalition drawn from all elements of the
    commercial aviation industry, fuel suppliers, universities, and U.S.
    Government agencies, recently highlighted the need for an ASTM
    specification for alternative fuels at a workshop held by the
    International Civil Aviation Organization. Dr. Lourdes Maurice, a
    witness at the hearing who also serves as one of FAA's representatives
    on CAAFI, will be able to provide further details on the challenges
    associated with the setting of alternative fuel specifications for
    aviation.

    Recent Activities of Key Aviation-focused Alternative Fuels
            Stakeholders
        There are a number of stakeholders whose views have helped shape
    the discussion of the technical, operational, and economic issues
    associated with the use of alternative fuels in aviation. Many of these
    stakeholders are involved in research initiatives associated with the
    use of alternative fuels in the aviation sector. They represent
    federal, industry, and global interests.

                National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program has been conducting a range
    of research activities related to alternate aviation fuels. For
    example, NASA is:

              Conducting fundamental reaction studies on the
            Fischer-Tropsch process. Although the process is well-
            established, NASA believes that there is significant potential
            for process improvement that will increase process yield and
            reduce cost and reduce energy consumption during the Fischer-
            Tropsch process which should translate to a decrease in carbon
            dioxide emissions. As a result, NASA research is focusing on
            investigating Fischer-Tropsch reaction kinetics and developing
            a nanotechnology based catalyst. The process improvements
            resulting from NASA laboratory reactor studies will be
            implemented in the Air Force Research Laboratory's Fischer-
            Tropsch pilot plant. Scientists and researchers from NASA's
            Glenn Research Center are conducting this research in the
            Alternative Fuel Research Laboratory. Partners in this effort
            include the FAA, DOD, the Department of Energy (DOE), General
            Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Boeing and the University of
            Kentucky's Center for Applied Research.

              Generating a database of properties for the use of
            alternate fuels in aviation. The database of key properties
            such as thermal stability and freezing point is being generated
            to evaluate various alternate fuels for application to aviation
            uses and provides an independent assessment of these fuels.

              Modeling growth processes for biofuel feedstock.
            Under a non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement, NASA is
            partnering with Seambiotic, Inc. on a project aimed at biomass
            process cost reduction. The goal of the Space Act Agreement is
            to make use of NASA's expertise in large scale computational
            modeling and combine it with Seambiotic's biological process
            modeling to make significant advances.

              Performing engine and flight testing with alternate
            fuels in collaboration with Pratt & Whitney, the Air Force
            Research Laboratory, Aerodyne Research, FAA, and the
            Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, NASA's DC-8
            at the Dryden Flight Research Center was recently used to
            evaluate aircraft performance and emissions using alternate
            fuels. Fuels used for the ground tests were 100 percent
            synthetic fuels and 50/50 blends of synthetics and regular jet
            fuel. NASA believes that synthetic fuels may have fewer
            particulates and other harmful emissions than standard jet fuel
            and is attempting to validate that hypothesis. The tests used
            sampling probes placed downstream from the DC-8's right inboard
            engine. Researchers are examining the plume chemistry and
            particle evolution to compare it to that of standard jet fuel.

                Federal Aviation Administration
        In addition to its involvement in the Commercial Aviation
    Alternative Fuels Initiative described later in this section, FAA may
    have some legislative direction related to alternative fuels in pending
    legislation. The agency was directed in the House-passed FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2007 [H.R. 2881, Sec. 914] to ``establish a
    research program related to developing jet fuel from alternative
    sources (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, ethanol, butanol, and
    hydrogen) through grants or other measures authorized under section
    106(l)(6) of such title, including reimbursable agreements with other
    federal agencies.'' The bill further directed that in conducting the
    program, the Secretary ``provide for participation by educational and
    research institutions that have existing facilities and experience in
    the development and deployment of technology for alternative jet
    fuels.''
        The bill also directed, within the section describing the
    Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) program [Sec.
    505] that the FAA Administrator, in coordination with the NASA
    Administrator, ``enter into a cooperative agreement, using a
    competitive process, with an institution, entity, or consortium to
    carry out a program for the development, maturing, and certification of
    CLEEN engine and airframe technology for aircraft over the next 10
    years.'' Performance objectives for the program, to be achieved by
    September 30, 2015 included the ``determination of the feasibility of
    the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful
    demonstration and quantification of the benefits of such fuels.''
        Legislation [H.R. 915] to authorize appropriations for FAA for
    fiscal years 2009 through 2012 was recently marked up by the House
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The direction to FAA on
    alternative fuels and CLEEN program is maintained [Sections 505 and
    913] in that bill.

                Department of Defense
        Knowledge gained from research on alternative fuels being conducted
    by DOD, the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA) in particular, is beneficial to the aviation community since
    test results can be extended to commercial aircraft.
        The Air Force has been investigating synthetic fuels produced using
    the Fischer-Tropsch process, even though it recognizes that synthetic
    fuels will not lead to fewer emissions of carbon dioxide, the
    greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change.
    According to a recent article in Flight International, the Air Force
    ``is uninterested in fuels made from feedstocks that compete with food
    supply or require huge amounts of land for production.'' In that same
    article, the Air Force's Alternative Fuels Certification Office
    director was reported as having said that the service is planning to
    apply lessons learned from its Fischer-Tropsch initiative to an
    expanded alternative fuel development program that includes biofuels.
    The Air Force's involvement in alternative fuels is understandable: It
    has been reported that the service uses more aviation fuel than all
    other branches of the U.S. military combined. In 2007, this amounted to
    2.5 billion gallons--about 10 percent of the total used by the entire
    U.S. domestic aviation-fuel market. The Air Force has set a goal of
    running half of its domestic operations on a 50/50 blend of synthetic
    and conventional jet fuel by 2016.
        DARPA has also shown a growing interest in biofuels. Biodiesel
    Magazine has reported that DARPA's BioFuels program recently awarded
    two research contracts aimed at developing a scalable process for the
    cost-effective and large-scale production of algae oil to be processed
    into an alternative to JP-8 jet fuel. In one contract valued at $43
    million, General Atomics will lead a team of 18 university and
    industrial partners in a three-year project. The contract will conclude
    with a pre-pilot-scale demonstration. In the second contract, Science
    Applications International Corp. (SAIC), along with industrial and
    academic organizations from Georgia, Florida, Hawaii and Texas will
    investigate all phases of an algae development program. It has been
    reported that during the first 18 months of the project, the two teams
    will try to get costs of algae-based oil down to $2 a gallon. It was
    also reported that, in the following 18 months, they will attempt to
    drop it to $1 a gallon and build a 30- to 50-acre demonstration
    facility.

                Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
        The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is a
    coalition drawn from all elements of the commercial aviation industry,
    fuel suppliers, universities, and U.S. Government agencies, including
    FAA, DOE, NASA, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), the
    Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and the Airports Council
    International-North America (ACI-NA). CAAFI staff come from its
    members. For example, Dr. Lourdes Maurice, a witness at this hearing,
    is from FAA and serves as CAAFI's Environmental Lead. The coalition's
    stated goal is to enhance energy security and environmental
    sustainability for aviation by exploring the potential use of
    alternative fuels. CAAFI provides a forum for the U.S. commercial
    aviation community to engage the emerging alternative fuels industry
    and to work together, share and collect needed data, and motivate and
    direct research on aviation alternative fuels.
        CAAFI participants meet annually to give updates on the state of
    alternative fuel developments, identify gaps and hurdles, and decide on
    next steps required in the research, development and deployment
    process. Work to date has included the creation of roadmaps to
    communicate aviation needs and solutions; disseminating flight-test
    information on synthetic fuels and biofuels; supporting R&D on low
    carbon fuels sourced from plant oils, algae and biomass; understanding
    life cycle environmental impacts of production and use of alternative
    fuels; and planning for certification in 2009 of a 50 percent synthetic
    fuel, 2010 for 100 percent synthetic fuel, and 2013 for biofuels.
    CAAFI's Executive Director told Subcommittee staff that the coalition
    is presently executing a major update to its roadmaps as a result of
    the Dayton workshop discussed below and projected that they would be
    available in the near future.
        Two CAAFI initiatives relevant to the focus of this hearing are
    worth noting:

              At CAAFI's request, the Partnership for AiR
            Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), a
            university, industry, and government collaborative that
            researches solutions for existing and anticipated aviation-
            related noise and emissions problems, is conducting a study on
            alternative fuels for commercial aviation. The study, conducted
            by MIT and the RAND Corporation, compares a set of potential
            alternative jet fuels on the basis of compatibility with
            existing aircraft and infrastructure, near-term production
            potential, near-term production costs, life cycle greenhouse
            gas emissions, emissions impacting air quality, and relative
            merit of using the fuel in aviation versus ground
            transportation. The focus is on alternative jet fuels that
            could be commercially available in the next decade using North
            American resources. According to CAAFI, the report documenting
            PARTNER's research is under internal review and is scheduled to
            be released in May of this year. PARTNER is an FAA/NASA/
            Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence.

              Last January, CAAFI held a Research & Development
            Team workshop in Dayton, OH. The workshop's goals were to
            update ongoing R&D activities and needs; develop an overall R&D
            roadmap and a renewable fuel feedstock roadmap; and align
            aviation efforts with broader government and private sector
            energy initiatives. The workshop was an opportunity for makers
            of biofuel feedstocks to meet with funding sources. Federal
            attendees included representatives of the Air Force;
            Departments of Agriculture and Energy; the National Science
            Foundation; EPA; FAA; and NASA. In commenting on the progress
            that the alternative fuels effort had made in a short time,
            Boeing's representative and R&D team co-lead said:

                     ``We've made great strides in making aviation a
                    central focus of alternative fuels research including
                    four successful flight programs [These flight programs
                    are described later in this section]. Our efforts today
                    will help focus industry and government--suppliers and
                    users on how to move forward to deployment on those
                    fuels that have been tested and how to mature
                    additional technologies.''

               One of the participants at the workshop introduced a new
            Fuel Readiness Level (FRL) scale to allow a common
            understanding of fuel development steps from R&D to fuel
            certification to business development. The new scale
            incorporates civilian and military Technology Readiness Level
            (TRL) scales and was advanced as a useful tool and common
            language for tracking the fuel development, approval and
            commercialization process.

                Departments of Energy and Agriculture
        The U.S. Departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA)
    announced in January 2009 that they were providing up to $25 million in
    funding for research and development of technologies and processes to
    produce biofuels, bioenergy, and high-value biobased products. USDA and
    DOE issued a joint funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for several
    types of projects aimed at increasing the availability of alternative
    renewable fuels and biobased products. The projects, DOE and USDA said,
    will aim to create a diverse group of economically and environmentally
    sustainable sources of renewable biomass.
        In commenting on the announcement, the Air Transport Association
    said that it was the first step in implementing provisions found in the
    2008 Farm Bill that provide grants for commercial-scale biofuel
    demonstration projects, including those that could ultimately produce
    clean, homegrown, renewable jet fuel.
        ATA's President and CEO added: ``This commitment to the research
    and development of advanced renewable fuels will allow for commercial-
    scale demonstration projects and other important activities that will
    move us closer to commercially viable, environmentally friendly
    alternative jet fuel. ATA and its member airlines look forward to
    working with the Federal Government to further promote the rapid
    development of these exciting new fuel sources.''

                European Commission
        In February 2009, the Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches
    Aerospatiales (ONERA) was chosen by the European Commission's
    Directorate-General for Energy and Transport as prime contractor to
    conduct a strategic feasibility and impact study on alternative fuels
    for aviation called Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuel and Energy in
    Aviation (SWAFEA). ONERA is leading a consortium of 19 industry and
    research partners representing aircraft manufacturing, air transport,
    oil industry, research and consulting sectors. ONERA is the French
    national aerospace research center and was originally created by the
    French government in 1946.
        By providing a clearer view of the feasibility of different
    alternative fuel options, the SWAFEA study will also help determine
    research paths to prepare future European programs as well as providing
    a foundation for potential international partnerships extending beyond
    Europe, including the United States.
        According to the ONERA press release announcing the program, the
    SWAFEA study will be carried out over a 26-month period, ``synthesizing
    our current knowledge of the different alternatives to conventional jet
    fuel, and issuing recommendations and a road map for their deployment
    in the medium-term.'' Furthermore, the press release stated that the
    study ``will call on a multi-disciplinary approach to integrate all
    issues involved, spanning technical, organizational, economic, society,
    environmental and geopolitical aspects. This inventory of the ``state
    of the art'' will be backed by experimentation.''

                International Air Transport Association
        The International Air Transport Association (IATA), representing
    230 airlines that account for 93 percent of scheduled international air
    traffic, released a report in December 2008 entitled ``IATA 2008 Report
    on Alternative Fuels.''
        The report's findings were listed as:

              ``The potential for biomass as feedstock supply is
            high, even though the differences in sources and locations
            require multiple technologies for conversion.

              The oil price will stay low as long as deep recession
            causes more demand destruction. However, projects to develop
            new reserves are being stopped. Once recession ends supply-
            demand pressures are widely expected to take oil prices back up
            to the $100 a barrel level.

              ``Peak oil'' is not reached yet; the current oil
            reserves are high enough to supply the world for the next 42
            years of oil, calculated with current consumption.

              The impact of the European Union emissions trading
            scheme is estimated to add around five percent to jet kerosene
            fuel costs for flights in and out of the EU from 2012.

              The current certification process of aviation fuels
            can take up to four phases in testing: testing on specification
            properties, fit-for-purpose properties, component testing and
            engine testing. When all the testing steps have to be performed
            the amount of fuel is about 1000 m3 (250.000 gallon).

              Some of the technologies, both in biochemical as
            thermo chemical conversion, are well established and have
            produced renewable jet fuel for testing.''

        The report's recommendations were stated as:

              ``Applying biomass as a feedstock requires further
            analysis in sustainability criteria in order to ensure that
            negative nature changes from historic actions, like
            deforestation, are not repeated.

              The uncertainty in calculated greenhouse gas
            emissions needs to be reduced. This can be done by increasing
            the quality of models and performing measurements at production
            plants.

              Most of the technologies that are able to produce jet
            fuel from the currently available feedstock need more research
            and development to become commercial.

              The technologies that are in the end of the
            innovation phase require actions that reduce the risk of
            commercialization.

              Industry stakeholders are taking various diversified
            actions to promote sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.
            It is recommended to the industry to collaborate in directly
            non-competitive issues to reduce the accessibility hurdles of
            innovators.''

                International Civil Aviation Organization
        The search for alternative fuels for aviation is not limited to the
    U.S. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an agency of
    the United Nations, held a workshop in Montreal, Canada on Aviation and
    Alternative Fuels in February 2009 The main goals of the workshop were
    identified by ICAO as stimulating a dynamic exchange of views and
    initiating work on a global roadmap for the effective, and the
    responsible contribution of aviation alternative fuels to protecting
    the environment. The event, ICAO noted, was designed as a preparatory
    event to a world conference in November 2009 that will showcase
    progress and establish a road map for the implementation of alternative
    fuels for aviation.
        In his opening remarks, ICAO's Secretary General said:

             ``Alternative fuels on their own are not, and never will be,
            the solution. They should, however, be part of a comprehensive
            energy strategy. There are very few low-carbon energy options
            for reducing aviation emissions, and alternative fuels may be
            the only option for large scale use in the short-term.
            Nevertheless, the decision to develop and use alternative fuels
            must be an informed and responsible one, taking into account
            total life cycle costs and carbon footprints.''

        In summarizing the workshop in his closing remarks, ICAO's Director
    of the Air Transport Bureau said:

             ``As we heard over the last three days, much progress has been
            achieved to date and there are high expectations for the use of
            more environmentally friendly drop-in alternative fuels for
            aviation in the short-term. At the same time, research is
            underway with potential for a globally-available alternative
            fuel in the mid to long-term. However, concerted international
            action will be necessary to translate this possibility into a
            reality.''

             ``It is clear from this workshop that aviation alternative
            fuels could be a win-win solution in that they will reduce
            aviation's dependence on climate changing fossil fuels while
            stabilizing the economic volatility associated with
            conventional fossil fuels. Now, let us take another look at
            these alternatives.

             While synthetic fuels are already or soon to be available,
            their environmental benefit over conventional fuels is unclear.
            They do however address the issue of energy security and also
            diversify energy sources. Biofuels, on the other hand, seem to
            offer environmental benefits but the production scalability
            issues need to be resolved. Regardless of these challenges, the
            importance of alternative fuels in the development of balanced
            and robust strategies to mitigate the impact of aviation on the
            environment is unquestionable.''

              ``As is so often the case in recent industrial
            undertakings where the supplier and consumer base is not
            limited to any one country or region, global cooperation will
            be essential in ensuring the consistent and standardized use of
            alternative fuels. This is especially true of aviation which
            relies on a standard and consistent infrastructure across the
            world for its efficient operation. However, at present, the
            international aviation community has not achieved an integrated
            approach to alternative fuels. While regional and national
            efforts by airlines, manufacturers, and fuel producers have
            done an excellent job of bringing together the expertise to
            consider technical issues, the subject has been addressed in a
            fragmented way. ICAO can help with better coordination since it
            is the only globally recognized forum to deal with aviation.''

                Partnerships between Major Carriers and Airframe/Engine
                        Vendors and Fuel Providers
        Several partnerships have conducted flight demonstrations using
    biofuels in the past year:

              In February 2008, a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747-400
            flew from London's Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam's Schiphol
            Airport partially fueled by a 20 percent mix of biofuel derived
            from coconut and babassu oil with conventional jet fuel. Other
            test participants were Boeing, General Electric and Imperium
            Renewables. Mr. Bill Glover, a witness at the hearing
            representing the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, will
            provide further details about this and other demonstrations
            involving Boeing aircraft.

              In May 2008, Jet Blue teamed with Airbus,
            International Aero Engines (IAE) and Honeywell Aerospace to
            pursue the development of sustainable biofuels derived from
            algae and other non-food vegetable oils for use in commercial
            aircraft. In addition to investigating the environmental
            benefits of biofuels, the partnership plans to conduct research
            into whether biofuels could potentially be developed that would
            expand payload-range aircraft performance, reduce fuel burn,
            and increase engine reliability and durability.

              In July 2008, Rolls-Royce and British Airways
            announced that they were starting a test program to research
            alternative fuels for the aviation industry. The companies
            invited suppliers to offer alternative fuel samples for testing
            on an engine taken from a British Airways Boeing 747. The tests
            will be carried out on an indoor engine testbed. After a
            selection of up to four alternative fuels, these fuels will
            undergo laboratory testing before being delivered to Rolls-
            Royce for further testing. It was recently reported that the
            partnership encountered difficulty in securing alternative fuel
            samples in the desired quantities.

              In December 2008, an Air New Zealand Boeing 747-400
            powered by Rolls-Royce RB211 engines flew a two-hour
            demonstration flight using a 50-50 jatropha and conventional
            jet fuel mix. The jatropha-derived fuel was supplied by Terasol
            Energy, which is based in India. Other test participants were
            Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and Honeywell subsidiary UOP.

              In January 2009, a Continental Boeing 737-800 powered
            by two CFM56-7B engines made a two-hour demonstration flight at
            Bush International Airport in Houston using a biofuel mixture
            of jatropha and algae that was provided by Honeywell UOP. The
            test included powering the right engine with the biofuel mix,
            turning it off and on as well as rapidly accelerating and
            slowing down the plane. A borescope inspection was done on the
            engine using the biofuel mixture; no change in engine condition
            was found. This followed a November 2008 ground test of the
            biofuel mixture at which time fuel consumption at different
            power settings was measured. Among Continental's reasons for
            conducting a flight demonstration were helping collect needed
            data to support fuel qualification/certification for use by the
            aviation industry; showing the public that biofuel is safe and
            that it works; and stimulating research and development on
            biofuel use in aviation. Other test participants were Boeing
            and the engine's manufacturer, CFM. Mr. Shannon Holden, a
            witness at the hearing representing Continental Airlines, will
            provide further details on Continental's test and interest in
            biofuels.

              In January 2009, a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747-300
            outfitted with Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines made a one hour
            flight at Tokyo's Haneda Airport using a mixture of camelina,
            jatropha, and algae. Camelina was sourced from Sustainable
            Oils, a U.S. based provider. Terasol provided the jatropha oil.
            Other test participants were Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and
            Honeywell UOP. Dr. Alan Epstein, a witness at the hearing
            representing Pratt & Whitney, will provide further details on
            the test.

                Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group
        Formed in September 2008, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group
    brings together major airlines, Boeing, and biofuel provider Honeywell
    UOP with the goal of accelerating the development and commercialization
    of sustainable new aviation fuels. The group's charter is to enable the
    commercial use of renewable fuel sources that can reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions, while lessening commercial aviation's exposure to oil price
    volatility and dependence on fossil fuels. The group receives support
    and advice from two environmental organizations, the World Wildlife
    Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Airline members
    are Air France, Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways, Cargolux, Gulf
    Air, Japan Airlines, KLM, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), and
    Virgin Atlantic. Collectively, these carriers account for over 15
    percent of annual commercial use of jet fuel.
        According to Honeywell UOP, the group has announced two initial
    sustainability research projects. An Assistant Professor at Yale
    University's School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, through
    funding provided by Boeing, will conduct the first peer-reviewed,
    comprehensive sustainability assessment of jatropha curcas, to include
    life cycle CO2 emissions and the socioeconomic impacts to
    farmers in developing nations. Similarly, NRDC will conduct an
    assessment of algae to ensure it meets the group's sustainability
    criteria.

                Algal Biomass Organization
        The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a trade association
    dedicated to the advancement of the algal biomass industry. Formed in
    May 2008 out of the 2007 Algae Biomass Summit, ABO's goal is to promote
    the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and
    sustainable commodities derived from algae. The organization is
    composed of companies, some aviation-related such as Boeing, air
    carriers such as Continental, Air New Zealand, Virgin Atlantic, and
    FedEx; along with researchers, entrepreneurs, harvesters, processors
    and end-users of algae. Among the primary purposes of the organization,
    ABO cites:

              Facilitating commercialization and market development
            of microalgae biomass specifically for biofuels production and
            greenhouse gas abatement.

              Establishing cutting edge research and
            commercialization summits and other meeting opportunities.

              Developing quality and measurement best practices for
            algal biomass, products, systems technology, and econometrics.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Good morning everyone. This hearing
    will now come to order.
        Good morning, it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to
    today's Subcommittee hearing. We have an impressive panel of
    experts appearing before us this morning, and I look forward to
    a good discussion.
        Let me come right to the point. I think that today's
    hearing is one of the most important that this subcommittee is
    going to have all year. And why do I say that? It is no secret
    that this nation is wrestling with twin challenges of achieving
    energy independence and protecting and preserving our
    environment. These are very difficult challenges, but they are
    challenges we have to address and they are challenges that we
    have to meet.
        Every sector of our economy is going to have to play its
    part in helping to reduce our dependence on foreign energy as
    well as combating climate change.
        We all know the importance of aviation to our economy and
    to our quality of life, but that doesn't give us a free pass.
    We only have to look at the recent European moves on aviation
    emissions penalties to realize what is going on.
        This Congress will be focused on finding the best path
    forward as it considers climate and energy legislation in the
    coming months.
        This hearing will be the first opportunity for our
    committee to examine one important option for addressing both
    of those challenges, namely the potential offered by aviation
    biofuels.
        In that regard, we have seen increased attention in recent
    months to the role that biofuels could play as a future
    aviation fuel source. There even have been recent flight
    demonstrations of biofueled aircraft, and we will hear about
    some of those flight tests at today's hearing.
        Yet, the limited experience to date with the latest
    generation of aviation biofuels doesn't provide enough
    information to know what role they will ultimately play in
    aviation, and that is not surprising. As a Nobel prize-winning
    physicist once said, prediction is very difficult, especially
    if it involves the future.
        Now, we also don't yet have enough information on the
    potential unintended consequences of different types of
    aviation biofuels, and in particular, their impacts on land use
    and water use if they would go into widespread production.
        I called today's hearing so that the Subcommittee can start
    to get some real answers on the outstanding questions that will
    have to be addressed if biofuels are to play a significant role
    in aviation in the future. Most importantly, I would like to
    find out what is being done by both the Federal Government and
    the private sector to address these challenges.
        We have first-rate R&D capabilities at NASA, the FAA, DOD,
    and DOE, as well as America's companies, research institutes,
    and universities. However, those capabilities will not suffice
    without clear R&D roadmaps, program plans, and resource
    commitments to guide our efforts.
        I am afraid the odds of success will be reduced without an
    integrated federal/private sector approach to evaluating the
    potential benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a
    systematic plan to understand their impacts on both existing
    and future aircraft technologies. We have to quote Yogi Berra.
    I love a committee with good quotes: ``You've got to be very
    careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might
    not end up getting there.''
        So we need to get there as a nation, and I look forward to
    hearing from today's panelists about that productive path
    forward. And again, I want to welcome all of you to this very
    important hearing.
        And now I will yield to Mr. Olson for any opening remarks
    he would like to make.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Giffords follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
        Good morning, it's a pleasure to welcome you to today's
    Subcommittee hearing.
        We have an impressive panel of experts appearing before us this
    morning, and I look forward to a good discussion.
        Let me come right to the point.
        I think that today's hearing is one of the most important that this
    subcommittee will hold this year.
        Why do I say that?
        It's no secret that this nation is wrestling with the twin
    challenges of achieving energy independence and preserving our
    environment.
        They are tough challenges, but we've got to succeed.
        Every sector of our economy is going to have to play its part in
    helping to reduce our dependence on foreign energy as well as helping
    to combat global warming.
        We all know the importance of aviation to our economy and to our
    quality of life, but that doesn't give it a ``free pass.''
        We only have to look at the recent European moves on aviation
    emissions penalties to realize that.
        This Congress will be focused on finding the best path forward as
    it considers climate and energy legislation in the coming months.
        This hearing will be the first opportunity for our committee to
    examine one important option for addressing both of those challenges--
    namely the potential offered by aviation biofuels.
        In that regard, we have seen increased attention in recent months
    to the role that biofuels could play as a future aviation fuel source.
        There even have been recent flight demonstrations of biofueled
    aircraft, and we will hear about some of those flight tests at today's
    hearing.
        Yet, the limited experience to date with the latest generation of
    aviation biofuels doesn't provide enough information to know what role
    they will ultimately play in aviation.
        That's not surprising. As the Nobel prize-winning physicist Niels
    Bohr once said: ``Prediction is very difficult, especially about the
    future.''
        We also don't yet have enough information on the potential
    ``unintended consequences'' of different types of aviation biofuels,
    and in particular, their impacts on land use and water use if they
    would go into widespread production.
        I called today's hearing so that the Subcommittee can start to get
    some answers on the outstanding questions that will have to be
    addressed if biofuels are to play a significant role in aviation in the
    future.
        Most importantly, I would like to find out what is being done by
    both the Federal Government and the private sector to address those
    challenges.
        We have first-rate R&D capabilities at NASA, the FAA, DOD, and DOE,
    as well as in America's companies, research institutes, and
    universities.
        However, those capabilities will not suffice without clear R&D
    roadmaps, program plans, and resource commitments to guide our efforts.
        I'm afraid the odds of success will be reduced without an
    integrated federal/private sector approach to evaluating the potential
    benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a systematic plan to
    understand their impacts on both existing and future aircraft
    technologies.
        Or to quote another notable person, Yogi Berra: ``You've got to be
    very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might
    not get there.''
        I think we need to ``get there'' as a nation, and I look forward to
    today's hearing as an important step towards crafting a productive path
    forward.
        With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I now will
    yield to Mr. Olson for any opening remarks he would care to make.

        Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for
    calling this morning's hearing. My thanks, too, to our
    witnesses for taking the time out of your busy schedules to
    appear before us today. I know that you invested many hours in
    preparation for today's hearing, and I am grateful for all of
    your efforts.
        While aviation is a relatively small contributor of
    greenhouse gas emissions, the marketplace compels the industry
    to continue to invest in technologies that make the system and
    the aircraft that operate within it more efficient and more
    environmentally benign, no matter the vast performance
    improvements that have been achieved over the past couple of
    decades.
        Fuel price spikes that occurred during 2008 were a stark
    signal that if we are to obtain a robust and affordable
    aviation system, we must take aggressive steps to develop
    alternative sources of fuel.
        World demand for petroleum resources and production caps
    imposed by OPEC are again driving fuel prices to higher levels,
    and in doing so, they threaten our economy and our quality of
    life.
        Biofuels present a possible new source of energy that could
    power our aircraft and at the same time greatly diminish the
    amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. I am optimistic
    that through cooperative government and industry research and
    development, the marketplace will be able to develop fuels that
    will meet these challenges.
        I commend the work done at NASA, the FAA, and by the
    private companies, some of whom are represented here today. I
    am hopeful that the good work being done is both widely
    communicated and adequately funded. In my mind, this is the
    kind of research our Federal Government should be funding, the
    kind which has practical use for private industry that will
    eventually benefit consumers and in doing so help to end our
    dependence on foreign sources of energy.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony and to our
    discussion, and please don't think I am going to be easy on Mr.
    Shannon just because after only two months as a Member of
    Congress, I have already achieved elite Status on Continental
    Airlines.
        Thank you very much for being here today. Madam Chairwoman,
    I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for calling this morning's hearing,
    and my thanks too, to our witnesses for taking time out of their busy
    schedules to appear before us today. I know that you have invested many
    hours in preparation for today's hearing, and I am grateful for all of
    your efforts.
        While aviation is a very small contributor of greenhouse gas
    emissions, the marketplace compels industry to continue to invest in
    technologies that make the system--and the aircraft that operate within
    it--more efficient and more environmentally benign, no matter the vast
    performance improvements that have been achieved over the past couple
    of decades.
        Fuel price spikes that occurred during 2008 were a stark signal
    that, if we are to retain a robust and affordable aviation system, we
    must take aggressive steps to develop alternative sources of fuels.
    World demand for petroleum resources, and production caps imposed by
    OPEC, are again driving fuel prices to ever higher levels, and in so
    doing, they threaten our economy and our quality of life.
        Biofuels present a possible new source of energy that could power
    our aircraft, and at the same time, greatly diminish the amount of
    carbon emitted into the atmosphere. I am optimistic that through
    cooperative government and industry research and development, the
    marketplace will be able to develop fuels that will meet these
    challenges.
        I commend the work done at NASA, the FAA, and by the private
    companies, some of whom are represented here today, and am hopeful that
    the good work being done is both widely communicated and adequately
    funded.
        In my mind, this kind of research our Federal Government should be
    funding, the kind which has practical use for private industry that
    will eventually benefit consumers, and in doing so helping to preserve
    our environment and our freeing us on our reliance on foreign sources
    of energy.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony and to our discussion, and
    please do not think that I will be easy on Mr. Shannon just because
    after only two months as a Member of Congress I've already achieved
    Elite Status on Continental Airlines.
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you again.

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. If there are
    Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, their
    statements will be added to the record at this point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. First
    up we have Dr. Jaiwon Shin who is the Associate Administrator
    for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA.
    Welcome. Dr. Lourdes Maurice who is the Chief Scientific and
    Technical Advisor for Environment in the FAA's Office of
    Environment and Energy and is the Environmental Lead on the
    Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiatives, or CAAFI.
    Good morning. Dr. Alan Epstein who is Vice President of
    Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney. Good morning. We
    have also Mr. Billy Glover who is the Managing Director of
    Environment Strategy at Boeing. And finally, we have Mr. Holden
    Shannon who is the Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
    and Security at Continental Airlines. Welcome.
        As our witnesses should know, we will each have five
    minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
    be included in the record for the hearing, and when you have
    completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
    Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel, and
    why don't we start with Dr. Shin.

        STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
    AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
                    AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

        Dr. Shin. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman Giffords,
    Ranking Member Olson, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
    NASA's perspective on the emerging use of biofuels for
    aviation, including the agency's current research in this area.
        Growth in the air transportation system is vital to the
    economic well-being of our nation. In order to meet the
    projected growth in aviation, significant challenges must be
    overcome including environmental sustainability. NASA is
    conducting cutting-edge research to dramatically improve
    aircraft efficiency and revolutionize aircraft operations in
    the national airspace system, both of which will reduce the
    environmental impact of aviation. Biofuels offer the potential
    for the significantly reduced carbon footprint over the entire
    life cycle, from fuel production to utilization. Current NASA
    research on increasing aircraft efficiency and operational
    procedures, coupled with the use of biofuels, presents a
    possibility of dramatically reduce the carbon footprint for the
    aviation sector despite the projected growth.
        Recognizing the importance of biofuels for the future of
    aviation, NASA has initiated a modest research effort in 2007
    that builds upon the existing expertise in fuel chemistry and
    processing, combustion, and gas turbine engines to address some
    of the challenges associated with the application of these
    fuels for aviation. However, NASA also recognizes that the
    widespread use of biofuels for aviation will require a
    concerted effort by multiple government agencies, aerospace
    industries, academia, and biofuel producers. The need for a
    coordinated approach to enabling new fuel sources is
    highlighted as one of the goals of the National Plan for
    Aeronautics Research and Development and Related
    Infrastructure.
        While recent successful flight tests has shown the
    feasibility of using blends of jet fuel and different types of
    biofuels under controlled conditions, several technical and
    economic barriers remain for widespread use of biofuels in the
    aviation sector.
        The major question related to the production of biofuels is
    whether they can be made sustainably, economically and at a
    scale sufficient to support the aviation industry. Additional
    basic and applied research will be required to scale up the
    process for producing large quantities of biomass that are
    economically viable and sustainable.
        There are uncertainties related to the application of
    biofuels for aviation because of the extremely limited amount
    of testing conducted to date with these fuels. Most of the NASA
    research is focused on issues related to the application of
    alternative fuels.
        We need to study the combustion process using alternative
    fuels and understand whether the combustor performance is
    different from that achieved when jet fuel is used.
        The impact of the use of alternative fuels on aircraft
    safety is another area that needs further study. Foundational
    research on the effect of alternative fuels on engine
    performance and degradation of engine materials is required to
    identify potential safety issues and develop mitigation
    strategies.
        NASA is conducting long-term foundational research to
    understand the effects of various alternative fuels on aircraft
    engine emissions. Research includes laboratory combustion
    testing under controlled conditions and ground engine testing
    under simulated flight conditions.
        All of NASA's research efforts on alternative fuels to date
    have been focused on the application of synthetic jet fuel
    produced from natural gas and gasification of coal and
    conversion of the gases to liquid fuel by the Fisher-Tropsch,
    or F-T, process. Current research using F-T fuel is providing
    valuable insight into emission characteristics of alternative
    fuels. We are also studying ignition times, flame speeds, and
    chemical kinetics. These are parameters which affect the design
    of new combustors.
        As the second generation of biofuels becomes available,
    there is a need for research to understand these parameters for
    biofuels so that we can effectively design new low-emission
    combustors that are fuel-flexible.
        The effects of biofuels and engine emissions will also be
    determined through a combustion laboratory testing and ground
    engine testing under simulated flight conditions.
        In conclusion, NASA participates in alternative fuel
    related road-mapping and planning activities that are under
    way, most prominently led by CAAFI. We also participate in Air
    Force led efforts to develop rules and tools for use in
    predicting the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
    alternative fuels, and we are on the Advisory Board of FAA's
    PARTNER Center of Excellence which conducts alternative fuel
    emissions and life cycle studies. We are willing to participate
    in this alignment of alternative fuels activities along with
    other government agencies, industries, and academia as
    appropriate. These roadmaps are identifying the research,
    development, and demonstration needs, and defining the roles
    and responsibilities for multiple organizations.
        NASA believes its expertise and research capabilities in
    combustion, turbine engine performance, fuel processing,
    materials, and computational modeling can be utilized as part
    of a nationally coordinated research effort to address some of
    the key challenges that must be overcome for widespread use of
    second-generation biofuels in future aviation.
        I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the
    other Members of the Committee may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Shin follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Jaiwon Shin
        Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
    to provide a NASA perspective on the emerging use of biofuels for
    aviation, including the Agency's current research in this area.
        Growth in the air transportation system is vital to the economic
    wellbeing of our nation. In order to meet the projected growth in
    aviation, significant challenges must be overcome including
    environmental sustainability. NASA is conducting cutting-edge research
    to dramatically improve aircraft efficiency and revolutionize aircraft
    operations in the national airspace system, both of which will reduce
    the environmental impact of aviation. An emerging technology area that
    has attracted considerable attention recently is the use of renewable
    energy sources such as aviation biofuels. Biofuels offer the potential
    for a significantly reduced carbon footprint over the entire life
    cycle, from fuel production to utilization. Current NASA research on
    increasing aircraft efficiency and operational procedures, coupled with
    the use of biofuels, presents a possibility to dramatically reduce the
    carbon footprint for the aviation sector despite the projected growth.
        The first generation of biofuels, such as those produced from
    soybean and corn, is derived from food products and requires large land
    masses. Second generation biofuels from energy crops such as
    switchgrass and woody feedstocks have higher productivity and smaller
    land use. The second and third generation of biofuels, produced from
    jatropha, camelina, algae, and halophytes, appears to impact much
    smaller land masses and is not derived from food products, which is the
    reason for strong world-wide interest for this class of materials.
        NASA recognizes the importance of biofuels for the future of
    aviation and in 2007 initiated a modest research effort that builds
    upon the existing expertise in fuel chemistry and processing,
    combustion, and gas turbine engines to address some of the challenges
    associated with the application of these fuels for aviation. However,
    NASA also recognizes that the widespread use of biofuels for aviation
    will require a concerted effort by multiple government agencies,
    aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers. The need for a
    coordinated approach to enabling new fuel sources is highlighted as one
    of the goals of the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and
    Development and Related Infrastructure. As noted in the plan, the
    Commercial Alternative Aviation Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is
    coordinating development and commercialization of ``drop-in''
    alternative aviation fuels and is considering the feasibility,
    production, and environmental footprint--``well to wake''--of these
    fuels.

    Challenges

        While recent successful flight tests, including the Air New Zealand
    flight demonstration in December 2008, the Continental airlines flight
    in January 2009, and the JAL flight in January 2009, have shown the
    feasibility of using blends of jet fuel and different types of biofuels
    under controlled conditions, several technical and economic barriers
    remain for widespread use of biofuels in the aviation sector. The
    challenges can be grouped into two categories: biofuel production and
    application of biofuels. Most of the NASA research in this domain
    focuses on issues related to the application of biofuels.
        The major question related to the production of biofuels is whether
    they can be made sustainably, economically and at a scale sufficient to
    support the aviation industry. It is NASA's opinion that additional
    basic and applied research will be required to scale up the process for
    producing large quantities of biomass that are economically viable and
    sustainable. This will require understanding the factors affecting the
    growth of biomass and translating that understanding to increase
    process yield. In addition, production processes that reduce energy use
    during the biomass to biofuel conversion process must be developed
    towards the goal of carbon neutrality, which can be achieved for the
    entire life cycle encompassing production and utilization of biofuels.
        There are uncertainties related to the application of biofuels for
    aviation because of the extremely limited amount of testing conducted
    to date with these fuels. For alternative fuels not produced by the
    Fisher-Tropsch (F-T) process, the knowledge base of the characteristics
    and qualities of these fuels is incomplete, and many of the challenges
    may not be known yet. In order to understand these challenges,
    foundational research is required in many areas. We need to study the
    combustion process using alternative fuels and understand whether the
    combustor performance is different from that achieved when jet fuel is
    used. Of particular concern is the long-term performance of combustors
    and turbine engines burning alternative fuels. Because nitrogen oxide
    (NOX) causes gourd-level smog and contributes to acid rain, the
    compatibility of alternative fuels with advanced, ultra-low NOX
    combustor designs must be addressed as well.
        Research will be needed to understand both gaseous and particulate
    matter emission characteristics from engines so that alternative fuels
    can be optimized for reducing emissions.
        The other unknown is the effect of alternative fuels on the long-
    term durability of engine components, including advanced fuels from
    coal and natural gas.
        The impact of the use of alternative fuels on aircraft safety is
    another area that needs further study. Flight tests with a blend of jet
    fuel and biofuels to date have been conducted under controlled
    conditions and have not yet indicated any major safety issues. However,
    one potential safety issue is leaks and degradation of seals in the
    aircraft fuel system because of the lower aromatic content of
    alternative fuels compared to that of jet fuel, which affects the
    expansion coefficient of seals. Any potential, unexpected degradation
    of engine components when alternative fuels are used could pose safety
    issues. Foundational research on the effect of alternative fuels on
    engine performance (including control system) and degradation of engine
    materials is required to identify potential safety issues and develop
    mitigation strategies.

    Current NASA Research

        NASA is conducting long-term foundational research to understand
    the effects of various alternative fuels on aircraft engine emissions.
    NASA intends to disseminate the results of its research to the greatest
    extent possible, and enters into collaborative relationships with other
    organizations such that the results will benefit the wider community.
    Research includes laboratory combustion testing under controlled
    conditions and ground engine testing under simulated flight conditions.
    NASA has recently modified several laboratory-scale combustion
    facilities to study combustion performance and emission characteristics
    with different types of alternative fuels and blends of alternative
    fuel with Jet-A. Research conducted in these facilities will provide
    the much needed emission data for alternative fuels as well as improved
    understanding of factors affecting gaseous and particulate emissions
    with the use of alternative fuels. An important feature of NASA's
    research is to understand the effect of alternative fuels on both
    gaseous and particulate emissions for advanced combustor designs that
    are being developed to reduce NOX for future generations of aircraft.
        All of NASA's research efforts on alternative fuels to date have
    been focused on the application of synthetic jet fuel produced from
    natural gas and gasification of coal and conversion of the gases to
    liquid fuel by the F-T process. Current research using F-T fuel is
    providing valuable insight into emission characteristics of alternative
    fuels. We are also studying ignition times, flame speeds, and chemical
    kinetics. These are parameters which affect the design of new
    combustors. As the second generation of biofuels becomes available,
    there is a need for research to understand these parameters for
    biofuels as well so that we can effectively design new low-emission
    combustors that are fuel-flexible. The understanding, coupled with
    improved emission prediction models, will enable the design of
    advanced, ultra-low emission engines with the flexibility to operate
    with a mix of fuels that range from blends of jet fuel with biofuel to
    100 percent biofuel. Several examples of the type of alternative fuels
    testing conducted by NASA are provided below.
        NASA, in partnership with industry, is conducting engine tests with
    alternative fuel to understand the emission characteristics. In 2008,
    NASA partnered with Pratt and Whitney to study emissions from a geared
    turbofan engine that was run with a blend of jet fuel and F-T fuel. The
    tests indicated that there was no significant difference in gaseous
    emissions, while confirming the benefits of F-T fuel in reducing
    particulate emissions. Initial results from these tests were presented
    at the Fundamental Aeronautics Program Second Annual Meeting held in
    Atlanta on October 7-9, 2008, and NASA will hold a workshop later this
    year to widely disseminate the results. In another collaboration with
    Pratt and Whitney, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerodyne,
    United Technologies Research Center, and NASA studied emissions from a
    PW308 turbofan engine run with 100 percent F-T fuel and a blend of jet
    fuel and F-T fuel. This study provided detailed understanding of the
    nature of particulate emissions resulting from the combustion of F-T
    fuel under engine operating conditions.
        Recently, in January 2009, NASA, in partnership with 11 other
    organizations that include the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.
    Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), Environmental Protection Agency, Boeing,
    GE Aviation, and Pratt & Whitney, conducted ground tests using a NASA-
    owned DC-8 plane to study emissions from engines burning alternative
    fuel, which included two 100 percent F-T fuels and blends of jet fuel
    with the two F-T fuels. The test provided data that will improve
    understanding of the evolution of particulate emission and plume
    chemistry for engines burning alternative fuel.
        In addition to extensive experience in testing and analysis, NASA
    has expertise in multi-scale modeling of fluid mechanical processes.
    This is being recognized by the private sector engaged in the
    development of large scale processes for growth of the second
    generation biofuel biomass source material (such as algae and
    halophytes). In order to meet the challenges of large-scale production
    of second generation biofuel biomass economically, the fluid mechanical
    processes which transport nutrients and waste in the bioreactor need to
    be understood and modeled. The models can then be employed to design
    improved bioreactors that can reduce the cost of biomass production.
    NASA is working with industrial partners to develop multi-scale, fluid-
    mechanics models that integrate physical and biological processes in a
    bioreactor. NASA has laboratory scale reactors suitable for validating
    multi-scale, fluid-mechanics models to be used for improved bioreactor
    designs.

    Need for Collaboration

        NASA believes that long-term, foundational research on
    understanding of fuel processing, combustor and engine performance,
    durability of engine components, and emission characteristics will be
    required for application of second generation biofuels in aviation.
        Realization of the full potential for the application of
    alternative fuels in aviation requires a coordinated effort among
    multiple government agencies, aerospace companies, academia, and fuel
    producers. This is an area of significant national importance and will
    require a strong national effort.
        NASA participates in alternative fuel related road-mapping and
    planning activities that are underway, most prominently led by the
    Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, or CAAFI. We also
    participate in Air Force led efforts to develop rules and tools for use
    in predicting the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of alternative
    fuels and are on the Advisory Board of FAA's PARTNER Center of
    Excellence which conducts alternative fuel emissions and life cycle
    studies. We are willing to participate in this alignment of alternative
    fuels activities along with other government agencies, industries, and
    academia as appropriate.
        These roadmaps are identifying the research, development, and
    demonstration needs, and defining the roles and responsibilities for
    multiple organizations. Continued participation in these planning
    activities will allow NASA to better coordinate its plans for
    foundational research on aviation biofuels. In addition, NASA will
    continue to work with the Aeronautics Science and Technology
    Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council to ensure
    that proper research objectives and goals are coordinated at the
    highest level.

    Conclusion

        NASA recognizes the high potential of alternative fuels for the
    aviation industry from the perspectives of protecting the environment
    and ensuring the long-term viability of the fuel supply. The Agency has
    initiated research activities to address some of the major challenges
    of alternative fuels development, fully recognizing that this is an
    emerging technology area that will require collaboration on research
    and development among multiple government agencies, industries, and
    academia to make biofuels a reality. NASA believes its expertise and
    research capabilities in combustion, turbine engine performance, fuel
    processing, materials, and computational modeling can be utilized as
    part of a nationally coordinated research effort to address some of the
    key challenges that must be overcome for widespread use of second
    generation biofuels in future aviation. Such research on biofuels will
    complement a diverse portfolio of technologies that NASA is working on
    to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of
    aviation in the future.
        I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other
    Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                           Biography for Jaiwon Shin
        Dr. Jaiwon Shin is the NASA Associate Administrator for the
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. In this position, he manages
    the agency's aeronautics research portfolio and guides its strategic
    direction. This portfolio includes research in the fundamental
    aeronautics of flight, aviation safety and the Nation's airspace
    system.
        Shin co-chairs the National Science & Technology Council's
    Aeronautics Science & Technology Subcommittee. Comprised of federal
    departments and agencies that fund aeronautics-related research, the
    subcommittee wrote the Nation's first presidential policy for
    aeronautics research and development (R&D). The policy was established
    by Executive Order 13419 in December 2006 and will guide U.S.
    aeronautics R&D programs through 2020. The subcommittee finished
    writing the National Aeronautics R&D Plan in December 2007 and is
    currently writing the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
    (RDT&E) Infrastructure Plan both of which were called for by the
    Executive Order.
        Between May 2004 and January 2008, Shin served as Deputy Associate
    Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate where he
    was instrumental in restructuring NASA's aeronautics program to focus
    on fundamental research and better align with the Nation's Next
    Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).
        Prior to coming to work at NASA Headquarters, Shin served as Chief
    of the Aeronautics Projects Office at NASA's Glenn Research Center. In
    this position he had management responsibility for all of the Center's
    aeronautics projects. Prior to this he was Glenn's Deputy Director of
    Aeronautics, where he provided executive leadership for the planning
    and implementation of Glenn's aeronautics program, and interfaced with
    NASA Headquarters, other NASA centers, and external customers to
    explore and develop technologies in aeropropulsion, aviation safety and
    security, and airspace systems.
        Between 1998 and 2002, Shin served as Chief of the Aviation Safety
    Program Office, as well as the Deputy Program Manager for NASA's
    Aviation Safety Program and Airspace Systems Program. He assisted both
    Program Directors in planning and research management.
        Dr. Shin received his doctorate in mechanical engineering from the
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
    Virginia. His Bachelor's degree is from Yonsei University in Korea and
    his Master's degree is in mechanical engineering from the California
    State University, Long Beach. His honors include NASA's Outstanding
    Leadership Medal, NASA's Exceptional Service Medal, a NASA Group
    Achievement Award, Lewis Superior Accomplishment Award, three Lewis
    Group Achievement Awards, and an Air Force Team Award. He is a graduate
    of the Senior Executive Fellowship Program at the Kennedy School of
    Government at Harvard University. He has extensive experience in high
    speed research and icing, and has authored or co-authored more than 20
    technical and journal papers.

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. Dr. Maurice,
    please.

       STATEMENT OF DR. LOURDES Q. MAURICE, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC AND
     TECHNICAL ADVISOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, FEDERAL
                        AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

        Dr. Maurice. Good morning, Madam Chair, Congressman Olson,
    Members of the Subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to
    testify today about the ongoing work of the FAA and our
    colleagues on renewable jet fuels.
        FAA helped form and is an active participant in Commercial
    Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, or CAAFI. I serve as the
    Environmental Lead for the group. Founded in 2006, CAAFI is a
    coalition of airlines, airports, aircraft and engine
    manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, and U.S.
    Government agencies that are leading efforts to develop and
    deploy alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.
        We know environmental and energy issues will significantly
    influence the ability of our aviation system to grow. Renewable
    jet fuels could be the game changer technology that gets us
    closer to carbon neutrality. These fuels could not only improve
    air quality and reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions but
    also enhance energy security and supplies, and renewable jet
    fuels are critical to achieving the environmental goals of the
    next generation air transportation system, or NextGen.
        Today's hearing is well-timed. Aviation has made enormous
    progress in the last three years identifying and testing
    technologies for alternative fuels and in progressing toward
    broad air worthiness certification. We have identified a number
    of options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without the need
    to modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in fuels.
        CAAFI has taken a comprehensive approach to the
    development, evaluation and deployment of these drop-in
    alternative jet fuels. Efforts are focused in four key areas:
    field certification, research and development, environmental
    impacts and costs and benefits, and the business and economics
    of commercialization. Let me highlight a few key points.
        The CAAFI environmental team has focused on measuring the
    potential to reduce aviation greenhouse gases using renewable
    jet fuels. The FAA and the U.S. Air Force are jointly funding
    the development of a greenhouse gas life cycle analysis
    framework. We refer to the approach as well-to-wake. We are
    also assessing the ability of these fuels to reduce air quality
    impacts. For example, we recently obtained direct measurements
    that showed significant particulate matter reductions. This is
    important because 44 percent of our busiest 50 airports are in
    areas of non-attainment status for particulate matter
    emissions.
        CAAFI uses R&D roadmaps to align and communicate research
    needs for alternative fuels. I should note that CAAFI does not
    sponsor research, per se. Rather, we try to ensure a
    coordinated approach to strengthen each other's efforts and
    avoid duplication. We have submitted copies of the roadmap with
    my written testimony and would welcome your input.
        With regard to how alternative fuels will actually be
    introduced for use, the FAA collaborates with ASTM
    International, the industrial standard-setting organization, to
    perform the technical evaluation of potential alternative jet
    fuels leading to FAA air worthiness certification. The process
    adheres to strict rules and standards to ensure safety. We
    anticipate approval for a generic standard for a range of fuels
    from Fisher-Tropsch processes including biomass-to-liquid fuels
    for use at a 50 percent level this year. Similarly, we forecast
    approval for use by as early as the end of 2010 of
    hydroprocessed renewable jet derived from non-food biomass
    feedstocks. This potential approval relies on recent data but
    may also require additional investment in research.
        A number of significant challenges remain. First and
    foremost is certification. We believe we have a path for
    achieving renewable jet fuel approval. However, approval would
    require significant amounts of alternative fuels and engine
    tests and evaluation. There can be no shortcuts to safety.
        Next is the challenge of accurately quantifying
    environmental impacts. Assessment of both air quality and
    greenhouse gas life cycle emissions must continue to be timely
    and thorough as new options emerge. This will also require
    significant effort and the collaboration of all stakeholders
    involved. Supporting certification and environmental impacts
    assessments are a major focus of FAA's CLEEN program, and we
    appreciate the Subcommittee's support for these efforts.
        The final hurdle is infrastructure and deployment. The
    unique combination of dependence on high-density liquid
    hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future and a very
    condensed infrastructure, about 80 percent of all jet fuel used
    at our 35 busiest airports, makes aviation both difficult and
    attractive for pursuing alternative fuels. We are convinced
    that the public/private partnership that CAAFI represents will
    help commercial aviation be a first mover in the deployment of
    alternative fuels.
        Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, that completes my
    prepared remarks, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Maurice follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Lourdes Q. Maurice

    Madam Chair, Congressman Olson, and Members of the Subcommittee:

        Thank you for the invitation to testify on ``Aviation and the
    Emerging Use of Biofuels.'' I am the Federal Aviation Administration's
    (FAA) Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment and
    Energy. In that role I also serve as the environmental team leader for
    the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). I am
    pleased to be able to speak to the Subcommittee today about biofuel
    (hereinafter referred to as ``renewable jet fuel'') activities of
    CAAFI.
        Today's hearing is well timed. Aviation has made enormous progress
    in the last three years identifying and testing technologies for
    renewable jet fuels, and progressing toward broad airworthiness
    certification for the most mature of these technologies. As you may
    know, the FAA has the responsibility to make sure that any aircraft,
    aircraft engine or part, or fuel that is used in aviation is safe and
    performs to set standards. We have identified a number of alternative
    jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels) that can replace petroleum
    jet fuel without the need to modify aircraft, engines and fueling
    infrastructure (often referred to as ``drop-in'' fuels). Compared to
    the other transportation sectors, aviation is, in fact, well positioned
    to adopt renewable jet fuels. Moreover, this effort is critical to
    achieving the environmental goals of the Next Generation Air
    Transportation System (NextGen).
        In order to spur deployment of fuels with clear environmental
    benefits we are aggressively pursuing robust and reliable environmental
    life cycle analysis to quantify environmental impacts of renewable jet
    fuels, including air quality and greenhouse (GHG) impacts from direct
    and indirect land use change, feedstock production, fuel processing,
    transport and use in aircraft. We are coordinating this aviation effort
    with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) life cycle analysis
    through an interagency working group. Airlines and multiple fuel
    suppliers are developing a range of opportunities to deploy renewable
    jet fuels and are pursuing deployment options via incentives available
    from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) programs on, for the first time, an equal basis with ground
    transportation users. And because safety is crucial to this effort, FAA
    is taking the certification process step-by-step to ensure that any
    fuels developed will meet or exceed the safety performance of today's
    jet fuels. FAA will also ensure, in collaboration with EPA, that any
    new fuels will meet or exceed emissions standards for aircraft engines.
        While the aviation community has made significant strides, we have
    learned as we have worked on this effort, as is the case with most new
    technical initiatives. There are ongoing efforts now that we did not
    imagine at the outset. One example is the rapid pace of development and
    flight testing of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuels. However, it is
    clear there is no one ``silver bullet'' global process or feedstock
    solution. Rather there are multiple solutions, which we can pursue in
    an environmentally and economically viable and safe manner via regional
    development and deployment.
        Founded in 2006, CAAFI\1\ is a coalition of airlines, airports,
    aircraft and engine manufacturers, energy producers, researchers and
    U.S. Government agencies (including FAA, EPA, USAF, NASA, DOE and USDA)
    that are leading efforts to develop and deploy alternative jet fuels
    for commercial aviation. Jointly sponsored by the FAA, the Air
    Transport Association of America, the Aerospace Industries Association
    and Airports Council International-North America, CAAFI has taken a
    comprehensive approach to the development, evaluation and deployment of
    alternative jet fuels. CAAFI focuses its stakeholder efforts in four
    key areas: fuel certification, research and development (R&D) needs,
    environmental impacts and costs and benefits, and the business and
    economics of commercialization. The goal is to promote the development
    of renewable jet fuels for use with today's aircraft fleet that offer
    equivalent or better cost compared to petroleum based jet fuel, with
    equivalent safety. Further, the goals are also to provide environmental
    improvement, energy supply security and economic development. Promising
    renewable jet fuel feedstocks options may include biomass, corn-stover,
    and inedible crops such as jatropha and camellina, and algal oils.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The CAAFI coalition includes 300 domestic and international
    stakeholder representatives: U.S. Government agencies, aircraft and
    engine manufacturers, over 40 energy producers, many of the world's
    airlines, and numerous Universities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In your invitation to testify, the Subcommittee asked me to
    specifically address the following five questions regarding emerging
    aviation renewable jet fuels:

    1.  What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to validate the
    projected benefits of using biofuel in civil aviation in terms of their
    ability to reduce engine emissions?

        First I should clarify that CAAFI does not sponsor research per se.
    Rather we are a coalition of stakeholders that individually and
    collectively sponsor and coordinate research to meet CAAFI's goals.
    This ensures we strengthen each other's efforts and avoid duplication.
    One of the goals of CAAFI's environmental team is quantifying the
    potential for renewable jet fuels and renewable jet fuel blends to
    improve air quality and reduce life cycle GHG emissions. An improved
    environmental footprint is a critical objective of alternative jet
    fuels (including renewable jet fuels) for both the FAA and other CAAFI
    sponsors. Largely funded by FAA, the CAAFI environmental team's efforts
    in air quality include both the measurement of engine exhaust emissions
    such as particulate matter and sulfur oxides and calculating the cost
    and benefits of reducing these emissions with alternative fuels. The
    FAA funded efforts totaling $1 million in fiscal\2\ year 2008 through
    the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction
    (PARTNER) Center of Excellence focused on assessing select air quality
    emissions for alternative fuels including renewable jet fuels:
    Emissions Characteristics of Alternative Aviation Fuels and Ultra Low
    Sulfur (ULS) Jet Fuel Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In fiscal year 2009, we expect to invest approximately $2
    million in alternative jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels).
        \3\ More information about PARTNER is available at http://
    web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/projects/index.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. has National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate
    matter emissions and 44 percent of our 50 largest airports in terms of
    enplanements are in areas of non-attainment status for these emissions.
    Common to all alternative fuels under consideration is their potential
    to reduce particulate matter emissions. We have obtained direct
    measurements in in-service aircraft engines that clearly validate these
    benefits.\4\ Additionally, with CAAFI's support, the FAA-sponsored
    Transportation Research Board's Airport Cooperative Research Program
    (ACRP) will complete in May 2009 a handbook enabling possible
    investors, airlines and airports to quantify environmental and/or
    financial gains for alternative jet fuel (including renewable jet fuel)
    use at their specific airports.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Hileman, J., Ortiz, D., Brown, N., Maurice, L., and Rumizen,
    R., ``The Feasibility and Potential Environmental Benefits of
    Alternative Fuels for Commercial Aviation,'' International Congress of
    Aeronautical Sciences, Anchorage, Alaska, September 2008.
        \5\ See ACRP Project 02-07: Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and
    Benefits of Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports. See http://
    www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay. asp?ProjectID=1585
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The consideration of the life cycle emissions from alternative fuel
    production and transportation must be considered when calculating
    environmental impacts and the CAAFI environmental team has also focused
    on measuring the potential to reduce aviation GHG emissions by using
    renewable jet fuels. For example, the FAA and the U.S. Air Force are
    jointly funding the development of a GHG life cycle analysis (LCA)
    framework through the FAA's PARTNER Center of Excellence.\6\ We refer
    to the approach as ``well-to-wake.'' The CAAFI environmental team
    endorsed the intent to develop a consistent framework in October 2008.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-endorsed global
    aviation emissions modeling tools anchor the framework on the aircraft
    exhaust end. To measure GHG emissions from the production end, CAAFI
    researchers are part of a working group (including FAA, U.S. Air Force,
    DOE, EPA, and university experts) that is developing best practice
    tools to capture the many variables associated with GHG life cycle
    calculation. At the present time a half dozen domestic and
    international alternative jet fuel producers are participating with
    CAAFI and can evaluate the outcomes of their specific projects using
    this framework.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ For work to develop alternative jet fuel life cycle analyses,
    see PARTNER Center of Excellence Project 17: Alternative Jet Fuels and
    Project 28: Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis at
    http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/projects/index.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Once completed, we will rigorously peer review the LCA framework to
    ensure it is based on the best science and accurately captures GHG life
    cycle emissions to inform the aviation industry and potential fuel
    producers.

    2.  What is the status of CAAFI's roadmap? How does CAAFI ensure that
    federal and private sector biofuel research is aligned?

        CAAFI uses R&D roadmaps to align and communicate research needs
    that will define both process and feedstock maturity up to
    certification and subsequently through deployment. On January 27
    CAAFI's R&D team, hosted by the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, OH, updated
    the R&D roadmaps. Participants contributing to this process included
    government technology investors such as the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA), DOE's National Renewable Energy Labs and
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office, and USDA, as well as
    private sector investors. The resulting roadmaps define the work done
    to date, and what's planned or needed to support deployment of
    alternative aviation fuels. These updated roadmaps include milestones
    for maturing feedstock and production processes for renewable jet
    fuels. The roadmaps are currently available in draft form; stakeholders
    as well as government, and any other entities concerned about aviation
    alternative fuels, can use the roadmaps in their final form to guide
    investment decisions. CAAFI welcomes the Subcommittee's participation
    in both using and contributing to these roadmaps (see Appendix A).

    3.  Can the development readiness of various biofuels be commonly
    characterized and measured?

        As a complement to communicating research needs, we also need a
    common definition of alternative fuels among all fuel investors and
    aviation consumers to determine the maturity of the variety of
    alternative options that are under considerations. Such a system helps
    to differentiate candidates in the research phase (such as those being
    pursued by NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA) ), candidates ready for certification, and candidates in the
    deployment phase and worthy of support by private investors and public
    funding such as that by the USDA Rural Development program. On January
    27, 2009, CAAFI introduced a risk management measuring system for
    alternative fuels named Fuel Readiness Level (FRL). The basis of FRL is
    the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) used by the U.S. Air Force, NASA
    and CAAFI's manufacturing sector to classify systems development
    maturity. FRL combines TRL with critical manufacturing readiness level
    (MRL) steps to characterize the readiness of alternative fuel
    candidates. As is the case with CAAFI's roadmaps, FRL protocols are
    available to the Subcommittee (see Appendix B).

    4.  What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to determine the
    impact that long-term and widespread biofuel use may have on aircraft
    safety, and engine performance/maintainability/reliability? Is more
    research needed? In what areas?

        The FAA (through CAAFI) collaborates with ASTM International, the
    industrial standards-setting organization, to perform the technical
    evaluation of potential alternative jet fuels leading to FAA
    airworthiness certification. The process adheres to strict rules and
    standards to ensure safety. The CAAFI certification team comprises core
    members of that body representing equipment manufacturer, fuel
    producer, and fuel consumer sectors. My colleague Mark Rumizen of the
    FAA's Airworthiness division chairs the CAAFI certification team. The
    certification team's goal is to facilitate fuel certification for
    alternative jet fuels by coordinating the fuel evaluation and
    specification development process with airworthiness authorities and
    industry stakeholders. The team is initially focused on, as noted
    above, ``drop-in'' fuels. These fuels are essentially identical to
    conventional Jet A and transparent to the aircraft system and aviation
    fuel infrastructure. Equivalent operating performance and maintenance
    characteristics are inherent in the definition of ``drop-in'' fuel.
        Simply meeting top-level specification requirements for
    airworthiness (for example freeze point, flash point and energy
    content) is not sufficient for fuel approval. ASTM uses testing
    protocols developed by a special ASTM task force to ensure no changes
    in operating and maintenance characteristics. For example the ``fit for
    purpose'' testing puts bounds on lubricity requirements that will
    influence fuel system wear. Testing identifies a minimum aromatic
    content to ensure elastomer seals perform properly. Limits on
    electrical conductivity of the fuel ensure that there is no
    interference with cockpit instrumentation.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Much of the fit for purpose testing is being done by the U.S.
    Air Force and then shared with CAAFI.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Presently CAAFI's certification team and ASTM are completing a
    framework specification for synthetic alternatives to complement the
    petroleum-based specification. ASTM members are currently reviewing
    this new specification approach for approval. With the new
    specification, we expect a generic approval of the full range of fuels
    from Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) processes\8\--including biomass to liquid
    fuels--for use at a 50 percent blend level.\9\ Similarly, we forecast
    approval for use by as early as the end of 2010 of hydroprocessed
    renewable jet (HRJ) fuel--from non-food biomass feedstocks such as corn
    stover, jatropha, camelina, halophytes and algae. This probable
    approval relies on recent data but may also require additional
    investment in research. The FAA's Continuous Low Emissions, Noise and
    Energy (CLEEN) program is one source for this investment. Flight tests
    sponsored by industry will also support the certification efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The Fischer-Tropsch or F-T synthetic fuel production process is
    a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas, a mixture of
    carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of
    various forms. This output produces synthetic petroleum replacements
    such as diesel and jet fuel from coal, natural gas or biomass.
        \9\ One F-T fuel made by SASOL of South Africa is already approved
    for global aviation use at a 50 percent and 100 percent blend. However
    this approval is for one specific manufacturer, with one specific
    feedstock and one specific facility. CAAFI is targeting a generic
    specification that will enable approval of many different
    manufacturers, feedstocks and facilities that use this process.

    5.  In CAAFI's view, what are the main challenges facing widespread use
    of biofuels in civil aviation? What issues need to be resolved before
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CAAFI can project when widespread aviation use of biofuels may occur?

        Speaking as a member of CAAFI, we view three areas as hurdles, as
    well as opportunities for future focus:
        First and foremost is certification. We believe we have a path for
    achieving biofuel approvals at a 50 percent blend level over the next
    two years. However, approval of the blend and eventual approval of 100
    percent renewable jet fuels may require full combustor rig and or
    engine tests under approval protocols. We can leverage U.S. Air Force
    investment in biofuel testing to cover the performance of in-use
    commercial engines such as on the C-17 aircraft. However, we will
    likely need additional testing to cover advanced low emissions
    combustors such as those on new commercial engines or advanced cycles
    such as those NASA is exploring. Full combustor rig and engine tests
    require as much as 250,000 gallons of fuel, which may be a significant
    challenge for some candidate alternative fuel producers, as well as
    requiring substantial research investment.
        The next hurdle is accurately quantifying environmental impacts.
    Assessments of both air quality and GHG life cycle emissions impacts
    must continue to be timely and thorough as new fuel options emerge. For
    example, we, in collaboration with EPA, need to populate emissions
    prediction models with measured emissions data for emerging renewable
    jet fuels. Acquiring such data is empirical in nature and requires
    significant testing and investment. Reducing the uncertainties
    associated with land use changes, fertilizer use, and impacts on the
    quality and quantity of water resources, GHG inherent in-life cycle
    analyses from harvest to processing to transport and use of the
    renewable jet fuels, will also require significant effort and
    investment, and the collaboration of all stakeholders involved to
    ensure an agreeable and accurate framework.
        The FAA's CLEEN program, noted above, as well as its NextGen
    investments in environment and energy research, are vehicles available
    to CAAFI sponsors and other stakeholders to address the certification
    and environmental issues. We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for
    these efforts.
        The final hurdles are infrastructure and deployment. Aviation's
    dependence on high-density liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable
    future is perhaps unique, unlike surface transportation modes which
    have other options such as electric power and lower-density ethanol
    fuel. Another unique characteristic of U.S. commercial aviation is that
    the fueling infrastructure can serve over 80 percent of all jet fuel
    used in about 35 locations, i.e., at our busiest airports. These
    realities of dependence and concentrated infrastructure should lead to
    aviation becoming a ``first mover'' in the deployment of alternative
    fuels. Aviation's circumstances are critical to its attractiveness to
    biofuel producers despite aviation's small market for transportation
    fuels relative to cars and trucks.
        The recent economic slowdown has somewhat diminished the ability of
    conventional investment sources to quickly respond to the opportunities
    that aviation uniquely provides. However, FAA believes there is a need
    for investments in biofuel production infrastructure specific to
    aviation. With relatively modest investment at locations near airports
    which combine feedstock availability, existing biofuel infrastructure,
    need for air quality gains, and U.S. airlines eager to use renewable
    jet fuels, we believe successful production facilities can be built.
    Focusing sufficient investment on developing a number of success
    models, rather than a target percentage of fuel supply from renewable
    jet fuels, is likely the key to producers deploying these fuels for
    both the aviation industry and perhaps the Nation as a whole.
        The Nation has often counted upon the skills of the aerospace
    industry to lead the way in technical innovation. Renewable jet fuels
    offer the opportunity to team the aerospace science and technology
    efforts with those of agriculture, energy, and sustainability to
    address the three challenges I outlined above.
        Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for
    the opportunity to testify on how the aviation community is leading the
    way to develop and realize the potential of emerging aviation renewable
    jet fuels. That completes my prepared remarks and I welcome any
    questions that you may have.

                      Supplement to CAAFI R&D Team Roadmap

                    Feedstock Roadmap Milestone Description

        The following text provides descriptions for each of the milestones
    listed on the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI)
    R&D Feedstock Roadmap.

    Swimlane #1: OIL SEED PLANTS.

    (Plants whose seeds contain oil that is suitable for biofuel)

    Optimized Castor Study (In Work): A modified Castor plant with about 2X
    the oil yield of present Castor plants has been developed in the lab
    and will be tested in large scale plots in Brazil (see below). This
    could provide biofuel for near-term applications.

    Camelina Assessment (Unfunded): This feedstock appears promising for
    present biofuel applications using fallow farmland in North America. A
    Life Cycle Assessment needs to be performed.

    Jatropha Harvesting Prototype (Unfunded): Jatropha appears promising
    for near-term oil production without competing for farmland or
    irrigated fresh water. However, the plant's oil seed currently needs to
    be harvested by hand, and an automated process needs to be developed to
    reduce production costs and reduce human contact with the poisonous
    plant.

    Optimized Castor Plot (Funded): The resulting modified optimized castor
    plant (see above) will be planted in a large scale test plot in Brazil
    to validate productivity.

    Oilseed Inventory Study (Unfunded): The USDA is wishing to perform a
    study that accurately describes the various oil seed crops, their
    performance, and the rate at which such plants could be scaled up for
    commercial production.

    Large Scale ``Regional Solution'' Farms Developed (Unfunded): It is
    anticipated that there will not be one bio-feedstock for world-wide
    production of biofuel, but there will be multiple solutions, depending
    on the political-techno and geographic location. Large scale farms are
    thought to be developed that are suitable for each region of the world.

    Swimlane #2: HALOPHYTES

    (Salt water tolerant plants that could also yield oil.)

    Euphorbia Analysis (In Work): Research into the plant Euphorbia
    Tirucalli (commonly known as the petroleum plant) for possible
    development as a feedstock for biofuels. The plant is undergoing
    preliminary evaluation for its salt water tolerance and is being grown
    in desert areas.

    Salicornia Analysis (In Work): A life cycle analysis of the Salicornia
    plant, which produces both food and fuel. Development work is primarily
    being conducted by Global Seawater Foundation.

    Seashore Mallow Analysis (In Work): Seashore mallow could fill a niche
    as a biofuel feedstock as the plant's architecture and oil yield are
    similar to soybeans. Perhaps even more appealing, is that the plant
    thrives in salty soils where nothing else will grow. In fact, the plant
    can be irrigated with saltwater. Limited research is under way to
    evaluate this crop for North American applications.

    Halophyte Assessment (In Work): An analysis of various halophytes for
    their potential to produce bio-oils in various parts of the world and
    the scale up potential. Various research organizations are conducting
    work on specific varieties, but a coordinated assessment effort is
    needed to bring all the results together for analysis.

    Euphorbia Prototype Plots (Unfunded): Larger scale test plots of
    various plants to verify the yield per acre under various growing
    conditions.

    Optimized Halophytes (Unfunded): Plants that have undergone high
    throughput nursery breeding techniques to increase their oil level as
    well as other desirable growing characteristics.

    Modified Halophyte Prototype Plots (Unfunded): Larger scale test plots
    of the above plants to verify growth rates and oil yield.

    Large Scale Halophyte Farms Developed (Unfunded): Commercialization of
    the above modified Halophyte plants.

    GMO Halophyte test plot (Unfunded): Genetically modified versions of
    the above halophyte plants to specifically further improve its oil
    yield.

    8 Tons Salicornia Oil (Unfunded): Expected bio-oil output of large
    scale test farms, such as Global Seawater Foundation.

    Swimlane #3: ALGAE

    (Macro & Micro salt and fresh water organisms having oil content)

    Cyanobacteria Study (In Work): A study to evaluate if cyanobacteria,
    which are faster growing and hardier than algae, can be genetically
    modified to produce oil and grown in photobioreactors to economically
    produce biofuel.

    Dewater Study (In Work): Several researcher are evaluating how to
    economically separate the small amount of algal biomass (typically <
    0.1 percent) contained in the large amount of water (>99.9 percent)
    used for growing.

    Oil Extraction (In Work): Research into how to break down the algae
    cell walls and economically extract oil from various algae strains in a
    production type setting.

    Heavy Metal Removal (In Work): Ways to economically remove the heavy
    metals that can be found in algae grown in waster water and/or with
    coal flue gas. These metals would poison the fuel processing catalysts
    used at fuel refineries.

    DOE Algae Roadmap (In Work): DOE is developing an algae biofuels
    roadmap. Draft expected to be completed for intra-government review in
    Fall 2009.

    Algae Strain Study (In Work): Of the 40,000 different algal strains
    that are believed to exist in the world, research the additional
    strains (beyond the 3,000 varieties) that were studied in the Aquatic
    Species Program.

    Algae Demo Plants (In Work): Numerous scaled algae demonstration plants
    are claimed to be in development around the world. Seambiotic, in
    Israel, is one such prototype plant known to be currently producing
    algae using flue gas.

    Cost of Algae Study (Unfunded): A detailed economic study to assess the
    economic viability of algae to compete with fossil fuels. It is believe
    that an integrated production approach, that also utilizes valuable
    algae co-products, will be required.

    Light & CO2 level study (Unfunded): Some previous work has
    been performed on limited algal strains to assess their growth
    characteristics under varying light and CO2 levels, but more
    studies would be required for the optimal algae strains yet to be
    discovered.

    GMO Cyanobacteria Study (Unfunded): A more in-depth study (from above)
    to evaluate the probability and cost of developing a genetically
    modified cyanobacteria that has oil producing characteristics.

    Results from DARPA project (In Work): The goal of this multi-million
    dollar program (BAA 08-07) is to develop the technical capability and
    commercial experience to produce an affordable JP-8 (i.e., military
    version of commercial Jet-A fuel) surrogate fuel from algae.

    USDA algae funding report (Unfunded): A report summarizing the R&D
    taking place for algae.

    New Algae Techs Ready (Unfunded): The assumed breakthrough technologies
    are developed to address the: optimal algal strains, dewatering,
    harvesting and oil extraction challenges that remain for this
    technology to become economically competitive with fossil fuels.

    Cyanobacteria Scaled Demo (Unfunded): A scaled demonstration version of
    the GMO cyanobacteria that was developed (see above).

    GMO Algae (Unfunded): Genetically modified algae organisms are
    developed that have: much higher oil content, resistance to invading
    algae species and grazers, higher productivity, high culture stability
    and auto-bioflocculation tendencies.

    Large Scale Algae Plants Developed (Unfunded): After the technical and
    economic breakthroughs are achieved, it is envisioned that vary large
    scale algal farms will be developed to start commercial operation of
    algae oil for biofuel.

    Cyanobacteria Plant Developed (Unfunded): If the GMO cyanobacteria can
    be developed, economically produced and is socially acceptable, it is
    envisioned that this hardier and higher productivity organism may
    displace algae as the main oil producing biofeedstock.

    Swimlane #4: CELLULOSE FEEDSTOCKS

    Billion Ton Study (Completed): Report conducted by DOE's Oak Ridge
    National Lab (ORNL) on ``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and
    Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual
    Supply.'' It showed that 1.3B tons/year of biomass could be harvested
    to meet one-third of U.S. fuel needs by 2030.

    BCIWG Report (In Work): The Biomass R&D Board Biomass Conversion
    Interagency Working Group (BCIWG). The Biomass Research and Development
    Board established an interagency working group to guide the exploration
    of cost effective commercially viable processes for converting
    cullulosic and other biomass to biofuels (ethanol, higher alcohols, and
    green gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels). The group is comprised of
    NSF, DOE, USDA, EPA and DOD and other agencies. The BCIWG is authoring
    a 10-year Federal RD&D biomass conversion plan report.

    Cellulose to biojet flight demo (Not Funded): A flight demonstration of
    a biojet fuel made from cellulose via enzymatic deconstruction and
    synthetic biology buildup of pure hydrocarbon molecules (alkanes).

    Cellulosic Ethanol becomes cost competitive (Funded): A (hoped for)
    milestone where sufficient R&D has overcome the cost hurdles in making
    commercial ethanol production less expensive when using a cellulosic
    conversion processes versus the conventional corn starch method.

    Cellulose to biojet demo plant via pyrolysis (Not Funded): A small
    demonstration plant that more efficiently converts cellulosic material
    into a bio-crude oil that can then be fed into conventional oil
    refineries for processing.

    Cellulose/Sugar/Algae Prototype Demo (Not Funded): Sugars that are
    derived from hemicellulose from woody plants can be used as nutrients
    to rapidly grow algae in non-sunlight reactors (i.e., heterotrophic
    conditions). Heterotrophic growth of algae on pentose sugars from
    hemicellulose may be a promising approach for algae production as it
    would not compete with either food sugar or ethanol sugars, which are
    all hexose sugars.

    Large scale cellulose farms (Not Funded): Initial commercialization of
    prairie grasslands that are (no till) seeded with switchgrass and
    harvested with no environmental damage.

    GMO plants for easy sugar conversion (In Work): Genetically modified
    plants, such as poplar trees, that have enhanced growth characteristics
    such that processing enzymes may more easily break down the lignin for
    conversion into sugars.

    Swimlane #5: OTHER FEEDSTOCKS

    (All other plants not covered above.)

    DOE's CBTL study done (In Work): A Coal & Biomass To Liquid (CBTL)
    study where biomass is used to offset CO2 emissions that
    would normally be environmentally prohibitive in a conventional Coal To
    Liquid (CTL) fuel production plant.

    Revise EISA to include biomass credit (In Work): The present Energy
    Independence Security Act (EISA) presently does give environmental
    credit for using some types of biofeedstocks in certain fuel processing
    methodologies (e.g., bio-oil used in an oil refinery to make a biofuel/
    fossil fuel mixture).

    Overall Feedstock Assessment (Unfunded): A study to evaluate all other
    known types of bio-feedstocks (e.g., switchgrass to alkane hydrocarbons
    through synthetic biology) that could be used to produce biofuel for
    aviation.

    Various Scaled Test Plots (Unfunded): The growing of emerging bio-
    feedstocks (see above) that could be used for biojet fuel.

    Terra Preta Test Plot for CBTL (Unfunded): A scaled agricultural
    project where the excess solid carbon from the CBTL process is buried
    in farm plots to evaluate the effect on crop production.

    DOE's CBTL & Algae Demos Done (Unfunded): A NETL demonstration project
    with APS (Arizona Public Supply) where coal is gasified for power
    generation and algae are grown with flue gas effluent to capture and
    utilize the CO2.

    Large Scale Cellulose Farms for synthetic biofuel & CBTL (Unfunded):
    After the fuel processing technologies are developed that can
    economically convert cellulose into biofuels, it is envisioned that
    large scale (prairie?) farms will be developed to grow cellulose (e.g.,
    switchgrass, etc.).

    Swimlane #5: OTHER

    (Primarily activities to coordinate with.)

    CAAFI biofeedstock roadmap (Done): This roadmap which was developed on
    January 27th in Dayton, Ohio by 80 representatives from the aviation,
    biofuel and feedstock industries.

    USDA Feedstock Roadmap (Unknown): It is thought that the USDA should
    develop its own feedstock R&D roadmap, which would include
    recommendations from this feedstock roadmap.

    USDA Feedstock Rankings and R&D Plan (Unknown): Once the roadmap is
    developed, funding should be secured for future projects that are
    underfunded or unfunded, based on their ranked importance to provide
    biofuel feedstocks for aviation as well as ground transportation. The
    R&D plan will lay out a formula to achieve U.S. energy independence
    with help from carbon neutral biofuels.

    USDA Advanced Biofuel Summary (Unfunded): A final summary report
    published by the USDA reviewing all of the next generation feedstocks
    that could be used for making biofuel and making recommendations.

                        Biography for Lourdes Q. Maurice
        DR. LOURDES Q. MAURICE is the Chief Scientific and Technical
    Advisor for Environment in the Federal Aviation Administration's Office
    of Environment and Energy. She serves as the agency technical expert
    for basic and exploratory research, and advanced technology development
    focused on aircraft environmental impacts and its application to noise
    and emissions certification and policy, and the application of
    alternative fuels to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance energy
    security. Lourdes manages and provides agency technical leadership for
    the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction
    (PARTNER) Center of Excellence. She previously served as the Air Force
    Deputy, Basic Research Sciences and Propulsion Science and Technology
    in the office of the Deputy Associate Secretary of the Air Force for
    Science and Technology. She also worked at the Air Force Research
    Laboratory's Propulsion and Power Directorate from 1983 to 1999
    planning and executing basic, exploratory, and advanced development
    propulsion science and technology programs, focusing on state-of-the-
    art aviation fuels and propulsion systems. Her areas of expertise
    include pollutant formation chemistry, combustion kinetics, hypersonic
    propulsion, and aviation fuels. She received her B.Sc. in Chemical
    Engineering and M.Sc. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of
    Dayton in Dayton, Ohio and her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
    University of London's Imperial College at London, United Kingdom. She
    is also a Distinguished Graduate of National Defense University's
    Industrial College of the Armed Forces, where she earned a M.Sc. in
    National Resource Strategy. Lourdes has served as a Lead Author for the
    Nobel-Prize winning United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change and the National Academies of Science National Research Council.
    She is an Associate Editor for American Institute of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics' (AIAA) Journal of Propulsion and Power and serves on the
    Editorial Board of the International Journal of Aeroacoustics. She has
    authored over 100 publications and is a 2003 Fellow of AIAA. Lourdes is
    a native of Havana, Cuba and grew up in Madrid, Spain and Dayton, Ohio.
    She became a U.S. citizen at 16. She is married to Dr. Mark S. Maurice
    and has one son, Anthony.

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Dr. Epstein.

     STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN H. EPSTEIN, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY
         AND ENVIRONMENT, PRATT & WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
                              CORPORATION

        Dr. Epstein. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. Fifty years ago this
    January a Boeing 707 powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, flew
    the first transcontinental commercial jet flight in the United
    States. Since then, our jet engines have improved dramatically
    to the point where the most modern pure power engines consume
    only about half as much fuel as those on a 707. However, no
    progress has been made on civilian fuels. We use the same fuel
    today as we did in 1959.
        First, let me address why biojet fuel is important to
    aviation. We expect commercial aviation to grow at an annual
    rate of four to five percent averaged over the next 40 years.
    Given a renewal of the public/private partnership in
    aeronautical research, engine and aircraft designers continue
    the two to two and a half percent per year improvement in fuel
    economy we have demonstrated over the last 50 years. However,
    without further action, aviation CO2 would still
    grow two to three percent per year. The only solution is to
    move to a low-carbon fuel such as a sustainable biojet.
        Simply put, biojet converts aircraft to solar power with
    the fuel simply serving as a chemical battery recharged by the
    sun. The many practical considerations of capital,
    manufacturing, logistics, combined with the imperative for
    near-term action on climate change means that a new fuel should
    be a drop-in fuel. Drop-in means a fuel that can be distributed
    and used without modification to delivery channels, aircraft or
    engines, and my comments are offered in the context of drop-in
    sustainable biofuels.
        At Pratt & Whitney, we have been testing biofuels in the
    lab and engines. While lab testing is very useful, I cannot
    overemphasize the importance of full-scale tests. Pratt &
    Whitney has tested biojet blends in a variety of engine sizes
    ranging from those powering small business jets up to the
    Boeing 747. These tests revealed no negative effects on engine
    operation. Actually, pure biojet was better in that it reduced
    the particulates emissions important to local air quality.
        This January, a Pratt & Whitney powered Japan Airlines
    Boeing 747 flew with a mix of conventional and second-
    generation biojet fuel. We saw no impact on performance or
    engine life. The test is noteworthy because of the varied
    feedstock used, camelina, jatropha and algae which shows that
    aviation need not bet on a single approach. We are planning an
    additional test flight next year. Each flight builds
    confidence.
        Pratt & Whitney is also leading an international consortium
    looking at sustainable biofuels as applied to small gas
    turbines that power general aviation business and commuter
    aircraft. One thing we have learned is that an engine can be
    designed to reduce fuel consumption if we can be assured that
    all aircraft fuel was largely biojet. Unfortunately, no such
    gain can be had from current engines. While we do not expect
    these fuels to affect the economic life of the 70,000 Pratt &
    Whitney engines in the field, additional work, such as
    endurance testing, is a wise idea. Funding for such tests have
    yet to be identified.
        The aviation community is sharing knowledge to certify
    biojet. This builds on our experience from the recent Air Force
    program which certified alternative fuels for energy
    independence.
        So where do we go from here? Industry is working together
    to define appropriate standards, and I expect that biojet can
    be produced to meet these standards. So biojet can move into
    service with a few more tests, documentation, and action by the
    approving bodies which can be done in the next two to three
    years at which point all you need is commercial quantities of
    biojet.
        So the challenges remaining are not in the realm of the
    propulsion engineer. They belong to the business community, to
    bio and chemical engineers, to ecologists, and to lawmakers.
        The growth of the biojet market will depend upon cost and
    on capital. The cost of the fuel must reflect the value it
    brings to the purchaser, and capital is needed for biojet
    production facilities. This is where biojet research can help
    by reducing both the carbon and the capital needed to produce
    fuel.
        Pratt & Whitney is bullish on biojet for aviation. Drop-in
    sustainable aviation biojet fuels are an excellent idea for the
    aviation industry, for the Nation and for the planet.
        Thank you for permitting me to address this important
    topic.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Epstein follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Alan H. Epstein
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Alan Epstein,
    Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney, this
    country's foremost manufacturer of aircraft and rocket engines with
    over 70,000 engines in the field. Pratt & Whitney is part of United
    Technologies Corporation, a global technology corporation with a long
    history of pioneering innovation in aviation, space, climate control,
    elevators, and fuel cells. Because we power many of the world's
    airplanes and rockets, control climate in and move people around
    buildings in every corner of the globe, we are dedicated to reducing
    mankind's impact on climate change.
        I am here to speak on sustainable aviation biojet fuels from the
    point of view of a manufacturer and maintainer of aircraft engines. I
    appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing which
    addresses one of the most promising avenues for aviation to reduce its
    impact on climate change.
        This January was the 50th anniversary of the first commercial jet
    flight in the United States, a Boeing 707 powered by Pratt & Whitney
    engines. Since then, our jet engines have improved dramatically. The
    most modern engines, such as the new P&W PurePower Geared Turbo Fan
    engine family consumes only half as much fuel as those on the B707.
    However, no progress has been made on civil aviation fuels over these
    50 years; today we still use the same fuel as we did in 1959.

    Introduction to Biojet Fuels for Aviation

        I am here to discuss how concerted action can move civil aviation
    toward new fuels; fuels which are benign to the environment and promote
    energy independence for the Nation. The reason why this is an important
    topic is that civil aviation is both a generator of national wealth and
    a reflection of it. Aerospace is this nation's largest manufacturing
    export and provides over half a million jobs in the U.S. We expect the
    world's commercial aviation to grow at an annual rate of four to five
    percent averaged over the next 40 years, reflecting an increase in
    global wealth. The CO2 emissions from aviation are simply
    proportional to amount of fuel burned, so unless we take action, they
    will increase as well. We anticipate that a public-private partnership
    in aeronautical research can continue the two to two and a half percent
    per year improvement in fuel economy we have worked so hard to achieve
    over the last 50 years. Replacement of old airplanes with new, much
    more fuel efficient models is the mechanism by which this new
    technology reduces environmental impact. Of course, airlines need cash
    and credit to purchase new aircraft. Therefore, care must be taken that
    proposed economic measures such as carbon trading or taxes do not drain
    funds from aviation that are needed to renew airline fleets with fuel
    efficient, climate friendly new aircraft.
        Even if all new aircraft and engines were introduced into the
    world's fleets, it would still result in a two to three percent average
    annual growth in aviation CO2. To stem this CO2
    growth over the next 40 years the world must move to a new aviation
    fuel. It is important to note that all of the biofuels under
    consideration result in the same amount of CO2 exiting a jet
    engine's tailpipe, an amount no different than that of today's
    petroleum based fuel. The difference important to the climate is the
    source of the carbon in the exhaust. In the case of petroleum, natural
    gas, and coal based fuels, this is fossil carbon, which was removed
    from the atmosphere eons before the advent of humankind. The large
    scale release of this fossil carbon is a major factor in the current
    climate change concerns. In the case of biofuels, the carbon has been
    recently extracted by plants and is then returned to the atmosphere by
    the engine. This extraction-addition cycle can be repeated indefinitely
    without disturbing our climate. The energy for the process comes, of
    course, from the sun. Thus in a very real sense, biojet fuels let us
    convert our aircraft to solar power. The biojet fuel simply serves as a
    chemical battery charged by the sun.
        However, there is carbon release overhead in the process.
    Currently, fossil fuels are used in the cultivation, transport, and
    processing of the bio material. This is an area ripe for improvement
    and innovation, so I expect this carbon overhead will decrease
    dramatically as, for example, we learn to increase the efficiency of
    sustainable biojet fuel cultivation and processing. Even at its current
    state, biojet fuels add much less total carbon to the atmosphere than
    do petroleum based jet fuels.
        There are many practical considerations of capital requirements,
    manufacturing capacity, and logistics, which when combined with the
    imperative for relatively near-term action on climate change mean that
    any new fuel should be a drop-in fuel. By drop-in we mean a fuel we can
    distribute and use without modification either to fuel distribution
    channels such as the pipelines and the tank farms or to airplanes and
    engines. For many of the same reasons, the biojet fuels must also be
    mixable with current jet fuels in arbitrary ratios. We now know that
    all these requirements are technically feasible. My following comments
    are offered in the context of drop-in biojet fuels.
        With this as background, I will discuss what we have learned about
    biojet fuels for aviation and where we hope to go. Specifically I will
    touch on lessons learned in our research, ground, and flight testing.

    What We Have Learned From Recent Flight Tests

        While laboratory testing is very useful, since safety is our
    primary concern in aviation, I cannot overemphasize the importance of
    full scale ground and flight testing. Pratt & Whitney has tested
    biofuel blends in a variety of engine sizes ranging from those powering
    small business jets up to the Boeing 747. These tests revealed no
    negative effects on engine operations or their performance
    characteristics. Indeed, emissions measurements with pure biojet fuels
    showed that emissions of regulated particulates in the exhaust were
    reduced compared to those from conventional fuels. However, those gains
    were largely eliminated when we diluted biojet fuel with appreciable
    amounts of conventional fuel.
        Preliminary results from the recent January 2009 flight tests on a
    Pratt & Whitney powered Japan Airlines Boeing 747 are that the mix of
    second generation biojet fuel and conventional fuel performed as
    expected, with no impact on performance and nothing of note observed in
    the post flight engine inspection. This result is another encouraging
    step toward approving biojet fuels for aviation applications. This
    flight test is particularly noteworthy because of the heterogeneous
    composition of the biojet fuel feedstock used--including camelina,
    jatropha, and algae. This shows that that biojet fuel can be processed
    properly from a variety of feedstocks; that such fuels can be mixed
    with each other and conventional fuel; and that aviation need not bet
    on a single source of fuel. Together this implies that biojet fuels can
    be a robust technical and commercial solution to aviation's CO2
    challenge.
        Pratt & Whitney is working closely with the engine/airframe/
    equipment/fuel supplier community to harness the lessons learned in
    recent flight and ground tests of commercial aircraft and engines to
    establish the understanding and data base necessary to support the
    certification of biojet fuels for civil and military operations. We are
    sharing this information as needed under the auspices of DOD and the
    American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), which define the
    specifications for aviation fuels in this country. The community is
    benefiting greatly by the experience gained in recent years from the
    USAF sponsored efforts to certify alternative fuels made with the
    decades-old Fischer-Tropsch process. The primary motivation was DOD's
    desire for diversification of the U.S. energy supply to foster energy
    independence. Last year, Pratt and Whitney approved the use of these
    fuels in all non-after-burning P&W military engines (some of which are
    variants of commercial engines) and we expect to approve them for
    after-burning fighter aircraft by the end of this year. The climatic
    impact of these fuels can be significantly reduced if carbon
    sequestration or biomass is used in their production. Fischer-Tropsch
    fuels made with only biomass feedstock is one class of biojet fuel. The
    experience of certifying these fuels, the first all new fuel in
    decades, has taught the aviation community how to streamline the
    approval process such that it is now feasible to certify a biojet fuel
    within the next two to three years.
        The next flight test demonstration with P&W involvement is the Jet
    Blue/Airbus/IAE (International Aero Engines)\1\ flight test scheduled
    for next year using a blend of third generation biojet fuel feedstocks.
    To our knowledge this will be the first flight test using only third
    generation feedstock. In addition to generating data on an advanced
    type of biojet fuel, this demonstration will add value by broadening
    the experience base to include aircraft-engine types which have yet to
    fly with biojet fuels. This helps the industry to evaluate if there are
    less obvious or overlooked elements in the complex fuel systems of
    modern airplanes which might be affected. Also, the total flight time
    on biojet fuels is quite limited at the moment, so that each additional
    test flight helps to build confidence. Since safety is the predominate
    concern for aviation, the value of test data and flight experience
    cannot be underestimated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ International Aero Engines (IAE) is a collaboration of Pratt &
    Whitney/Rolls-Royce/MTU/Japan Aerospace Corp which supplies the V2500
    series of engines for Airbus A320 family aircraft.

    Other activities

        Pratt & Whitney is leading an international consortium which
    includes universities, government researchers, and biojet fuel
    suppliers looking at sustainable biofuels, specifically as applied to
    small gas turbine engines that power general aviation, business, and
    commuter aircraft.
        One result of research at Pratt & Whitney is the realization that
    an advanced engine can be designed for improved performance if we could
    be assured that all aircraft fuel consisted in large measure of biojet
    fuel. By improved performance, we mean better fuel efficiency and lower
    engine weight. For example, the improved heat capacity of the biofuel
    lets us reduce or eliminate radiators and their attendant weight and
    drag penalties. (The irony of increasingly efficient aircraft engines
    is that it becomes more difficult to reject waste heat.) There are two
    major constraints on realizing such improved performance. First, the
    engine must be expressly designed for biojet fuel or a biojet-
    conventional fuel mix. There is no performance gain from biofuels
    burned in current engines. Second, biofuel must be a substantial
    fraction of the fuel in the airplane, 25 percent or more. However, it
    may be several decades before biojet fuels are available in the tens of
    billions of gallons per year this implies, so that we are a ways off
    from being able to exploit some superior biofuel properties in our
    engine designs.
        Our confidence as an industry in defining appropriate, formal
    standards for a drop-in biojet fuel is quite high and tests to date
    indicate that biofuels can be produced to meet appropriate standards.
    While we do not expect such fuels to affect engines' economic life,
    additional testing would be wise. Endurance tests are part of the
    normal development process for new engines and materials and would be
    recommended in this process. Also, once biojet fuels are deployed into
    commercial service, it would be prudent to institute in-service
    evaluations which periodically examine engines as they age. This is
    typically done when designs are changed or new materials are
    introduced. Funding for such tests and evaluations has yet to be
    identified.
        It is important to note that the activities outlined above are not
    what we regard as research. The research required to introduce biofuels
    to civil aviation has been done, there are no unanswered scientific
    questions. What is required is a modest amount of straightforward
    engineering development. From the propulsion provider's point of view,
    all that is needed to move biojet fuel into civil service are a few
    more tests, documentation, and action by the approving bodies. Of
    course, you also need commercial quantities of certified, sustainable
    biojet fuel.

    What Else Is Needed

        Given concerted action, approval and certification of biojet fuels
    for civil aviation can be completed with the next two to three years.
    Then, biofuels meeting the approved specifications can be legally used
    in civil aviation. At that point, all you need is commercial quantities
    of biofuel. Therefore, the challenges remaining are not in the realm of
    the aeronautical or propulsion engineer. Once the aviation supplier
    community completes its approval of biojet fuel, the remaining
    questions and challenges belong to the business community, to bio and
    chemical engineers, to ecologists, and to lawmakers. The growth of the
    civil aviation biofuel market will depend on such factors as:

              The cost of the biojet fuel must reflect the value it
            brings to the purchaser, the airlines in the case of commercial
            aviation. In other words, biojet fuel must be cost competitive
            with petroleum based fuels, all things considered. Passing on
            increased airlines costs to consumers has not worked well in
            the past.

              Capital must be invested in the biojet fuel
            production chain. At the moment capital is in short supply, but
            we all hope that this is only a short-term challenge. The near-
            term formal certification of a biojet fuel standard should help
            to encourage investment.

              Authoritative, peer-reviewed quantitative research is
            needed to establish the carbon footprint of various biofuels
            and document their sustainable nature. This will be an ongoing
            process and should be supported by governments in independent
            organizations such as universities.

        Innovation has been a mainstay of the long-term increase in U.S.
    productivity. Aviation biojet fuel is an area ripe for innovation, in
    technology and in business. We see significant opportunities for
    technical advancements in such areas as feedstock production to
    increase crop yields and decrease freshwater requirements in order to
    reduce cost and improve sustainability. Also, there is synergy with
    military fuel requirements and markets to foster U.S. energy
    independence.
        All things considered, it is reasonable to anticipate that several
    percent of the world's civil aviation fuel may be supplied by
    biological sources by the end of the next decade.
        Pratt & Whitney is bullish on biojet fuel for aviation. Simply put,
    drop-in, sustainable aviation biojet fuels are an excellent idea. They
    will reduce aviation's CO2, while diversifying our fuel
    supply and promoting energy independence. Combined with continuing
    technical innovation in aircraft and engines, we see sustainable biojet
    fuels as enabling the growth in civil aviation that is critical to the
    Nation's and the world's economic growth.
        Thank you for permitting me to address this important topic.

                         Biography for Alan H. Epstein
        Alan Epstein is responsible for Pratt & Whitney's long-term
    technology and environmental strategy. Alan joined the company in
    August 2007, after a distinguished 30-year career with Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was R.C. Maclaurin Professor of
    Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Director of the Gas Turbine
    Laboratory.
        Alan is leading Pratt & Whitney's efforts to identify and evaluate
    new methods to improve engine fuel efficiency and reduce noise and
    combustion emissions for all new Pratt & Whitney engines. Alan will
    also provide strategic leadership in the investment, development and
    incorporation of technologies that reduce the environmental impact of
    Pratt & Whitney products and services. In addition, Alan will also be
    responsible for validating Pratt & Whitney's technology and
    environmental strategy with customers, industry representatives and
    government agencies.
        For more than 30 years, Alan has served on numerous government
    advisory committees and was an active consultant and advisor to
    industry and government on topics ranging from gas turbine engineering,
    power and energy, to strategic planning.
        He was an author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC) report on aviation and the environment, has been published in
    more than 120 technical publications, and has given more than 90
    plenary, keynote and invited lectures around the world. He is a member
    of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the
    American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and of the American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers.
        Alan received his Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. degrees from the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Aeronautics and Astronautics.

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Mr. Glover.

        STATEMENT OF MR. BILLY M. GLOVER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
           ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

        Mr. Glover. Good morning. Madam Chairwoman and Members of
    the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. The
    Boeing Company designs and manufactures a range of commercial,
    military and space products. We are the largest aerospace
    company in the world, employing over 160,000 people, 155,000
    here in the United States.
        Today, Boeing produces a family of commercial aircraft, all
    quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier generations. We
    believe that sustainable biofuels for aviation have the
    potential for reduced life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and
    also the potential to increase fuel supply. Both important.
        We have identified four plant-derived oils that have very
    strong potential: jatropha, camelina, halophytes and those
    things are available in the near-term, and algae in the longer-
    term. Aviation-quality biofuels derived from these sustainable
    energy crop sources show significant improvements when compared
    to traditional sources.
        This is not your father's ethanol or biodiesel. It is
    chemically different. Overall, jatropha and camelina studies
    show greenhouse gas reductions 60 percent or more as compared
    to petroleum-derived jet fuel.
        Let me make one thing abundantly clear. Boeing has no
    interest in becoming a biofuel producer. Our goal is to
    facilitate rapid commercialization of this new industry and
    capture this opportunity. We are very confident that
    sustainable sources of plant-derived oils and processing
    methods can efficiently produce a high-quality jet fuel. We
    have demonstrated that synthetic paraffinic kerosene made from
    plant oils can be blended up to 50 percent with normal jet fuel
    and operated in a commercial jetliner without modifications.
        Over the last year, Boeing has conducted four successful
    flight demonstrations with Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand,
    Japan Airlines, and Continental Airlines. During each flight, a
    single engine was fueled by a blend of traditional Jet A and
    biofuels. The biofuels were produced by Imperium Renewables and
    Honeywell UOP.
        While we have not completed all of our evaluations from
    these test flights, we found these new biofuels can actually
    perform better. They have a lower freeze point, better energy
    density, and no abnormal wear or engine deterioration.
        Safety has always been and will continue to be the top
    priority of Boeing. The three biofuel blends used for the most
    recent flights and engine tests met all ASTM D 1655 performance
    specifications.
        So what is the path forward? We believe the principal
    challenges are commercialization, growth and supply of viable
    feedstocks, and standard life cycle assessment. Our current
    projections are that with appropriate incentives, market
    viability could be achieved as early as 2015. Without such
    attention, market viability will be delayed.
        As you know, aviation has few options to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions. Other forms of transportation can use batteries
    and electrical power, for instance. We can't. Aviation must
    rely on three key strategies: continue to produce more
    efficient aircraft; number two, fly aircraft more efficiently
    by realizing the promise of NextGen and improved air traffic
    management systems; and finally, use sustainable biofuels.
        Boeing urges governments to support commercialization and
    development of aviation biofuels by creating incentives for
    energy crop growers and producers of sustainable biofuels, by
    ensuring greenhouse gas legislation encourages the development
    of sustainable biofuels for aviation, by creating predictable
    demand incentives for aviation biofuel and assisting airlines
    to invest in these new supply chains, by implementing a refund
    of the aviation domestic fuel tax when biofuel blends are used,
    and finally by funding rapid development of standard methods
    for measuring life cycle carbon emissions and sustainability.
    It is foundational.
        Boeing is fully committed to working with fuel producers,
    engine manufacturers, airlines, and government to ensure the
    earliest development of commercially viable markets for
    sustainable aviation biofuels. Thank you again for this
    opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Billy M. Glover
        Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to offer The Boeing Company's views on sustainable biofuels
    for aviation.
        As many of you know, The Boeing Company (``Boeing'') designs and
    manufactures a range of commercial, military and space products. We are
    the largest aerospace company in the world, employing over 160,000
    people.
        Today The Boeing Company produces a family of 18 different
    commercial aircraft--all quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier
    generations of aircraft. In fact, today's jet aircraft are 70 percent
    more fuel-efficient than jet aircraft produced only 50 years ago.
        Despite the current global economic downturn, the demand for newer,
    more fuel efficient aircraft remains strong. In fact, we have almost
    900 orders for our newest product, the 787 Dreamliner which should
    generate approximately a 20 percent reduction in fuel usage and
    emissions. We recognize, however, the aviation sector, as a key
    contributor to global GDP, must continually strive to improve its
    environmental performance to the extent possible and in line with
    industry growth. To be effective we must continue to make improvements
    on a global basis.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Boeing is an active participant in the International Civil
    Aviation Organization (ICAO), the UN body that governs all aspects of
    international aviation. Through the ICAO Committee on Aviation
    Environmental Protection (CAEP) the industry has driven down aircraft
    specific emissions--CO2, soot, and NOXx--on a global basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the next 20 years, Boeing forecasts a demand for over 29,000
    new large commercial aircraft worth approximately $3.2 trillion. We are
    concerned that demand for air travel and thus for commercial airplanes
    could be affected by future limits on CO2 emissions. We
    therefore are committed to looking for environmentally-friendly
    solutions and alternatives to the way air travel is conducted today.
        We believe that sustainable biofuels for aviation have the
    potential to provide greatly reduced life cycle greenhouse gas
    (``GHG'') emissions and greater economic benefits associated with
    increased fuel availability.
        When we use the term ``sustainable biofuel'' we mean a biofuel
    that, at a minimum, meets the following criteria:

            1.  Utilization of plants that do not compete with food, do not
            significantly impact biodiversity and do not jeopardize
            supplies of drinking water;

            2.  Total GHG emissions from plant growth, harvesting,
            processing and end-use are significantly lower than GHG
            emissions from fossil fuel extraction, production and end-use;

            3.  In developing economies, development projects include
            provisions or outcomes that improve socioeconomic conditions
            for small-scale farmers who rely on agriculture to feed their
            families, and do not require the involuntary displacement of
            local populations; and

            4.  High conservation value areas and native eco-systems are
            not cleared for aviation plant source development.

        We have identified four plant-derived oils that have very strong
    potential to meet our sustainability criteria: jatropha, camelina and
    halophytes in the near-term, and algae in the longer-term. Biofuels
    derived from these sustainable energy crop sources show significant
    improvements in terms of yield and environmental impacts when compared
    to traditional food crop sources currently being used to make ethanol
    and biodiesel fuels.\2\ Overall, jatropha and camelina studies show GHG
    reductions of 60 percent or more, as compared to petroleum-derived jet
    fuel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Preliminary well-to-wake life cycle assessments were carried
    out by Michigan Technological University for jatropha and camelina oil
    based SPK (see Appendix). A similar algal oil study is currently
    underway.

      The basis for these studies is from recently available data on crop
    yields, oil content, and cultivation requirements1. Both camelina and
    jatropha show great promise for increased energy oil productivity
    without negatively impacting land and water use. The results of these
    studies indicate that more than 60-65 percent reduction in GHG
    emissions can be achieved by hydrotreated jet fuel relative to
    petroleum-derived jet fuel.
        It should be made abundantly clear that Boeing has no interest in
    becoming a biofuel producer. Instead, we are using our expertise and
    reputation as an innovator to draw attention to the opportunities for a
    clean, renewable fuel source in hopes of spurring and accelerating
    commercial development. In addition, we are using our technical
    capabilities to assure any new aviation biofuel meets all safety and
    performance requirements for our airplanes.
        We are very confident that sustainable sources of plant-derived
    oils and processing methods can efficiently produce a high quality jet
    fuel. We have demonstrated that synthetic paraffinic kerosene (``SPK'')
    made from plant oils can be blended up to 50 percent with normal jet
    fuel (Jet A or A-1) and operated in a commercial jetliner without any
    modification to the aircraft or engine.
        When Boeing was asked to testify at this hearing, the Subcommittee
    posed a number of questions they would like us to address. Let me now
    turn to the Committee's questions.

    Flight Demonstrations

        Over the last year, Boeing has conducted four successful flight
    demonstrations with blends of biofuels. During each flight, a single
    engine was fueled by a mix of traditional Jet-A and biofuels.

              Virgin Atlantic Airways conducted the first test of a
            Boeing 747-400 with General Electric engines on February 25,
            2008. That test flight operated between London Heathrow and
            Amsterdam with an 80120 mixture of biofuel to kerosene.

              An Air New Zealand 747-400 equipped with Rolls-Royce
            engines was used to test a 50 percent biofuel blend in an
            engine ground run, and a test flight from Auckland, NZ on
            December 30, 2008. The flight lasted approximately two hours
            and consisted of climb, engine windmill restarts, as well as
            using starter-assists. Acceleration and deceleration checks
            were also carried out. A simulated approach-and-go-around was
            conducted at 10,000 ft.

              A Continental 737-800 with CFM engines was used to
            test a 50 percent jatropha and algae biofuel blend in an engine
            ground run, and an experimental flight from Houston, TX on Jan
            7, 2009. The flight lasted approximately two hours, and
            consisted of a climb, engine accelerations and decelerations, a
            windmill engine restart, a starter assisted restart, and a
            simulated go-around maneuver at 10,000 ft.

              A JAL 747-300 with Pratt & Whitney engines was used
            to test a 50 percent biofuel blend in a ground run, and
            subsequent flight in Tokyo, Japan on Jan 30, 2009. The flight
            lasted approximately two hours, and consisted of a climb,
            engine accelerations and decelerations, and an engine windmill
            restart.

        While we have not completed our evaluations from these test
    flights, some of the key lessons learned include the following:

              Lower freeze point--In an initial comparison of
            biomass-based jet fuel and jet fuel from petroleum, we saw
            better freeze point performance from the biofuel blend. This is
            extremely important because aviation fuels must be able to
            perform in the very low temperatures experienced at high
            altitudes.

              Better energy density--In several instances we
            observed better energy density in the fuel properties of the
            individual biofuels and in the biofuel blends when compared to
            traditional jet fuel. Higher energy density is an important
            benefit to aviation due to the unique lift needed to carry fuel
            for flight.

              No abnormal wear or engine deterioration--Post-flight
            inspections of the aircraft and engines were conducted prior to
            the aircraft returning to service or entering into regularly
            scheduled maintenance. No abnormal wear or engine deterioration
            was observed.

        We have no announced plans for additional flight demonstrations at
    this time. Our efforts are now focused on commercialization and
    certification of these fuels for aviation use.

    Research, Development and Testing of Biofuels

        Safety has always been, and will continue to be, the top priority
    of the Boeing Company. Safety is at the forefront of our efforts to
    develop and certify sustainable biofuels. Our most fundamental
    requirement for sustainable biofuels for aviation is also the most
    important requirement for their safest use--sustainable biofuel must
    meet ``drop-in'' requirements--i.e., they must be able to be used in
    existing fuel delivery and supply systems and in existing aircraft
    without modification or special handling. And they must be fully
    compatible to be mixed with other approved fuels.
        As discussed earlier, Boeing is developing a comprehensive report
    on the data collected from the recent flight and ground tests. We will
    be providing this report to the ASTM membership for further review and
    analysis. We are continuing to work closely with the ASTM\3\ and other
    standards bodies in determining what additional research and/or testing
    may be necessary following completion of analysis and review of the
    results.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The ASTM requirements in development will ensure that bio-
    derived fuels meet strict performance and compositional specifications
    to be compatible with existing petroleum-based fuels.
        \4\ The ASTM process for specification of commercial aviation fuels
    supports the operational approval as administered by the FAA. It is a
    well established process. As a member of ASTM, Boeing is working
    closely with that body to establish a robust standard of certification
    for bio-derived fuels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The three sustainable biofuels used for the flight and engine tests
    met all ASTM D 1655 performance specifications at a 50 percent blend
    with petroleum-based jet fuel.
        Fuel property tests took place at several locations including
    Boeing, Honeywell UOP, Air Force Research Lab, several independent
    outside laboratories and the participating engine companies. Additional
    property and performance tests, including material compatibility, were
    conducted on these fuels at Boeing labs, the Air Force Research Labs
    and the University of Dayton Research Institute. Engine tests occurred
    at General Electric as well as Pratt & Whitney facilities.
        Engine tests consisted of control, operability (engine start,
    flame-out and transient thrust characteristics) and performance, all of
    which tested within expected variation. No engine degradation was
    evident via control, operability and performance or hardware inspection
    at the conclusion of the test.
        Operability testing included measuring start times, lean-blow out
    margin, acceleration and deceleration times. Emissions testing
    consisted of tests for the currently regulated emissions species;
    nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and
    smoke number.
        Our testing revealed some surprising results, for example:

              The process to make the bio-derived SPK is feedstock
            agnostic;

              At a 50 percent blend ratio, a bio-derived SPK fuel
            performed equal to, and in some cases better than, traditional
            petroleum-based jet fuel in terms of performance and emissions;

              No change in aircraft systems, fueling infrastructure
            or engines is required for implementing bio-derived SPK fuels
            at up to a 50 percent ratio; and

              Large-scale production of a bio-derived SPK jet fuel
            is possible from sustainable sources.

    The Path Forward

        We believe the principal challenges facing widespread use of
    biofuels in aviation are in the areas of commercialization, growth and
    supply of viable feedstocks, establishing standard life cycle carbon
    and sustainability assessment methodologies and policies.
        Right now biofuels, whether for aviation or other forms of
    transportation, are not being produced in sufficient quantities. This
    is due largely to the typical early challenges of commercializing an
    emerging technology, when development costs are highest and production
    processes have not yet reached economies of scale.
        In addition, public policy investments and incentives often
    afforded existing technologies make it difficult for emerging
    technologies to be produced at competitive costs and offered at
    competitive prices. This is especially the case for emerging biofuels
    that must compete with decades of public and private infrastructure
    investments and extensive public policy incentives for fossil fuels. As
    a result, the sustained price of a barrel of oil needs to be at least
    $70 for biofuel producers to demonstrate competitive business cases
    that will generate the necessary investments in infrastructure (bio-
    refineries, equipment, etc.) and generate fuels that can be sold at
    prices competitive with existing fossil fuels.
        Our current projections are that, with appropriate incentives,
    market viability could be achieved as early as 2015. Without such
    incentives, market viability will likely be delayed much later,
    possibly even a decade.
        Boeing is convinced sustainable biofuels can significantly reduce
    aviation's carbon footprint. We are focusing our efforts on
    accelerating viable commercial markets for advanced biofuels from plant
    sources that do not compete with food crops and require minimal land
    and water use. We are committed to ensuring that our research and
    development investments in environmental improvements deliver
    significant greenhouse gas reductions.
        While other forms of transportation have options to reduce their
    carbon footprint, for example by utilizing batteries and electric
    motors for propulsion systems, aviation must rely on three key
    strategies: continue to produce more fuel efficient aircraft; fly
    aircraft more efficiently by realizing the promise of NextGen and
    improved air traffic management systems; and use low carbon sustainable
    biofuels.
        Government can support the earliest commercialization and
    development of sustainable biofuels for aviation by:

              Creating incentives for sustainable energy crop
            growers and producers of sustainable biofuels for aviation;

              Ensuring public policy addressing greenhouse gas
            emissions does not discourage the development and production of
            sustainable biofuels for aviation;

              Creating predictable demand incentives for aviation
            use of sustainable biofuel blends, and assisting airlines to
            invest in new fuel supply chains;

              Implementing a refund of the aviation domestic fuel
            tax when sustainable biofuel blends are used; and

              Funding rapid development and implementation of
            reasonable, pragmatic, and standard methodologies for measuring
            total life cycle carbon emissions and determining the
            sustainability of all liquid fuels.

        Boeing is fully committed to working with fuel producers, airlines
    and the government to ensure the earliest development of commercially
    viable markets for low carbon sustainable biofuels for current and
    future aircraft generations.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Mr. Shannon.

      STATEMENT OF MR. HOLDEN E. SHANNON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
         GLOBAL REAL ESTATE AND SECURITY, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

        Mr. Shannon. Good morning. My name is Holden Shannon, and I
    am Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security
    which includes environmental affairs for Continental.
    Continental has a long-standing commitment to providing
    customers clean, safe, and reliable air service while
    maintaining a commitment to the environment. Continental is the
    world's fifth largest airline, serving 131 domestic
    destinations, 134 international destinations on four hubs,
    Houston, Cleveland, Newark, and Guam in the South Pacific, and
    along with Continental Express, we are able to carry our 69
    million passengers far more efficiently now than we were a
    decade ago.
        In fact, since 1997, we have reduced the fuel consumption
    and emissions required to transport a mainline passenger one
    mile by 35 percent, which has been largely due to our friends
    at Boeing, a $12 billion investment in new aircraft, and a
    whole host of electrification efforts on the ground in Houston,
    Newark, among other things.
        Today's airplanes are in fact technologically advanced.
    They are quieter, cleaner, and very importantly burn less fuel.
    That is why our industry represents just two percent of all
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States despite
    continuous growth.
        To give you some perspective, today Continental uses
    approximately 18 gallons of fuel to carry a passenger 1,000
    miles, about the distance from Houston to Chicago. That same
    passenger would burn 45 gallons driving. It is a pretty
    significant difference.
        Between 1978 and 2007, say 30 years, the airline industry
    as a whole has improved fuel efficiency a whopping 110 percent
    resulting in 2.5 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases. To
    put it in layman's terms, that is approximately the equivalent
    of taking 19 million cars off the road each year.
        Airlines in fact have a strong economic incentive to reduce
    fuel consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel,
    as Congressman Olson pointed out, has been a very unpredictable
    part of our cost. It is the most volatile aspect of our cost
    structure in an industry that really does have historically low
    returns, razor-thin margins. Fuel costs last year, and
    admittedly fuel goes up and down, but as a whole, it represents
    30 percent to 40 percent of our cost, greater than any of our
    employee costs, wages, benefits, pensions, any of our airplane
    costs, and any of our facilities worldwide, so by far, the
    largest cost.
        Unlike other sectors of the economy, airlines have no
    alternative but to consume jet fuel as one of my colleagues
    pointed out, but that could change. Because of our dependence
    on current fuel sources, as well as our commitment to the
    environment and our interest in using alternative energy, we
    decided over a year ago to partner with Boeing and GE Aviation
    among others to conduct a biofuels flight demonstration in
    Houston to help identify sustainable biofuel solutions for our
    industry.
        In our case, we used an algae and jatropha biofuel blend,
    and this in fact was a second-generation biofuel that produces
    more energy than earlier biofuels and does not compete with
    foodstocks. That is a very important point. As a result, we
    believe it will be more stable and commercially viable as a
    fuel source than first generation fuels such as ethanol which
    one of my colleagues referenced as well, the basic problem with
    ethanol being that it just doesn't have enough kick to be
    carried relative to the weight that we would need it to
    generate on an aircraft.
        The biofuel demonstration last January I believe was a huge
    success, and although as Mr. Glover has pointed out, we aren't
    completely finished with the results. We think that the results
    will be very, very positive. Our analysis of the digital flight
    data recorder and other data found on the aircraft showed us
    that it performed the same way that traditional jet fuel did
    except that during the life cycle, of course, when you are
    growing plants, we think we could achieve carbon neutrality.
        The test itself was highly successful, but much remains to
    be done to meet widespread use. With the help of government and
    continued coordination of users, manufacturers, fuel suppliers,
    we believe that as long as an alternative fuel is certified for
    aircraft use, meets the drop-in fuel requirement as Dr. Epstein
    explained, meaning that no engine modifications are necessary
    for it to be added at any ratio with traditional fuel sources,
    and can be made available at an economically competitive price,
    is not a small matter, particularly in the case of algae which
    of course is still at its embryonic stages of development,
    aircraft operators will have the confidence to start using
    biofuel in the next five to ten years.
        Continuing this process is a priority. Even though there
    has been a downturn in fuel prices, fuel efficiency remains a
    very huge concern for us and for our industry as well as for
    our nation. Further reducing carbon emissions and increasing
    fuel efficiency of course is something that all of us embrace.
        While there is still today considerable price difference
    between traditional jet fuel and plant fuels, we have great
    confidence that that spread will lessen as supplies of plant
    fuel become more plentiful. The fact that plant fuel can be
    mixed in with traditional fuel and can be dropped right into
    older engines again means acceptance of the biofuel sources
    will grow in line with supply.
        Biofuels represent an important tool for the airline
    industry to reduce their already-small greenhouse gas footprint
    of two to three percent worldwide. We would be remiss if we did
    not mention that more focus on the potential, the development,
    and the use of alternative fuels, as well as other available
    options which all of us have talked about such as the proposed
    NextGen efforts to modernize air traffic control system, which
    by itself would reduce fuel burned by 12 percent for our
    industry, a huge number, that they are collectively far more
    commercially productive than to consider imposition of some
    kind of cap-and-trade policy on the airlines which would
    further depress an already-beleaguered but necessary industry
    of air transportation as well as the economy.
        As you probably know, government actions which cap a
    company's existing carbon footprint can be unfair and certainly
    don't reward innovative companies like Continental Airlines. At
    a time when our nation and Congress are focused on financial
    stability, we ask you to consider that.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
    hearing. We very much appreciate your interest in this subject
    matter. We look forward to working with you, and we are
    available for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Holden E. Shannon

    INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

        Good Morning. Thank you for inviting me here to testify. My name is
    Holden Shannon and I am the Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
    and Security for Continental Airlines. I am responsible for all real
    estate, security and environmental affairs throughout Continental's
    worldwide network. For starters today, I would like to point out that
    we have a long-standing commitment to environmental responsibility and
    providing our customers clean, safe, and reliable air service.
    Continental is the world's fifth largest airline operating 2,500 daily
    flights to 134 domestic destinations and 131 international destinations
    through hubs at Newark, Cleveland, Houston, and Guam, and together with
    Continental Express, we are able to carry our annual 69 million
    passengers far more efficiently than we did a decade ago.
        In fact, since 1997, we have reduced the fuel consumption and
    emissions required to transport a mainline passenger one mile by 35
    percent, largely due to our $12 billion investment in new fuel-
    efficient Boeing aircraft and related equipment. Today's airplanes are
    not just technologically advanced--they are quieter, cleaner and use
    less fuel than ever before.
        That is why our industry represents just two percent of all
    greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. To give you some
    perspective, today Continental uses about 18 gallons of jet fuel to fly
    one revenue passenger 1,000 miles--about the distance between Houston
    and Chicago. By contrast, that same passenger driving his or her car
    between Houston and Chicago today would burn about 45 gallons of
    gasoline.
        In fact, between 1978 and 2007 the airline industry as a whole
    improved its fuel efficiency, as measured by revenue ton miles per
    gallon of fuel, by 110 percent, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of
    greenhouse gas (GHG) savings--roughly equivalent to taking more that
    18.7 million cars off the road in each of those years! And data from
    the Bureau of Transportation Statistics confirms that U.S. airlines
    burned almost three percent less fuel in 2007 than they did in 2000,
    resulting in absolute reductions in emissions, even though they carried
    20 percent more passengers and cargo. Recent data suggests further
    gains in fuel and GHG efficiencies in 2008.
        It is an often overlooked fact that airlines have a strong economic
    incentive to reduce fuel consumption and the resulting GHG emissions
    because fuel accounts for a significant--and volatile part of our
    operating budget. In fact, last year, fuel cost Continental more than
    all of its wages, salaries and benefits worldwide, and more than all of
    its airplanes worldwide, and more than all of its hubs and other
    facilities worldwide. And, unlike other sectors of the economy,
    airlines have no alternative but to consume jet fuel. Fortunately, with
    the industry's support, commercial aircraft and engine manufacturers
    have succeeded in creating significantly more aerodynamic planes and
    significantly more fuel efficient engines than those of prior
    generations, resulting in the tremendous decrease in GHG savings I have
    already described.
        Continental, because it has invested $12 billion in new Boeing
    aircraft and other related equipment, has one of the youngest and most
    environmentally friendly fleets in the world. While this investment has
    already reduced our CO2 emissions significantly, we are not
    stopping there. We have plans to invest over $11 billion more in new
    Boeing aircraft over the next six years so we will further improve our
    fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. And, as other U.S. airlines also
    invest billions of dollars in new, more energy efficient aircraft, we
    will continue to see additional significant environmental benefits
    industry wide.
        However, any further major advances in aircraft fuel efficiency
    will be dependent on new engine and airframe technologies that are not
    yet available in the market place and are not likely to be a
    significant factor for much of the fleet for the intermediate-term.
        Therefore, any achievable short- to medium-term environmental gains
    depend on two factors. The first factor is that the government must
    make a significant investment in the decades-old and out of date
    government-run Air Traffic Control system which, if modernized, is
    projected to reduce greenhouse emissions from aircraft by 12 percent by
    2025. This action would be roughly equivalent to taking another 2.2
    million cars off the road each year.
        The second factor is that we need to stabilize energy supplies at
    stable prices which include safe and commercially viable alternatives
    to crude-oil based fuels.
        While we are here today to discuss this second goal, I am
    attaching, for the record, the testimony of James May, CEO of the Air
    Transport Association, who just last week testified before the House
    Aviation Subcommittee on the near-term achievable goals for NextGen,
    which is the modernized ATC system. For the record, we would like to
    thank this subcommittee and the Full Science and Technology Committee
    for their steady record of cooperation with the House Transportation
    and Infrastructure Committee in focusing on the development and funding
    of NextGen as discussed in last session's FAA Reauthorization Bill as
    well as H.R. 915, this year's FAA Reauthorization bill. We appreciate
    the fact that you all understand the role that NextGen can play in
    reducing GHG.

    THE CO BIOFUELS TEST: RESULTS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD

        As regard to alternative fuels, because of our commitment to the
    environment and our leadership in this arena, we decided over a year
    ago to partner with The Boeing Company and GE Aviation/CFM
    International to conduct a biofuels flight demonstration to help
    identify sustainable biofuel solutions for the aviation industry.
    Together, we wanted to help continue the evolution toward fuel sources
    that absorb carbon before the fuel source is consumed, offsetting
    carbon that is emitted when the fuel is burned.
        As a result, Continental performed the first sustainable biofuel
    flight demonstration in North America on January 7th, 2009, using a
    two-engine Boeing 737-800 aircraft. That demonstration flight
    represented many industry firsts:

              The first commercial carrier biofuel flight in NORTH
            AMERICA

              The first commercial carrier biofuel flight using
            biofuel derived from ALGAE

              The first commercial carrier biofuel flight using a
            TWO-ENGINE AIRCRAFT

        We worked closely with our partners at Boeing, GE Aviation/CFM
    International, Honeywell's UOP, and fuel providers Sapphire Energy and
    Terasol Energy to make the flight demonstration a success.
    Continental's primary role in the demonstration was to show that the
    biofuel blend would perform just like traditional jet fuel in our
    existing aircraft without modification of the engines or the aircraft.
    We call a fuel like this a ``drop-in'' fuel. This is important because,
    as I mentioned, the current engine and airframe technology is unlikely
    to change materially for many years, so it is crucial that alternative
    fuel be safe for use with the current aircraft technology.
        Although the flight demonstration was one small step of many toward
    the development of alternative energy solutions, we were able to help
    gather important data that is needed for the fuel certification process
    before the biofuel can be used by the airline industry.
        The algae and jatropha biofuel blend used in our demonstration
    flight is considered a second-generation fuel and represents a
    significant advancement over first-generation fuels like ethanol.
    Second generation feedstocks like algae and jatropha produce more
    energy per hectare than traditional, first-generation biofuels and, as
    a result will be more stable and commercially viable. Moreover, they do
    not compete with foodstocks, as for example corn-based ethanol does.
        To this end, Continental was pleased that the fuel property and
    performance tests showed that the biofuel blend we tested acted just
    like traditional jet fuel. The multitude of tests performed by Boeing,
    CFM, UOP, the Air Force Research Lab, as well as other third party labs
    on the biofuel prior to our flight, all show that the biofuel we used
    performs just like traditional jet fuel, with no difference in engine
    or system performance. Continental is working with Boeing and all of
    its other flight test partners to compile the results of the testing
    performed on the various biofuels used in other carriers' flight
    demonstrations. The results will be shared with the industry and used
    to help certify alternative fuel for use by the aviation industry.
        After we performed our biofuel demonstration flight, we analyzed
    the digital flight data recorder and other data from the flight to
    measure the engine performance. We found that the engine and aircraft
    successfully performed just as they would have using traditional jet
    fuel, so the test aircraft was returned to revenue service the next
    day. We do not anticipate any long-term negative impact on aircraft
    from biofuel use as long as it meets the American Society for Testing
    and Materials (ASTM) fuel certification standard and ``drop-in'' fuel
    criteria. Preliminary tests do show that the biofuels exhibit less
    smoke, so there may be some benefits that will require closer study,
    but we are not aware of a need to perform any additional
    demonstrations.
        While we were pleased with the test results we have obtained to
    date, we would like to see additional long-term materials compatibility
    testing for system components like o-rings and seals by the
    manufacturers and the wide dissemination of these results. The U.S.
    organization that certifies jet fuel specifications for use in
    commercial aircraft is the American Society for Testing and Materials
    (ASTM) International. They will engage in an extensive data review
    process before approving new fuel specifications and will decide
    whether any additional demonstrations are necessary.
        While the test itself was highly successful, significant challenges
    must still be overcome to meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels
    in aviation.

              A fuel specific standard must be developed which
            meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
            safety.

              We will also need to develop a U.S. regulatory
            requirement mandating the level of quality throughout the
            supply chain; starting at the refinery all the way through to
            the airport.

              Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
            approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
            that have already been developed and tested.

              Increased funding will be needed for ongoing U.S.
            military efforts to develop alternative fuels for military jet
            fleets that will transition to commercial fleets.

              Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
            for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
            plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
            infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
            research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
            use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
            development plans to proceed.

              In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
            energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
            alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
            volumes that they are available at an economically viable
            price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
            alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
            continuing our work toward that goal is important now.

        With the help of the government and continued coordination of the
    industry, manufacturers and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as
    an alternative fuel is certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-
    in'' fuel requirement and is available at an economically competitive
    price as compared to traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have
    the confidence to start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the
    next five to ten years. As the supplies increase in a commercially
    viable way, we will be able to increase the blend percentage over the
    years. Continuing this process is a priority, even though there has
    been a downturn in fuel prices. Fuel efficiency remains an important
    concern for us and for our nation, and further reducing carbon
    emissions and increasing fuel efficiency remains our goal.

    CONCLUSION

        One final message for today--as an airline which has invested
    billions and taken a leadership role in the efforts to increase fuel
    efficiency, we do want to raise our concerns over certain global
    climate change proposals which could act to disincentivize companies
    like Continental who have been proactive in their efforts to reduce
    their carbon footprint without government mandates.
        Any government action that has the effect of capping a company at
    its existing carbon footprint and then ``rewarding'' any improvement
    from that cap punishes companies like Continental, who have been doing
    the right thing for years by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
        Biofuels represents an important option for the airline industry to
    reduce their already small greenhouse gas footprint. And we know that
    this committee is well aware of the potential for the use of
    alternative fuels in the airline industry. We would be remiss if we did
    not mention that more focus on the potential, the development and the
    use of alternative fuels is far more productive than to consider the
    imposition of some kind of cap and trade policy on the airlines.
        If it is our goal to encourage investments in infrastructure and
    innovations which improve the environment, leaders must be careful to
    support and nurture the efforts of companies like Continental who are
    leaders in those efforts.
        We are confident that the measures that Continental, Boeing, and so
    many others are undertaking and supporting will continue to limit and
    even reduce aviation's emissions footprint. Commercial airlines can and
    will remain a very small source of greenhouse gas emissions while
    continuing to provide our communities, our states and our countries
    with a way to move people and goods around the globe. Job growth and
    the global marketplace are critically dependent upon a viable air
    transportation system and it is clear to us that more air
    transportation capacity will be necessary, not less.
        Again, my thanks to the Science and Technology Committee for
    holding today's hearing and inviting our participation. We appreciate
    your leadership in these matters and look forward to working with you
    to integrate sustainable alternative fuels into the aviation industry
    in the future.

                        Biography for Holden E. Shannon
        Holden E. Shannon is Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
    and Security, a position he has held since August 2004. In this role,
    he is responsible for developing the airlines' facilities worldwide,
    including its hubs in Houston, Newark and Cleveland and its
    headquarters in downtown Houston. Shannon also is responsible for the
    airline's corporate security and environmental affairs groups. Prior to
    this position, he was Vice President of Corporate Real Estate and
    Environmental Affairs for Continental from August 1997 to August 2004.
        Shannon joined Continental in January 1995 as Staff Vice President
    of Properties and Facilities, responsible for overseeing system-wide
    airport and property development.
        Prior to joining the company, Shannon held positions of increasing
    responsibility at Northwest Airlines, including Director of Corporate
    Real Estate and Manager of Finance. He also held positions in finance
    with American Airlines and The First Boston Corporation.
        Shannon received his Master of Business Administration from Harvard
    University. He also graduated from Rice University, cum laude with a
    Bachelor's degree in managerial studies. He serves on the Founding
    Board of Directors of The Rice Building Institute and on the board of
    Houston's Lawndale Art Center. Shannon lives in Houston with his wife
    and two children.

                                   Discussion

           Quantifying Priority Levels for Biofuels in the Aviation
                                    Industry

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you so much. At this point, we
    are going to begin our first round of questions, and the Chair
    will begin with herself.
        Again, I want to thank all of you for being here and for
    the Members in attendance. I think you have made a compelling
    case of the importance of the use of aviation biofuels. Those
    of us who fly every week, we pay attention and those that don't
    fly every week but fly occasionally, we realize that getting
    this right in the future really has a significant impact to all
    of us, not just those of us in Congress or those of us who pay
    attention to these issues.
        But I guess I would really like to drill down a little bit
    harder in terms of how high a priority it is for your specific
    organizations. For example, Mr. Shannon, you said specifically
    that continuing with the investment of biofuels is a priority.
    But exactly when does Continental project that it is going to
    start using biofuels in its revenue operations? And if you
    could go into a little bit more detail in what type of biofuels
    you really imagine using.
        In terms of your competitors, can you talk about the sense
    of how biofuels fit into their plans as well. And so for Mr.
    Glover and Dr. Epstein, how important are biofuels to Boeing
    and Pratt & Whitney's plans, and what investments are your
    companies making to actually be able to deploy the technology
    so that we can, you know, in our generation, in our lifetime,
    really see this as a mainstream form of fuel. And Dr. Maurice,
    I know that the FAA is obviously participating in CAAFI, and I
    liked your graphic and slide. You didn't completely go into it,
    but it was impressive to see the diverse group of organizations
    involved. But in terms of specifically what is FAA doing to
    hasten the adoption of whatever biofuels to really make the
    most sense for the aviation industry? I mean, you talked about
    the importance of fuel certification. What specific plans and
    resource commitments has the FAA made to certify not just the
    drop-in fuels but also the full range of renewable biofuels
    that could meet the aviation sector needs?
        Also, how long are we talking about? And again, how high a
    priority is it on a list of everything that is on the FAA's
    plate?
        Finally, Dr. Shin, your testimony discusses the long-term
    R&D needs to address some of the important unknown-related
    biofuels. But in terms of the relation to NASA's aeronautics
    priorities, can you talk about that in terms of the other
    issues that are facing you and your organization? Why don't we
    start with Mr. Shannon.
        Mr. Shannon. Thank you. Thanks for the promotion, too. I
    think self-interest is the key to your question. In other
    words, if biofuels become an economical force, then I think we
    would embrace them. We feel very good about the preliminary
    data from our biofuel test. As someone pointed out, the more
    biofuel tests there are, the less scary the concept for the
    public. What is beautiful about this technology is that it has
    enough horsepower, unlike ethanol. It absolutely does not
    compete with land that would otherwise be used for crops. You
    can't eat algae. There is no competition in terms of other
    demands on the product, and I think as soon as it becomes less
    than two to three times as expensive as petroleum, I don't
    think there is going to be an issue because we can add it
    incrementally with traditional fuels, and we don't have to
    change our significant 30-, 40-year investment in engines and
    aircrafts. So I think it can be very soon, possibly as early as
    five to ten years.
        Mr. Glover. Thank you. About five years ago, we were
    complete skeptics. We said there is not enough energy content.
    We were familiar with ethanol and biodiesel and so on, and you
    can't produce enough of this and we would have to modify
    engines, the delivery systems. We were starting to see some
    changes and things that caught our attention. And when we were
    looking at the environmental strategy for the whole industry
    and said, well, we can keep producing more efficient aircraft,
    we can help improve the operations, the daily operations, but
    what else can we do? And we really took a critical look at the
    fuels. We helped get started the CAAFI organization to bring
    more attention to this and find out what can work, and we
    became complete converts.
        So we invested our intellectual capital and our convening
    power to work with airlines and engine companies and the FAA
    and others to bring this together, get the facts on the table
    and figure out the viability. We think we are largely through
    the first round of viability, and now we are helping airlines
    and fuel producers and agricultural interests, try to put
    together deals that could end up in a commercially offerable
    product. And we really see the need to accelerate that, and we
    are looking for assistance from the U.S. Government to find
    ways to help get over those initial capitalization humps, loan
    guarantees, and other forms of appropriate encouragement to
    enable commercialization.
        We think there are a few things that are ready now and
    things that need some more R&D that will come later.
        Dr. Epstein. Pratt & Whitney is committed to
    environmentally responsible propulsion which is our business,
    and I am speaking as a propulsion guy. Innovation has been the
    underpinning really of U.S. productivity in the last few
    decades, and this is an area, as Mr. Glover said, where just a
    few years ago, what is fuel? You know, it is what we pour in
    the tanks, what we get out of the tank truck, it has always
    been the same. And then we have learned with the DOD energy
    independence effort to certify new fuels how to do it. We
    worked with the FAA, NASA, and DOD researchers making our
    engines and test facilities available so they could come and
    make measurements. And now innovations as--we have done two
    things. We have reduced the amount of fuel we need to certify
    down to 250,000 gallons. Now that seems like a lot except a 747
    takes about 50,000 gallons to fill up. So it is not all that
    much, especially compared to the past where we need millions of
    gallons.
        The other is, we are getting very enthusiastic because
    these are really engineered fuels, and American ingenuity and
    engineering say they are better fuels. And if you can tell me
    that my engine will have those fuels in the future, I can make
    a better commercial and better military engine, one that will
    be lighter, burn less fuel. So we are very enthusiastic about
    it. Nevertheless, Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies
    doesn't intend to be in the fuel business, but we are
    responsive to our customers, Boeing and the airlines, and we
    are enthusiastic about it.
        Dr. Maurice. Thank you for your question, Madam Chair.
    Renewable fuels are very important to the FAA. Environmental
    stewardship is at the heart of NextGen. We view renewable jet
    fuels as the game changer that can really significantly reduce
    CO2 emissions.
        As far as what we are doing to hasten the adoption, there
    are really two areas that we have the role on. First and
    foremost is certification and qualification because you could
    have the best equipment, the producers could be producing the
    fuels, but they will produce fuels for those people that can
    use them. So specifically, we have assigned my colleague, Mark
    Robinson, to lead the efforts to work with ASTM International,
    and he also leads CAAFI's efforts in this area. So we have
    assigned the necessary staff to steward the efforts and make
    sure that they are carried out well.
        As far as timing is concerned, as I noted, later on this
    year we hope to be able to have approval for a 50 percent
    generic alternative fuel by the F-T, Fisher-Tropsch process.
    That could be made from any number of feedstocks including
    biomass. So it would be a renewable fuel.
        Looking further into the future at the hydrotreated
    renewable jet which is the process that was used to make the
    fuels tested by my colleagues, we look to next year having the
    results in front of ASTM International to hopefully get that
    approved at the 50 percent plan and in looking to 2013 to
    having the 100 percent hydrotreated renewable jet fuel. So I
    would echo statements of my colleagues, about three to five
    years that we could see some significant use.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Dr. Maurice, is that effort fully
    funded at this point?
        Dr. Maurice. That effort with advent of the CLEEN program
    which funds is appropriated for, I believe it is fully funded.
    And then the second area which we can get the certification
    right but we have got to make sure that we know the life cycle
    of greenhouse gases so that we do the right thing. We are
    investing resources in working with the appropriate
    stakeholders to make sure that we can measure that right.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Okay. Thank you. I know I am running
    out of time, but I would like to hear from Dr. Shin, so please.
        Dr. Shin. I will try to be brief. As Madam Chair noted, the
    value that NASA Aeronautics brings to the Nation by conducting
    cutting-edge, long-term research, we believe that we will
    continue work with industry and academia in the whole community
    to bring these advanced technologies for vehicles and
    operations in certainly the safety area.
        So as biofuels is getting more economically viable and if
    it gets certification and becomes another source of aviation
    fuels, we will have to consider that in our future technology
    development. One of the highest priorities within NASA
    Aeronautics is to protect the environment from aviation and
    also make future vehicles more fuel efficient.
        So if and when biofuels again become commercially viable
    and also proves all the benefits, then we will consider this as
    part of the future technology development, not from the
    standpoint of production of biofuels but application of the
    biofuels.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. The Chair
    recognizes Mr. Olson.

                      Biofuels Carbon Emission Reductions

        Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and my first
    question is for Dr. Shin, Dr. Maurice and Dr. Epstein. You
    touched on this Dr. Epstein in your opening statement, but
    understanding that the research in biofuel emissions is still
    in its early stages, do you have a sense yet of the potential
    reduction in carbon emissions that could be achieved by using
    biofuels, and if so, what are the biggest unknowns out there?
        Dr. Epstein. I think it is important to understand that the
    carbon that comes out of the tailpipe of the jet engine is
    exactly the same no matter what the fuel is, whether it is
    petroleum-based or coal-based or bio-based. The carbon that we
    save is the front end, whether the carbon is geological, mined
    out of the ground, or whether it has been recently extracted by
    plant action. And so in agriculture, we use fuel for planting,
    for harvesting, for processing the fuel. As Mr. Glover said, we
    need careful documentation as to how much carbon fuel is used
    in these processes. But think. These are the same things that
    society is working on to improve as you go from big, diesel
    trucks to more efficient trucks, as you can think of even
    electric powered trucks and tractors. The entire carbon
    footprint goes down.
        So I can see now where for the few fuels that have been
    studied carefully, the numbers are 40 to 60 percent net carbon
    savings. In the longer-term, a decade or two, as society moves
    more toward carbon-free transportation, the jet fuel can come
    down to very close to zero. We are just recycling solar energy
    that we collect on our farms.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. Dr. Maurice.
        Dr. Maurice. Right. That is a very good question. Thank
    you. We have done a lot of work in looking at the life cycle,
    and I would say there is no single number. I think Dr.
    Epstein's 40 to 60 percent is probably right about in the
    middle, but I would hesitate to put a single number because it
    is still a very probability type of answer. And as far as what
    the largest uncertainty is land use. When we tried to allocate
    different numbers to different parts of the process, that is by
    far the biggest unknown. We are working hard to try to address
    that.
        I might also mention, don't forget the air quality
    emissions that we are looking at, and that is pretty
    straightforward because these alternative fuels are naturally
    lower sulfur so that intuitively leads to less particulates,
    and depending on the engine power setting, we have seen
    reductions from 10 to 70 to 80 percent, and that is very
    attractive. Thank you.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. And Dr.
    Shin.
        Dr. Shin. Yes, as Dr. Maurice just mentioned about the low
    sulfur emission and particulates, we have conducted partnering
    with Air Force and FAA and a few other partners on DC-8
    aircraft that we have at Dryden Research Center. We didn't fly
    the airplane but on the ground we simulated engine power
    setting like the airplane flying, and some of the only findings
    from the test results support what Dr. Epstein and Dr. Maurice
    indicated. The full test results will be analyzed, and we are
    planning to have a workshop in the fall so it will be very
    interesting to find out what kind of benefit we will gain out
    of this.
        But this is a well-controlled test, and it is one data
    point. So I think nonetheless, it is going to provide a lot of
    good information.

                        Cap-and-Trade Is the Wrong Route

        Mr. Olson. Thank you for that answer, Dr. Shin, and Mr.
    Shannon, one question for you. Given that Continental has been
    very proactive regarding fuel efficiency and environmental
    protections, what is your airline's position on how the
    industry and government should move forward regarding the
    environment? I mean, do you see it as a cap-and-trade type
    system as Europe is proposing or something else?
        Mr. Shannon. We really don't see it as a cap-and-trade
    solution, and the reason why is because we feel that there are
    lots of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases that are
    available to us today that we are not availing ourselves of,
    besides the hopefulness of alternative fuels. When you cap-and-
    trade, you are capping something that is commercially
    important. The airline industry generates a huge amount of GNP,
    and of course, it is something that all of us love. If you cap
    flights, you are going to see higher prices, you are going to
    see more limited travel.
        One of the things we would suggest is encouraging airlines
    that have old aircraft to think about replacing those engines,
    replacing those aircraft. There probably isn't a need to have
    40-year airplanes flying around. We have really clean airplanes
    available.
        The second thing is that we could do things like
    modernizing air traffic control. That alone again is 12 percent
    lower fuel burn. It is not a small number.
        And then finally, we do see that there are lots of
    opportunities to promote fuels like what we have seen in the
    last year successfully piloted. So we are here because of our
    hope that this technology will provide a solution that does not
    force you and the economy to choose between aviation, commerce
    and greenhouse gases and the environment.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Shannon. I yield back
    my time.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. The Chair
    recognizes Ms. Edwards.

           Incentives to Encourage Alternative Fuels in the Aviation
                                    Industry

        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
    the panelists this morning. I live in the 4th Congressional
    District in Maryland which is just outside of the District of
    Columbia, and I happen to live along the Potomac River and you
    know, get to experience the planes flying over all the way up
    the river, coming back again, and dumping fuel and particulates
    all along our baseball fields, soccer fields, elementary
    schools. And so this is a really important issue for us in my
    Congressional district and our community and I think largely
    for the environment--you know, Mr. Shannon, I almost left and
    then I heard the end of your testimony and decided to stay
    because you said in your testimony, you talked about cap-and-
    trade not being a way to go for the industry. There are
    alternatives, and I want to follow along the lines of Mr.
    Olson's questioning because I wonder, you are suggesting that
    there are sort of voluntary things that the industry could do
    that would move us along the way toward fuel efficiency and
    using alternative fuels, and yet we are not very far from peak
    carbon emissions around the world in what, 2015. And so I am
    wondering, you know, from a policy making perspective, what
    kinds of incentives can we encourage for the industry because
    if it is not something that says, you know, you got to get
    there and make the investment, I think that we are going to get
    to 2015 and we are not going to be frankly that much farther
    along than we are now. And so it is a little frustrating that
    although your airline may be doing the right things, we can't
    just depend on volunteerism alone to get us to lower our carbon
    emissions.
        Mr. Shannon. It seems like a really intelligent question,
    but I don't want to give you a glib answer. Continental really
    has made it sort of part of our value system to have a clean
    airline, but I am telling you, I personally feel that self-
    interest is a huge motivator. And we didn't start off in the
    early '90s saying we want to be green. Our awareness was raised
    along with the population's awareness. We were motivated to
    reduce fuel consumption, pure and simple. That turned into a
    green philosophy, and we have embraced it. In lots of ways, it
    may not be economical in the short-term. I think helping us as
    an industry create affordable alternatives to petroleum is
    extremely important to traditional fossil fuels. That
    singularly will help us. We had a wake-up call this last year.
    I mean, we really did. We realized that cheap oil, traditional
    oil, will not last forever. That is a huge motivator. And that
    day, we don't know when that day will change again. Today fuel
    is relatively more affordable. That is a short-term thing, and
    we are very motivated to get out of this pinch.
        So I personally feel encouraging us as an industry to set
    fuel efficiency standards, again, we have done a lot as an
    industry, not just as an airline, but also supporting this
    effort is one of those things.
        Ms. Edwards. Do any of our other panelists have a comment?
        Dr. Epstein. One thing that is important is the airline
    industry is extremely capital-intensive. New airplanes cost
    $100 million or more, and a concern of the industry is that
    regulations, taxes, carbon trading end up removing money from
    the aviation system that the airlines need to upgrade their
    equipment. So how do you reduce the emissions in the short run?
    The answer is, just as Continental has said, you replace your
    existing older aircraft, and aircraft work for 30, 40, 50
    years. With new airplanes, you need new capital to do that. So
    Congress has to consider how do you capture any revenue that
    comes out of regulatory actions in a way that feeds back into
    the aviation system. Funding air traffic control upgrades, tax
    credits, investment tax credits for equipment, funding for NASA
    for advanced research, it really is a system that is starved
    for funding now. Of course, everybody in the United States is
    starved for funding now, but the point is, there shouldn't be
    extraction from the aviation system into other uses if we want
    to make progress in reducing our impact on local communities
    and the planet.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I would just
    say, I can appreciate the industry wanting to move forward
    without those kind of regulations. My real question is just how
    do we get there and for those who are not moving in a direction
    of a greener, more efficient airline, what do we do to
    incentivize and encourage that? Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Good
    discussion. Let me just remind the Committee Members and our
    panelists that this is a discussion today on biofuels and
    aviation. This is not a big discussion on cap-and-trade or
    issues that this subcommittee is not faced with. I mean, we
    have a unique opportunity to hear from five experts on what is
    happening in terms of biofuel development, and I just want to
    make sure we don't stray too far. We are going to have a lot of
    time to discuss other issues, but today if we could just focus
    on the hearing topic, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.

                Reducing Aviation Particulates to Curb Pollution

        Mr. Rohrabacher. You notice she said that right before I
    got up. First of all, let me commend the Chair. This has been a
    very valuable hearing, and I think you put together a good
    panel for us, and I have learned a lot. I would, however, on
    another issue which has been the undercurrent of all this
    testimony is that somehow carbon footprints are affecting our
    climate. Just for the record at the hearing, I have quotes from
    major prominent scientists from throughout the world suggesting
    that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change,
    especially global warming, considering that now it used to be
    global warming and because it is no longer warming, now they
    call it climate change. So anyway, for the record, I would like
    to put that in at this point.[See Appendix 2: Additional
    Material for the Record.]
        Let me say you do not have to be someone concerned about
    what I consider to be a bogus issue which is global warming,
    now climate change, to be very concerned about the health-
    related problems that come with the internal combustion engine
    and jet engines and also to be concerned about the fuel that
    would be available to our society to make sure that we can have
    a modern society and meet our needs.
        So with that, I am very concerned about what you have said,
    although I disagree with the carbon footprint talk. Let me ask
    this question. In terms of biofuels, you have made it clear
    about the carbon footprint. What about pollutants such as NOX?
    If we were going to with biofuels for jet airlines, would we
    then have more NOX and pollutants that hurt human health or
    would we have fewer of those pollutants entering the
    atmosphere? And particulates as well, right.
        Dr. Epstein. NASA researchers and DOD researchers spent a
    lot of time at Pratt & Whitney measuring the effects on
    engines. For current engines we expect no impact on NOX at all,
    that is, you get the same NOX out whether it is a biofuel or
    petroleum fuel. If the biofuel is more than 50 percent biofuel,
    then we expect a reduction--we don't expect, we have measured
    reductions, significant reductions, in regulated particulates
    coming out of the engines. So these are both local air quality
    improvements.
        In terms of advanced engines, if we knew we had biofuels,
    we could probably design them to reduce the NOX a little. The
    problem is that it is tough to do that and have the capability
    of pouring in any fuel that is available that is important for
    assuring the fuel supply for the country.
        I would also point out----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Biofuel specifically. Does biofuel reduce
    NOX?
        Dr. Epstein. Biofuel has no effect. It doesn't make it
    better, it doesn't make it worse.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Good. Is that what you found?
        Mr. Shannon. I am going to defer to more knowledgeable
    people on the panel. Our preliminary data suggests it might go
    down a little bit but not significantly.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me just note. I do come from
    Southern California. We have these airplanes coming in all the
    time. We are very concerned about the pollutants that are
    coming out of the airplanes, and I think that what you have
    suggested today in terms of the efficiency of the engines that
    we have heard about today and the amount of pollutants that
    your airline has been able to take out, you should be commended
    for that. I am sorry that our colleague has left who wanted to
    know maybe how to encourage people to invest in new engines
    that would bring down the pollution level. Maybe we should--and
    here is the question. Are the depreciation schedules for the
    purchase of new engines, what are the depreciation schedules
    that we have? If we changed that, I am not sure what it is.
    That is why I am asking essentially Pratt & Whitney and
    Continental. Are we now encouraged to buy new engines and to
    invest in these things that would be more efficient and cleaner
    or could we change that depreciation schedule to give us more
    of an incentive to do that?
        Mr. Shannon. From a corporate side, I think it has more to
    do with cash investment. Cash is king in this economy, and I
    don't think it would materially change our profile. We are just
    very motivated to get our long-term cost down, not just P&L
    costs but our real cash-out costs.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. How long does it take you to write down
    the new engine or a new plane?
        Mr. Shannon. You know, I would have to get back to you. I
    am thinking that somewhere in the 10-, 15-year timeframe
    because a lot of that will depend upon the obsolescence of the
    technology, whereas an airplane itself might have a longer life
    cycle.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I am just talking about the tax law now.
    Pratt & Whitney, how long is it going to take? If somebody is
    going to buy a new engine from you, how long--if we actually
    let them write it off the first day, you would have cleaner
    engines and companies may buy new engines.
        Dr. Epstein. A great idea but unfortunately, I am the tech
    guy, and to answer your question, we need the money men.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Dr. Epstein. I am the wrong person.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, let me just note that
    depreciation schedules, tax policy, does impact on these
    decisions, and if we can change the tax law through
    depreciation schedules in a way to get people to buy newer jets
    quicker, it is much better, much more effective as we have
    heard from Mr. Shannon than to have some other regulatory
    pressure being put on them. That is the profit incentive you
    were talking about. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would
    like to welcome Mr. Bilbray to our subcommittee. Also, let me
    remind folks, we are going to have votes coming up pretty soon.
    Mr. Bilbray.

                         Reducing Real Carbon Emissions

        Mr. Bilbray. Madam Chair, I appreciate you having this
    hearing as being a sort of a hotbed of biofuel research. San
    Diego County, we are on top of a lot of stuff. I have to
    apologize to you, Madam Chair, though. As we talk about mobile
    sources, this is a very small portion of mobile sources. We
    need to remember where we are in the global atmosphere of
    stuff, that mobile sources, including aircraft, heavy trucks,
    and everything else, constitute 28 percent of total emissions
    in this country, 28 percent, while electric generation
    constitutes 35 percent. And of that electric generation, 22
    percent of electric generation is zero-emission generation, has
    no impact on the climate. So when we talk about these things,
    we got to remember, we are looking at research to reduce 28
    percent of the emissions, and with technology, we may be able
    to do that, when today as we sit here we have the technology to
    reduce 100 percent of that 35 percent of stationary sources for
    the generation of electricity. And I want to say that because
    as we sit in this room, the Federal Government is still buying
    dirty coal to generate electricity for this facility, and I
    hope we can work together to avoid that. So I want to say to
    those of you who are in aviation, we have a lot in Washington
    to do to set an example for you, rather than just mandate, set
    an example.
        Let me just throw one thing out. Somebody brought up
    ethanol. What would happen to you if we mandated 10 percent of
    your fuel has to be ethanol, like we have done to the auto
    industry?
        Mr. Glover. Ethanol would not work on any of the current
    airplanes without very significant modifications. It would not
    fit into the fuel distribution system, and you couldn't fly as
    far on the same amount of fuel.
        Mr. Bilbray. Because it doesn't constitute the BTUs per
    gallon that you have with the other.
        Mr. Glover. It doesn't have the energy----
        Mr. Bilbray. We always say about a gallon-and-a-half of
    ethanol to match a gallon of traditional gasoline, let alone
    the fuel you are having.
        Mr. Glover. It is the energy content as well as the
    compatibility. It is incompatible with some of the materials.

                          Subsizing Algae as a Biofuel

        Mr. Bilbray. And I appreciate that. It is incompatible with
    a lot of automobile operations, too. That is why we can't ship
    it through our pipelines, we can't use it for refinery, that is
    why California has determined that it has no environmental
    benefit, ARB. We are kind of experts in this.
        I bring that out because we got to go back to what we are
    doing with a lot of this. In fact, when we talk about
    emissions, Madam Chair, because ethanol, it takes a gallon and
    a half to match gasoline, the emissions are per gallon, not per
    BTU. And that dirty little secret is that we are mandating a
    use of a product that claims to be environmentally friendly,
    but in fact, because of its lack of power actually is a hidden
    pollutant problem. I know it is not popular here to bring up,
    but I want to bring this up. On the positive side of it,
    though--let me say the negative, too, we give ethanol a tax
    subsidy but we don't give algae fuel a tax subsidy. Does that
    sound logical to you guys? Go ahead.
        Mr. Glover. I think we need to--I appreciate if there were
    supportive policy in place for this different kind of fuel we
    are talking about here. It is not ethanol, it is this
    hydrotreated renewable jet. It is a different set of molecules.
    It has the higher energy content, it has the compatibility.
    Algae is one of the sources we are working on, very promising.
    We have a little more work to do, but there are some other
    things that are ready now, and with some supportive policy in
    place, I think we can make it affordable, make it available to
    Mr. Shannon.
        Mr. Bilbray. All right. Now, let me clarify. I totally
    understand why Members of Congress from corn-growing states
    have pushed this. I totally understand that. What I don't
    understand is why the rest of us who care about the big picture
    and the environment haven't pushed back to balance it out.
        I would have to ask Dr. Maurice is it, in your position
    with the FAA, have you met with representatives of the Defense
    Department regarding an initiative to test and certify
    synthetic fuels including biomass jet fuels?
        Dr. Maurice. Thank you for that question. Absolutely,
    within the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative,
    one of our collaborators is the Department of Defense, and we
    share data and collaborate on tests. I might also add that I
    started my career at the Air Force research lab and the fields
    lab so I also have personal relationships with those folks. So
    we are working very closely together.
        Mr. Bilbray. And does the other services besides the Air
    Force, are they working with things like algae or biomass
    fuels?
        Dr. Maurice. The others, we do work with some of the other
    services, but the Air Force is by far the biggest user. So they
    seem to be putting forth the most effort.
        Mr. Bilbray. I appreciate it. Madam Chair, I appreciate the
    chance. I think when we talk about these technologies, I just
    want to let you know that the bad news on this is the fact that
    industry is looking for places it can build the facility and
    get licensed, and the sad thing about it is where you have got
    San Diego County where we have all this research, this
    breakthrough, sadly they have got to go to New Mexico because
    in California, the government will not permit the construction
    of the facilities to make the fuel within the decade. And we
    really need to put pressure on our colleagues in government to
    help this move along.
        So I yield back and I appreciate the chance.

                 Executive Branch Coordination of Biofuels R&D

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. You are
    welcome to our subcommittee any time. Come back. We still have
    some time, so I would really like to kind of drill down again,
    and I would like to use the analogy of building a house. If you
    are the main contractor, you have got to figure out whether or
    not your electrician is moving in the right direction, you have
    got your plumber, of course, you have got the carpenters, you
    have got a schedule to meet. So in a way, you have got to make
    sure that everything is aligned. So just starting with Dr.
    Maurice, how does CAAFI determine whether alternative R&D
    initiatives by government entities and the private sector are
    properly lining up? And given that CAAFI has no budgetary or
    management authority, how is it that you are going to ensure
    that the various initiatives get aligned if they aren't?
        And for Dr. Maurice and Dr. Shin, who exactly in the
    executive branch do FAA, NASA DOD, DARPA, and DOE report to
    each as an agency to determine what efforts are under way right
    now or are being undertaken in the area of aviation biofuels?
    And is there an individual organization that has the
    responsibility for the Nation's aviation biofuels activities at
    this point? And if so, who? And if not, are there any plans to
    create such a leadership position?
        Dr. Maurice. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start with the
    question on the building a house analogy which is actually a
    very good analogy for CAAFI because that is the approach that
    we have taken in looking at all of the various elements. As far
    as how CAAFI goes about ensuring that we are all moving in the
    right direction, there are two tools that we use. One is the
    set of roadmaps in each of the areas to make sure that we can
    figure out where we want to be and what all the activities need
    to be to get there. The second tool that we just recently
    developed in January is this fuel readiness level scale which
    was really patterned after the technology readiness level to
    really assess where various alternative fuels including biojet
    renewable fuels are within the scale so that we can figure out
    what it is that we need to do to move them forward.
        You are absolutely right about CAAFI not having the mandate
    and budgetary authority, but I would go back to what Mr.
    Shannon said, the term self-interest, and I think all of us
    within CAAFI are very, very motivated to make this happen. And
    it is within our self-interest to make sure that things move
    forward. For example, in the certification area, we need data,
    and our colleagues, Mr. Glover and Mr. Shannon, as they have
    moved forward planning their flight tests, have collaborated
    with us so we can define what is it that you really need so we
    can collect that data. So I believe we are following your
    analogy of building the house and making sure we have all of
    the subcontractors moving in the right direction.
        As far as your second question of coordination, in his
    testimony, Dr. Shin referred to the National Aeronautics R&D
    plan related to infrastructure. Within that plan, there is an
    energy and environment section which I happen to be one of the
    co-chairs for. And that again is led by OSTP, by the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, and we have used that mechanism
    to look at the efforts at the broad level. As far as is there
    one particular entity that has charge of everything, I am not
    aware of such a thing.
        Dr. Shin. I think as important topic as this biofuel is for
    the implication or potential for the aviation sector, I would
    like to use another metaphor or analogy that we have been
    working within government for bringing this revolutionary air
    transportation system. Some of the witnesses even noted that
    Next Generation air transportation system effort. I use that as
    somewhat of an analogy for the magnitude and scope of this kind
    of emerging technology in involving not only government and
    private sector and also academia to create innovative research.
    I think we can use the committee that Dr. Maurice just
    mentioned under OSTP as a venue to facilitate that kind of
    government-wide coordination and collaboration. And that
    subcommittee has been in place for a good three years, and it
    has produced a first-ever aeronautics R&D policy and also a
    subsequent plan. In that plan, as Dr. Maurice noted, there is a
    whole section devoted to energy and environment. So I think
    that is a starting point, could be a starting point, to provide
    better government coordination.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. Mr. Olson.

            Possible Unintended Consequences of Biofuels Production

        Mr. Olson. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman, and I will be
    brief as we hear the bells ringing. Just one more question for
    you, Dr. Maurice. I know you are popular today, but I know the
    FAA and the EPA are working to accurately measure the emissions
    data associated with the biofuels production use. And I am just
    curious if you have seen any downsides, start to see any
    downsides, some unanticipated results of the research that they
    might emit a greater form of one pollutant or an altogether new
    type of pollutant compared to conventional jet fuels?
        Dr. Maurice. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for that question. We
    certainly are looking at all potential contingencies. As far as
    the tailpipe emissions, we really do not see anything because
    the fuels are drop-in, other than that change in particulate
    matter. As far as life cycle emissions, pretty quickly we
    determined that any competition with food sources or anything
    that might lead to perhaps using rainforest land and such is
    not a path that we would pursue, and very quickly CAAFI
    together and all of us individually came up with this concept
    that we would go after inedible materials and materials that
    would not compete with food sources or encourage that sort of
    land use.
        So that has been the preliminary work, and we are
    continuing to look at all possibilities. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. Anybody
    else like to comment on the question? Mr. Glover.
        Mr. Glover. I would actually like to comment on something
    that hasn't come up, if you will indulge me.
        Mr. Olson. Fire away.
        Mr. Glover. This is a new industry. This is jobs. This is
    not only technology and environment but it is also jobs. It is
    an opportunity that I hope you recognize and can help us go
    down the path. We are trying to do our best, and we would sure
    like to work with everyone to get it done.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. I yield
    back my time, Madam Chairwoman.

             Where Is the U.S. in Comparison to Europe on Biofuels?

        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. Following up on
    what Mr. Glover said, I agree it is jobs but it is also an
    ability for us to inspire that next generation. We spend a lot
    of time talking about space in this subcommittee and in this
    room, and kids are much more in tune with what is happening
    with the environment, what is happening with the planet. They
    want to do things in a new and innovative way. And so I think
    in terms of some of the work that we do to try to get more kids
    active in STEM education areas, this is a really key way.
        I just would like to close with one question which is a
    broad, international question. I know that the European
    community recently awarded a contract to ONERA which is a
    French aerospace research office to look at all aspects of
    alternative fuels for aviation. I also know that there is a
    plan by 2012 to be perhaps taxing our airlines as they fly into
    Europe, and I know that what we would do in the United States
    is one thing. Obviously, those that would have international
    businesses have another area that they have to focus on. So I
    am just curious if our witnesses would like to talk about the
    scope and comprehensiveness of the European community's
    research plan and particularly in relation to ours.
        Dr. Epstein. For the first 80 years or so of aviation,
    there was a partnership between government and industry,
    investing in research where the government and industry shared
    research investments and then industry took to investing in
    exciting new aerospace products.
        To a large degree, that has eroded in this country over the
    last decade or 15 years, and our products are so long that
    although we have a brand-new engine that we are just
    introducing, it is really the fruits of a NASA investment in
    the early '80s and early '90s. What I see now is that the
    preponderance of aerospace investment is moving from the United
    States to Europe. And so now aerospace is the largest
    manufactured export of the United States. It may not be in the
    future. We need the investment, we need the excitement to bring
    young people. I see as you pointed out inspiring young people--
    I find it is very inspiring for our older people. It has been
    astonishing how people come up to me and say, you know, I am
    really glad to see the company is doing things to make the
    planet better and to help do the green. I think the Nation has
    to consider its balance of investments in terms of research and
    technology, and aerospace frankly has been languishing and we
    may have a problem going forward in the future.
        The one other thing I would add is for emissions and
    climate, the world and the industry has been very well-served
    by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which
    sets standards for noise and for emissions. The FAA is the
    representative of the United States. For manufacturers, it
    tells us what is coming, it lets us plan our products, lets us
    invest in research so we can meet upcoming requirements. I
    think it is very important that we not let other countries
    impose standards but work together with these international
    bodies in a consortium to understand where we are going and
    continue to allow us to do this long-term planning. Thank you.
        Dr. Maurice. Thank you. If I could just specifically talk
    about where we are at with respect to Europe on the subject
    today, biofuels, I think that is an area that we had, and that
    particular consortium that you noted actually came to us to
    learn from how we had formed CAAFI. So I think that that is an
    area in which we do have leadership, and I fully agree with you
    on the inspiration as 25 years ago I came to work in this
    industry to work on alternative fuels for aviation and
    hopefully will get it right this time. Thank you so much.
        Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Before bringing this
    hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for being
    here today. I want to thank our Members and for Mr. Olson. I
    think it was a good discussion. The record will remain open for
    two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for
    answers to any of the follow-up questions that Subcommittee
    Members may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses are excused,
    and this hearing is now adjourned. Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                  Appendix 1:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
            Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
            Administration (NASA)

    Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

    Q1.  I understand that NASA primarily focuses on mid- to long-tern
    research in aeronautics. If biofuels can be ready for use in a few
    years, is there any role for NASA in this area? If so, what is it? How
    would you go about developing an appropriate R&D plan to address the
    issues you have highlighted in your testimony?

         If a usable quantity of biofuels becomes available for aviation
    use in a few years, for a near-term, NASA could participate in
    community's effort in assessing the safety and performance of their use
    in aircraft.

    A1. The process used to develop an appropriate research and development
    (R&D) plan would be similar to the process currently in place to
    develop existing R&D plans. In brief, NASA begins by working with
    parties concerned with the technology being considered and our partners
    from other government agencies, industry and academia to define
    objectives, understand the key issues and challenges, develop estimates
    of the time and resources needed to address those challenges, identify
    the appropriate roles for NASA and its partners that make the best use
    of the capabilities possessed by each organization, and determine the
    expected outcome based on the resources and talents that will be
    employed. NASA has participated in Commercial Aviation Alternative
    Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) roadmapping exercises for fuel property
    testing and component and engine testing to begin this process for
    biofuels, and we will continue that involvement.

    Q2.  In assessing federal efforts with regards to achieving the goal of
    enabling new aviation fuels to ensure a secure and stable supply, the
    Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D says:

             ``DOD efforts to develop new alternative aviation fuels are
            making progress, but civil efforts, though making some
            progress, are not adequate to meet both the near- and the
            combined mid- and far-term objectives in a timely manner
            without either reconsidering the objectives or the current
            allocation of resources.''

         What more should the Federal Government be doing in this area?

    A2. The chief impediments to large-scale production are economic and
    environmental, and these barriers are being addressed by the
    Departments of Defense (DOD) (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
    Energy (DOE) as well as private energy sector R&D. NASA has supported
    this activity with laboratory studies of Fisher-Tropsch (F-T) chemistry
    to improve jet fuel yield.

    Q3.  Has NASA's research on engine exhaust emissions using alternative
    fuels given you sufficient confidence that these fuels will enable
    significant reductions of harmful emissions such as sulfur and
    particulates? What additional research, if any, do you think is needed?

    A3. NASA evaluations of alternative fuel emissions so far have been
    limited to F-T fuels produced from natural gas or coal. NASA has found
    that pure F-T fuels and F-T fuel blends (F-T blended with conventional
    JP-8 fuel) emit less sulfur oxides and significantly less particulates
    than conventional fuels because the F-T fuels contained no sulfur or
    aromatics (though sulfur and aromatics are present when pure F-T fuels
    are blended with conventional JP-8), and the hydrogen content was
    higher than conventional jet fuel. Nitrous oxides (NOX) and CO2
    emissions were very similar to conventional jet fuel, as expected. Some
    preliminary tests by DOD and FAA do show that biofuels have similar
    emissions characteristics as F-T fuels.
        Fundamental combustion research for these alternative fuels would
    help improve our basic understanding of the physical phenomena involved
    including fuel atomization, vaporization, and combustion chemistry.
    This could help enable development of combustion systems with reduced
    emissions that will use these fuels in the future. Additional research
    also could be conducted to ensure durability and reliability of engines
    when operated on drop-in alternative fuels and blends.

    Q4.  The Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics
    Research and Development and Related Infrastructure released last
    December identified two areas of increasing importance and high
    uncertainty relating to air quality. The first area is fine particulate
    matter, and the second is the potential for aviation to emit hazardous
    air pollutants. The document says that there are currently no
    standardized test procedures for particulate matter from aircraft
    engines. Why are these two areas so problematic and will NASA be
    involved in establishing standardized test procedures?

    A4. The combustion process produces solid and volatile aerosol
    particulates which are emitted into the atmosphere through the engine
    exhaust. These particles are quite numerous and extremely small, with
    an average size of less than 100 nanometers. Sampling and measuring
    these is extremely difficult because effects of the sampling probe,
    sampling lines, operating conditions, different measurement
    instruments, etc., can have dramatic effects on the results. The SAE-E-
    31 Aircraft Exhaust Emissions Measurement Committee is in the process
    of developing measurement standards for particulates which is very
    difficult due to these issues. They have published a document on
    measurement techniques for measuring non-volatile exhaust particulates.
    NASA (along with DOD, FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    is an active member of this subcommittee and currently performing
    research to address some of these issues.

    Q5.  As you know, the Air Force has set a goal of certifying all its
    aircraft to run on synthetic fuel by 2010, and having those flying
    domestically do so on 50 percent synthetic fuels by 2016. What has NASA
    learned from its collaboration with the Air Force on alternative fuel
    research? Is there an opportunity for the Air Force to benefit from
    civil aviation research into biofuels?

    A5. NASA has benefited from collaborating with the Air Force on
    alternative fuel research. NASA has purchased two Fischer-Tropsch fuels
    in conjunction with the Air Force for our research activities. NASA has
    also collaborated with the Air Force in exchanging fuel property data
    for a number of alternative fuels. The Air Force has provided data to
    NASA on their engine emissions measurements using alternative fuels.
    NASA and the Air Force recently collaborated on emissions testing using
    a Pratt and Whitney 308 engine with F-T fuel and the Aviation
    Alternative Fuel Emissions Experiment using a NASA DC-8 aircraft with
    two F-T fuels. NASA also has teamed with the Air Force for combustion
    flame tube testing at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) using
    alternative fuels.
        NASA's fundamental combustion research can directly benefit the Air
    Force. As an example, NASA work on alternative fuel reaction kinetics
    was recently provided to the Air Force. NASA's work on developing
    future low emissions combustion concepts with biofuels could directly
    benefit the Air Force because some of their aircraft will have
    commercial engines or derivatives of commercial engines. The Air Force
    can also benefit from NASA research on biofuels. They are working with
    NASA to identify algae producers to provide algae oil for their
    research.

    Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

    Biofuels Feedstock

    Q1.  What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
    feedstocks--jatropha, camelina, and algae discussed at the Subcommittee
    hearing, especially with regard to land use, water use, processing, and
    production rates?

    A1. Camelina has recently become of interest because it is cold
    tolerant, grows on marginal land, and can produce approximately 100
    gallons per acre of feedstock oil. It can also be used as food crop.
    Jatropha grows in tropical or semitropical climates on marginal lands
    and can produce approximately 200 gallons per acre of feedstock oil. It
    is not a food crop and some papers discuss issues with toxicity.
    Jatropha is a bushy plant or small tree and the fruit is harvested by
    hand. Algae can be grown in brackish water and has the potential to
    produce much higher yields of 5,000 gallons per acre or more in wane
    water but has many issues associated with growth and harvesting. This
    is an active area of current research and new developments could have
    an impact on these issues. Limited quantities of jet fuel have been
    made using Jatropha, camelina, and algae oil.

    Certification vs. Research

    Q2.  Dr. Maurice stated that some forms of biofuels may be certified
    ``as early as the end of 2010.'' Dr. Shin, you stated that NASA
    ``believes long-term, foundational research on understanding of fuel
    processing, combustor and engine performance, durability of engine
    components and emission characteristics will be required for
    application of second generation biofuels in aviation.'' Are these two
    statements in conflict with each other? How should they be reconciled?

    A2. Biojet fuel certification is a procedure to make sure fuel will
    meet stringent requirements for current engines, meaning no engine
    modification is required. The statements are not contradictory.
    Certification of biofuel blends (as stated by Dr. Maurice) by 2010 does
    not negate the need to perform long-term, foundational research on
    understanding of fuel processing, combustor and engine performance,
    durability of engine components and emission characteristics. It is
    unlikely that biofuels will be produced from a single feedstock source
    or processing technology, which may result in some variations in fuel
    properties. Changing fuel composition can have dramatic effects on fuel
    atomization, vaporization and combustion chemistry, which in turn will
    affect the emissions and performance of the combustion system.
    Fundamental combustion research is therefore required to fully
    understand the effects of additional evolving fuels on combustor
    performance and emissions. NASA is also performing research and working
    with engine companies and universities to develop fuel flexible
    combustors that reduce NOX, CO, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulate
    emissions for future aircraft engines that will be more fuel efficient
    than the current generation. This is not an easy task and will require
    the development of new combustor concepts in order to meet these goals.
    These future combustor concepts may be able to utilize some of the
    unique properties of these alternative fuels to reduce emissions beyond
    what can be achieved with current jet fuel.

    Hydroprocessed Fuels

    Q3.  How does hydroprocessing biofuels differ from Fischer-Tropsch,
    especially with regard to production efficiency, CO2, and
    technical maturity? Does one process have a distinct advantage over the
    other?

    A3. Hydroprocessing bio oils to produce jet fuel requires less energy
    than does the Fischer-Tropsch process with natural gas, coal or biomass
    as the feedstock because the composition of the bio oil feedstock is
    much closer to the final desired product. Life cycle CO2
    emissions produced for jet fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process are
    higher than conventional petroleum processing but can be reduced using
    carbon sequestration and including biomass as part of the feedstock,
    Life cycle CO2 emissions using hydroprocessing of bio oils
    are reduced compared to petroleum. This is an active area of research
    and results are very dependent on the assumptions used in the
    assessment, particularly land use considerations. Fischer-Tropsch
    processing to produce jet fuel from coal or natural gas has been
    demonstrated on a large scale and is currently used by Sasol and Shell.
    Hydroprocessing has been used by the chemical industry for a number of
    years but has not been demonstrated on a large scale to convert bio
    oils into jet fuel.

    Engine Performance

    Q4.  What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
    fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
    generation turbine engines?

    A4. To fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in
    current generation engines would require both engine and flight testing
    as a minimum. Complete testing of fuel specifications would be required
    and include separate testing of seal compatibility and fuel lubricity.
    If any issues are encountered, other component testing might be
    required such as combustor, fuel nozzle, fuel pump, or other
    components. Static engine testing on the ground would be required to
    evaluate emissions and performance issues associated with use of the
    biofuels. It would also provide an indication of any issues associated
    with the fuel system including seals or fuel pump wear issues. Assuming
    enough fuel was available, it could also provide an assessment of
    reliability and safety issues. Flight testing would probably also be
    required in order to assess aircraft system effects, transient
    operation, and altitude relight capability. The FAA-led Continuous Low
    Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, seeks to support these
    types of tests. NASA is providing support to the FAA in the planning
    and execution of the CLEEN program.

    Cap-and-Trade

    Q5.  In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
    is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
    governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
    increased operational tempos into these markets?

    A5. NASA currently does not have any expectations related to offsets.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical
            Advisor, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
            Administration

    Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

    Q1.  In assessing federal efforts with regards to achieving the goal of
    enabling new aviation fuels to ensure a secure and stable supply, the
    Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D says:

             ``DOD efforts to develop new alternative aviation fuels are
            making progress, but civil efforts, though making some
            progress, are not adequate to meet both the near- and the
            combined mid- and far-term objectives in a timely manner
            without either reconsidering the objectives or the current
            allocation of resources.''

         What more should the Federal Government be doing in this area?

    A1. The role of the Federal Government in enabling new aviation fuels
    for civil aviation involves three key areas: supporting activities to
    facilitate the approval of new fuels for use by commercial aircraft,
    assessing the overall environmental impacts of new fuels, and fostering
    development of alternative fuel production and infrastructure
    capability.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to advance alternative
    fuels were ahead of those of the commercial sector at the time the
    Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D was written
    and published (December 2008). However, more resources have since been
    focused on the civil sector including investment by private industry in
    flight demonstrations, the FY 2009 funding of the Continuous Low
    Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program which will seek to advance
    and demonstrate alternative fuels for commercial aviation with a focus
    on renewable options, and additional funding by the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA), and the DOD for emissions measurements and greenhouse gases
    life cycle analyses. We believe that sufficient federal resources are
    now in place to meet both the near- and the combined mid- and far-term
    alternative fuels objectives of the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D.

    Q2.  Is the alignment of government and industry R&D initiatives you
    describe in your testimony equivalent to an integrated R&D plan for
    biofuels in aviation? Is it important to have an integrated plan? If
    there is an integrated plan, is it being used to determine the funding
    plans of each of the involved agencies in such R&D, and have all of the
    agencies formally committed to the implementation of the integrated
    plan?

    A2. The member organizations of the Commercial Aviation Alternative
    Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) have jointly prepared roadmaps for alternative
    aviation fuels (including biofuels) research and development (R&D),
    certification, environmental assessment, and business development
    efforts. These roadmaps have led to increasing coordination among
    organizations and have served to guide funding plans of each of the
    agencies involved, as well as those of the private sector. The CAAFI
    member federal agencies have not made formal commitments beyond those
    outlined in the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D. However, although
    the CAAFI roadmaps are not equivalent to an integrated roadmap or
    represent funding commitments, they have proven very effective in
    aligning efforts and the need for a more formal integrated plan is not
    clear. To date, key tasks identified by CAAFI stakeholders are on or
    ahead of schedule, and we are confident that our mutual interests will
    provide the cohesiveness required for success.

    Q3.  CAAFI lists, among its work to date, ``supporting R&D on low
    carbon fuels sourced from plant oils, algae, and biomass.'' What is the
    nature of CAAFI's support? Is it providing any funding or other
    resource commitments?

    A3. CAAFI participants are devoting significant resources in support of
    low carbon biofuels, although CAAFI does not fund research per se.
    CAAFI is a coalition of stakeholders that individually sponsor and
    collectively coordinate research to meet CAAFI's goals. The Boeing.
    Continental, and CFM International flight test program completed in
    January 2009 is one example of industry investment in this area. The
    FAA has funded work in the form of an alternative jet fuel life cycle
    analysis framework and measurements of alternative fueled engine
    emissions, and is providing leadership in the development of a new fuel
    certification process via ASTM International. Another CAAFI sponsor,
    the Air Transport Association, has signaled its commitment to
    alternative fuels with the introduction of their alternative fuels
    principles to support deployment of fuels that meet safety,
    environmental and economic criteria. CAAFI has also encouraged its
    members who are interested to submit proposals under the Department of
    Agriculture program to develop biofuel capacity.

    Q4.  The Air Transport Association says on its web site:

             ``In light of this regulatory arrangement and the fact that
            the specification for Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel is identified in
            the FAA approval certificate, no other type of fuel can be
            utilized at this time in the United States. Much work needs to
            be done before alternative fuels can safely be used in
            commercial aircraft operation with approval from the FAA.''

         Do you agree with that statement? If so, what additional work
    needs to be done and when do you anticipate it will be completed?

    A4. We agree, but with the following clarifications. ``No other type of
    fuel'' refers to a fuel that does not meet the specification properties
    of Jet A/A-1 fuel. However, it is possible to use ``other types of
    fuel,'' or alternative fuels shown to closely meet the specification
    properties of Jet A/A-1 after sufficient test and analysis work (in
    addition to the specification properties) show that these fuels are
    ``fit for purpose,'' (i.e., can be safely used in commercial aircraft
    operations). We expect seamless integration of these alternative fuels,
    called ``drop-in'' fuels, into the distribution system and aircraft
    operations.
        Three classes of drop-in alternative aviation fuels are currently
    under consideration. Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels have completed the fit
    for purpose evaluation. An industry specification incorporating these
    fuels is under review, and the ASTM International Aviation Fuels
    Subcommittee should approve it this year. Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet
    (HRJ) fuels are currently being evaluated for fit for purpose, and we
    expect that they will be incorporated into the aviation fuels
    specification within the next one or two years. Bio-chemically derived
    fuels are currently in the R&D stage and will follow the HRJ fuels by
    one to two years.

    Q5.  Why is a standardized development readiness scale, similar in
    concept to the Technology Readiness Level scale used by DOD and NASA,
    needed to track the fuel development, approval and commercialization
    process? How far away are we from the establishment and global
    acceptance of such a scale?

    A5. CAAFI needed a way to classify and track progress on research,
    certification, and demonstration activities for alternative fuels. A
    variety of scales were in use by CAAFI member organizations including
    the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) used by industry, NASA, and the
    Air Force, and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) used by the U.S. Air
    Force and others. Originally, an Airbus CAAFI representative developed
    a special TRL scale for fuel development, but it was a mixture of
    research achievements and production development. The CAAFI leadership
    team felt we needed a new fuel development scale that would allow for
    parallel fuel research activities and certification activities, as well
    as clearly show how to transition activities between the CAAFI R&D,
    certification, environment, and business and economics teams.
        The resulting Fuel Readiness Level (FRL) scale shown below includes
    descriptions customized to fuels research and certification events, and
    contains specific items of interest to CAAFI members such as required
    fuel quantities to achieve specific milestones. It also reflects the
    reality that fuels research, production development, and certification
    activities may occur at the same time, so a fuel may have different FRL
    numbers for R&D and certification.
        The CAAFI leadership team is currently coordinating the FRL scale
    with CAAFI member organizations in the U.S. and Europe. The roadmaps
    and milestone databases developed and maintained by CAAFI use FRL to
    help organize and track the research and development milestones and the
    process of developing, certifying, and supplying alternative fuels to
    commercial aviation.

    Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

    Biofuels Feedstock

    Q1.  What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
    feedstocks--jatropha, camelina, and algae--discussed at the
    Subcommittee hearing, especially with regard to land use, water use,
    processing and production rates?

    A1. Jatropha and camelina have an advantage in that they are ready for
    use now; they can grow in marginal or under-utilized land, do not
    compete with food sources, and do not require considerable water
    resources. Camelina is attractive because it can grow as a rotational
    crop, returning nutrients to the soil between wheat crops. In terms of
    disadvantages, both jatropha and camelina have relatively low oil
    yields per acre, and the biomass co-product of jatropha is toxic.
    Cultivating jatropha and camelina in large enough quantities to meet
    fuel demands will require vast amounts of acreage and careful land use
    planning to avoid increased carbon emissions from potential land use
    changes. There are also concerns about the unintended consequences of
    introducing a non-native, potentially invasive species to the North
    American ecosystem.
        Algae feedstocks have a number of advantages. It can realize the
    highest production rate of any known bio-based feedstock, could grow on
    marginal or desert lands (perhaps even in the ocean), and does not
    require fresh water. However, it does require sources of salt or brine
    water. To achieve commercial growth rates, the algae also need a supply
    of carbon dioxide (CO2) from an external source, such as a
    fossil fuel power plant. The largest challenge in terms of energy
    inputs and environmental impacts lies in separating the water from the
    algae to enable extracting enable extraction of the oil. There are a
    large number of research organizations and commercial ventures working
    to overcome this challenge, but algae is thus far not yet ready for
    large scale fuel production.
        It is important to note that a single feedstock will not provide a
    solution. We will need to pursue a variety of feedstocks and processes
    to enable an adequate supply of alternative fuels for aviation.

    Certification vs. Research

    Q2.  Dr. Maurice, you stated that some forms of biofuels may be
    certified ``as early as the end of 2010.'' Dr. Shin stated that NASA
    ``believes long-term, foundational research on understanding of fuel
    processing, combustor and engine performance, durability of engine
    components and emission characteristics will be required for
    application of second generation biofuels in aviation.'' Are these two
    statements in conflict with each other? How should they be reconciled?

    A2. I do not believe that there is conflict between these two
    statements. Dr. Shin's statement generally applies to biofuels at
    greater than 50 percent blends. At 50 percent or less, Fischer-Tropsch
    (FT) and hydroprocessed renewable jet HRJ biofuels are consistent with
    my statement. We forecast approval of FT fuels for use in 2009; these
    fuels will likely include biomass components. We also forecast approval
    for use by as early as the end of 2010 of HRJ--the fuel recently flown
    in the Boeing flight tests--at a 50 percent blend with conventional
    petroleum derived jet fuel. Industry and the Department of Defense
    (DOD) are currently collecting data on the properties and performance
    of these fuels in aircraft and engines that lead us to believe that
    certification is achievable in the near-term. Both HRJ and other next
    generation biofuel and processes will likely benefit from long-term
    research as outlined by Dr. Shin, particularly in the case of use of
    100 percent biofuels.

    Hydroprocessed fuels

    Q3.  How does hydroprocessing biofuels differ from Fischer-Tropsch,
    especially with regard to production efficiency, CO2 and
    technical maturity? Does one process have a distinct advantage over the
    other?

    A3. Hydroprocessed biofuels require a renewable oil source (such as
    that extracted from jatropha, camelina, or algae), while Fischer-
    Tropsch (FT) synthesis uses natural gas, coal or solid biomass from an
    energy crop such as miscanthus (a grass) or agriculture or forestry
    residues/waste. The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and
    process efficiency of both depend heavily on the choice of feedstock,
    including approaches to growth and collection. It is possible to
    capture a large fraction of the emissions from an FT plant with the use
    of a carbon capture and storage system. FT facilities that do not use
    carbon capture may need to use a much higher quantity of biomass in
    order to be environmentally beneficial. Without specific knowledge of
    the plant configuration and the feedstock, we cannot readily or
    generically compare the CO2 emissions and production
    efficiency of hydroprocessing and FT synthesis. However, our initial
    computations do show that hydroprocessed fuels generally have lower
    life cycle emissions than FT fuels.
        The technology for FT fuels synthesis is mature and in commercial
    use. The technology for hydroprocessed biofuels is also technically
    mature, although not as mature as that of FT processes. Neste Oil is
    currently constructing several facilities to produce hydroprocessed
    fuels for the diesel market. In addition, UOP Honeywell and Syntroleum
    have demonstrated the technology to create hydroprocessed jet fuels.

    Engine Performance

    Q4.  What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
    fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
    generation turbine engines?

    A4. The type and scale of research required to fully understand the
    performance and behavior of biofuels in current-generation turbine
    engines will vary depending on the characteristics of the candidate
    fuel and its similarity to other approved fuels. A complete research
    program would most likely not go beyond the following elements:

              Initial laboratory evaluation for compliance with the
            Jet A/A-1 specification properties. This requires about one
            gallon of the fuel.

              A more in-depth laboratory evaluation of the fuel to
            determine if it meets the fit for purpose properties of
            conventionally derived and produced Jet A/A-1 fuel. This would
            involve about 80 gallons of fuel. We could complete these first
            two steps in two to four months.

              Materials compatibility testing of the fuel with a
            defined set of aircraft materials. This would take a small
            amount of fuel (less than 10 gallons) and take two to four
            months to complete.

              Engine fuel component testing, engine combustor rig
            testing, and Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) testing with the
            candidate fuel. This will require approximately 4000 gallons of
            the candidate fuel and could take six to eight months to
            complete.

              Engine ground testing. This will require
            approximately 200,000 gallons of the fuel and could take up to
            a year complete.

        Note that an alternative fuel may not necessarily have to go
    through all five of these steps. Industry experts (aircraft, engine and
    fuel manufacturers) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may
    agree that the fuel's characteristics are so similar to petroleum based
    Jet-A fuel that no further testing is required.

    Cap-and-Trade

    Q5.  In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
    is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
    governments as carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
    increased operational tempos into these markets.

    A5. Assuming we can establish a standardized framework for a validated
    life cycle analysis (LCA), including any land use changes, we expect to
    document that biofuel blends will have lower life cycle carbon
    emissions. They could be eligible for prorated carbon offsets based on
    their audited LCA results. If we can determine that a particular fuel
    or fuel blend has lower life cycle carbon emissions than those of
    conventional petroleum derived fuels, it seems prudent to offer credits
    for the use of such fuels within systems regulating carbon, such as
    cap-and-trade. The targeting of any credit will depend upon how a
    scheme is set up and the point of regulation (e.g., fuel producer or
    user). It is possible that offering such credits would permit continued
    or increased aviation operations without the need for offsets. Current
    work by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Group on
    International Aviation and Climate Change is looking at develop this
    type of metric for aviation that would adjust for life cycle carbon
    content of fuels.

    Alternative Fuels Research

    Q6.  Are you aware if the U.S. has previously researched alternative
    aviation fuel sources, perhaps arising out of past oil embargoes? If
    so, how would you contrast today's research with previous efforts?

    A6. Yes, I am aware that the U.S. had a large government sponsored
    program in the late 1970s and early 1980s to produce alternative
    aviation fuels. I started my professional career working on this
    program. The focus at that time was to develop synthetic fuels from
    fossil resources, such as shale oil, tar sands and coal, to ensure
    energy availability and security after the energy crisis of the 1970s.
    This effort faded, with the dramatic oil glut of the 1980s. I think it
    instructive with world economic growth showing the largest slowing in
    nearly 60 years, oil prices still remain twice the levels they were
    earlier this decade. The return of economic growth will likely reignite
    pressures on oil prices quickly. In addition, today's alternative fuels
    research is different in that there are a new set of environmental
    drivers not present in the previous effort. Air quality and greenhouse
    gas emissions are now major concerns for aviation, in addition to a
    secure energy supply and cost. There appears to be fundamental
    increased need and emphasis that contribute to the relevance and
    prospects for successful achievement of our current efforts.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and
            Environment, Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation

    Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

    Q1.  Your testimony states that we don't need to do any more research
    before introducing biofuels into civil aviation--that ``there are no
    unanswered scientific questions.'' Yet, it seems that we need to make
    sure that we don't wind up starting down the path of planning for the
    widespread use of a particular aviation `biofuel' before we understand
    (1) its impact on emissions, (2) the constraints it may impose on
    future aircraft technology options, and (3) the impact its production
    would have on the environment, especially on land use and water
    requirements. How should we, as a nation, go about picking the best
    aviation biofuel or biofuels to promote?

    A1. My answer, ``. . . from the propulsion provider's point of view . .
    . there are no unanswered scientific questions,'' was meant to
    encompass a very narrow set of technical issues concerning the use of
    specific class of biofuels (synthetic paraffinic kerosene, SPK) in
    current engines. The message is that there is a near-term, technically
    viable path to biofuels for commercial aviation.
        From the wider points of view of the national endeavor and policy-
    making perspectives, there is much still to be done to establish the
    best paths forward--best in the economic, ecological, and technical
    realms. As suggested in the question, this wider research agenda should
    include:

              the ecology of biofuels--their impact on land, water,
            population patterns, wealth generation, and such;

              agricultural/bioengineering approaches to sustainably
            improving fuel yield per acre;

              establishing a broader technology base for the
            conversion of biomass into fuels suitable for aviation,
            technology that can reduce the environmental footprint of the
            conversion, widen the types of biomass that can be used, and
            improve the overall economics;

              engine research focused on exploring how the new
            properties of biofuels and biofuel-conventional fuel mixes can
            best be exploited in new engine designs to further reduce
            environmental impact--for example through reduce fuel burn and
            reductions of particulates and NOX--and to reduce cost.

    Q2.  What data is Pratt & Whitney gathering to demonstrate that using
    biofuels over the long-term will not impact the reliability and
    maintainability the aircraft engines it produces?

         What are the challenges associated with designing an aircraft
    engine that runs optimally on biofuels? How far are we from seeing such
    an engine on an airliner?

    A2. While we have established that current engines can operate for
    short periods of time (hours) on the drop-in biofuels tested to date
    with no apparent deleterious effects, we have no direct engine data to
    establish the effects of sustained biofuel use on engine reliability
    and maintainability. This data would come from engine endurance testing
    which will require several hundred thousand gallons or more of biofuel
    (about 5-10 million gallons of fuel are burned in a jet engine between
    overhauls). Such testing is not funded at this time.
        Our engines are now optimized to operate on conventional fuel.
    While preliminary analysis suggests that an engine optimized for
    biofuel can have fuel economy and emissions superior to that of current
    engines, little research work has been done to substantiate and exploit
    the potential advantages of biofuels. Also, research is needed to
    identify paths toward a dual fuel-optimized engine, one that could
    realize the best performance with either conventional or biofuels,
    depending on fuel availability. Without such an investment in engine
    research, a biofuel-only optimized engine could not go into service
    until operators could be guaranteed that a significant portion (say 50
    percent) of the fuel they purchased was biofuel. This would require
    biofuel production levels of tens of billions of gallons a year, a
    level which may be several decades away.

    Q3.  You indicate in your prepared statement that once biojet fuels are
    deployed into commercial service, it would be prudent to institute
    periodic evaluations as engines age. You further state that this is
    typically done when designs are changed or new materials are
    identified. What are some examples of new designs or new materials that
    have resulted in periodic evaluations? Who funded these tests and
    evaluations?

         What should be the Federal Government's role helping assess the
    viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
    use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?

    A3. When it is clear that a new material or design change is safe but
    that there may be uncertainty with the economic life, a ``controlled
    service release'' can be a useful tool for reducing this uncertainty.
    In commercial service, the airline and/or original equipment
    manufacturer (OEM) will inspect the parts in question at relatively
    frequent intervals to monitor deterioration. One example was a new
    turbine blade coating that promised longer life and reduced costs to
    operators. This was first deployed on a single airline with unusually
    harsh operating conditions. The coated blades were frequently inspected
    on the wing for several years. Historically, the beneficiaries of such
    testing pay for it. In commercial service, this would typically be the
    OEM and/or airline. Since there is no established aviation biofuel
    industry at this time to provide such funding, government support would
    help stimulate the aviation biofuel industry by instilling the
    confidence with biofuels among regulatory authorities, equipment
    suppliers, airlines.

    Q4.  Your prepared statement indicates that the growth of the civil
    aviation biofuel market is dependent on, among other things,
    authoritative, peer-reviewed quantitative research to establish the
    carbon footprint of various biofuels and document their sustainable
    nature. You also say that this will be an ongoing process which should
    be supported by governments and universities. Can you elaborate on how
    a consensus on the carbon footprints will be achieved and how long this
    may take?

    A4. Scientific research cycles are several years long--proposals are
    solicited prepared and evaluated; research performed and documented;
    papers reviewed and dissimulated at conferences and in journals. A
    quantitative, scientific consensus on all aspects of aviation biofuels
    may take several such cycles, depending upon such things as the
    difficulty and complexity of the topic. Detailed understanding of the
    carbon footprint and sustainability of specific biofuels has barely
    started. This is a complex multi-disciplinary topic and relatively few
    studies have been completed. Some have been influential, for example
    vectoring the community away from palm oil and pointing out the
    importance of avoiding deforestation. Some feed stocks are already
    under study, such as jatrophia and camelina, and initial qualitative
    work suggests that these can be sustainable when properly managed.
    Quantitative consensus may reached in as little as three to five years,
    depending upon the scope of the studies. Expeditious funding of a
    diverse research community can help both in accelerating such research
    and in promoting wide dissemination and discussion.

    Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

    Engine Performance

    Q1.  What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
    fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
    generation turbine engines?

    A1. In the case of a mix of synthetic paraffinic kerosene, SPK, and
    conventional jet fuel as used in the JAL-P&W-Boeing flight tests, it
    would be wise to carry out several so-called endurance tests. These
    serve in the engine development process as accelerated life tests to
    prove to commercial or military customers that the engine has the
    durability and life claimed. Assuming availability of the biofuel, such
    testing could be competed in 12-14 months for $10-20M.

    Cap-and-Trade

    Q2.  In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
    is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
    governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
    increased operational tempos into these markets?

    A2. Short answer: yes.
        Longer answer: We would expect that in a carbon regulated world,
    the regulatory measures put in place by governments would be such as to
    motivate behaviors that reduced the total carbon released into the
    atmosphere. So for example, if a biofuel's total carbon footprint was
    only 50 percent that of a conventional petroleum-derived fuel, the
    operator using biofuel would need to purchase no more than 50 percent
    of the carbon credits they would when using conventional fuel.
    Alternatively, an operator's operations could double without enlarging
    its carbon footprint. Such market-based flexibility would increase the
    value of biofuel to airline operators--incentivizing their adoption.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment
            Strategy, Boeing Commercial Airplanes

    Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

    Q1.  What data is Boeing gathering to demonstrate that using biofuels
    over the long-term will not impact on the reliability and
    maintainability of the aircraft it produces?

    A1. The data already collected indicates that the chemistry of the
    synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) fuels pose no long-term reliability
    or maintenance concerns. Engine companies will be evaluating the
    compiled data over the next few months to determine if any additional
    testing specifically for the SPKs known as hydrotreated renewable jet
    fuels (HRJ) must be completed prior to fuel specification approval.

    Q2.  What should be the Federal Government's role in helping assess the
    viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
    use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?

    A2. Federal policy mechanisms should be utilized to assist accelerate
    research and development that can increase yield of plant oil sources
    and improve supply chain economics; encourage increased agricultural
    output of suitable plant oils; help entrepreneurs to scale up and
    capitalize new production capability; and designate use of sustainable
    biofuel for use in aviation fuel. As mentioned in my testimony,
    aviation does not have the range of alternative clean energy sources
    that other fuel users have, so the opportunity to reduce aviation
    greenhouse gases by use of sustainable biofuels is a very significant
    and valuable.

    Q3.  Boeing has been quoted as having said that it had a hard time
    finding biofuel suppliers who can produce testable quantities of their
    product. Do you see this as a temporary annoyance or a growing problem?

    A3. This is a temporary situation due to the fact that the technology
    has evolved at faster pace than the production capacity. Federal policy
    (see above and written testimony) can help assure that the market
    development matures.

    Q4.  Have biofuel producers shown greater interest following recent
    flight demonstrations? Are there infrastructure and distribution issues
    that need to be addressed before widespread aviation biofuel use is
    considered? If so, what are they?

    A4. Considerable interest from potential biofuel producers has followed
    the recent flight demonstrations. A number of scale up and potential
    commercialization projects are under discussion. Federal support in
    terms of research grants aimed at scale up, permit streamlining,
    agricultural education, and loan guarantee programs would be helpful.
    In addition, a ``sense of the Congress'' statement indicating the value
    of directing advanced biofuels towards aviation would be supportive.

    Q5.  Is additional R&D needed to secure government, airline, and public
    confidence that biofuels are safe and economically-viable supplements
    or replacements for jet fuel? Who should conduct this additional R&D?

    A5. Additional research and development is needed to improve yield and
    increase the variety of plants that are/could be suitable for
    sustainable biofuel for aviation. R&D that can improve harvesting and
    processing methods is also needed. We are at the beginning of a
    learning curve and additional research will help to accelerate long-
    term viability and enable larger scale availability.

    Q6.  What major challenges do biofuels face in trying to secure
    modifications to fuel specifications and FAA aircraft certifications?
    What modifications to the specification of biofuels and aircraft
    certifications are needed before biofuels can be used in civil
    aviation?

    A6. A new fuel specification for SPK fuels is in development in ASTM.
    When complete, the new specification will define criteria for fuels
    from biomass (and other sources) that, from a user point of view, can
    be treated as ``equivalent'' to traditional jet fuel from petroleum
    sources. Once the specification is in place, FAA approval of operation
    with new SPK fuels will be straight forward. The FAA has played a
    leadership role to oversee and assure proper development of new
    specifications, and has strongly supported the work across the industry
    as embodied in the Commercial Aviation Fuels Initiative and similar
    efforts. Continued FAA involvement is required to enable further
    developments and approval of alternative fuels.

    Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

    Engine Performance

    Q1.  What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
    fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
    generation turbine engines?

    A1. The validation research for the new Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene
    (SPK) fuels has been largely completed. Some additional endurance
    testing may be needed to build full confidence. Engine companies will
    be assessing that situation later this year.

    Cap-and-Trade

    Q2.  In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
    is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
    governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
    increased operational tempos into these markets?

    A2. It is my expectation that biofuel blends should and will be
    recognized as a carbon offset in such schemes. That is one method of
    ensuring the value is recognized; however a careful construct is
    required to avoid unintended consequences. For instance, if the means
    of qualification is ambiguous or overly complex, it could actually
    deter adoption of low carbon life cycle solutions.

    Sustainable Biofuels

    Q3.  You define `sustainable biofuels' as having several
    characteristics, such as using feedstocks that don't compete with food
    and that don't displace native eco-systems. What regions of the world
    would be ideal sources of feedstock that would go into the production
    of biofuels? How do you address the challenge of transporting raw
    feedstocks to a processing facility, especially for crops grown in
    lesser developed areas of the world?

    A3. Given the variety of potential feedstocks, there is also a wide
    range of regions where sustainable feedstock might prove viable. Some
    of those regions are hampered by lack of infrastructure, including
    transport to market. Also, the agricultural work force may require
    training to enable economic productivity and yield. I anticipate that
    business interests and local communities will develop a wide portfolio
    of solutions. Certainly, government actions to direct appropriate
    economic, technology and educational attention could help to accelerate
    beneficial results. Africa and Latin America are two areas where the
    potential for sustainable biofuels is large, given proper attention.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real
            Estate and Security, Continental Airlines

    Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

    Q1.  Your prepared statement indicates that Continental would like to
    see additional long-term materials compatibility testing for system
    components like o-rings and seals by the manufacturers and the wide
    dissemination of these results. Who should perform these tests and how
    would they be funded? Based on your statement, are you concerned that
    results would not be disseminated widely?

    A1. While we were pleased with the test results we have obtained to
    date, we believe additional long-term materials compatibility testing
    for system components like o-rings and seals by the aircraft and engine
    manufacturers would be useful. It is important for manufacturers to
    disseminate their results through the fuel certification process as
    well as their normal customer information transfer processes.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: While we were pleased with
    the test results we have obtained to date, we would like to see
    additional long-term materials compatibility testing for system
    components like o-rings and seals by the manufacturers and the wide
    dissemination of these results. The U.S. organization that certifies
    jet fuel specifications for use in commercial aircraft is the American
    Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. They will
    engage in an extensive data review process before approving new fuel
    specifications and will decide whether any additional demonstrations
    are necessary.

    Q2.  What should be the Federal Government's role in helping assess the
    viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
    use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?

    A2. The Federal Government should establish applicable government
    policies to encourage widespread use of aviation biofuel use through
    fiscal policy, tax policy, and energy policy. The Federal Government
    needs to do more to establish polices that will help direct government
    assistance to the develop biofuels, create infrastructure and
    distribution systems to airports, and encourage widespread use by
    airlines.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: While the test itself was
    highly successful, significant challenges must still be overcome to
    meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels in aviation.

              A fuel specific standard must be developed which
            meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
            safety.

              We will also need to develop a U.S. regulatory
            requirement mandating the level of quality throughout the
            supply chain; starting at the refinery all the way through to
            the airport.

              Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
            approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
            that have already been developed and tested.

              Increased funding will be needed for ongoing U.S.
            military efforts to develop alternative fuels for military jet
            fleets that will transition to commercial fleets.

              Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
            for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
            plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
            infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
            research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
            use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
            development plans to proceed.

              In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
            energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
            alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
            volumes that they are available at an economically viable
            price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
            alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
            continuing our work toward that goal is important now.

    Q3.  In your opinion, what are the most realistic aviation biofuel
    options for the near-term? How about for the long-term?

    A3. The most optimistic biofuel options will depend on the government
    and industry support for larger supplies of feedstocks and refiners to
    spur a cost competitive biofuel. A variety of non-food based plant
    sources such as camelina, halophytes, or jatropha maybe possible in the
    near-term, while algae is seen more as a long-term option due to the
    emerging technology needed to extract the algae oil. Biofuel providers
    such as UOP will have more information on this topic.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: With the help of the
    government and continued coordination of the industry, manufacturers
    and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as an alternative fuel is
    certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-in'' fuel requirement and
    is available at an economically competitive price as compared to
    traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have the confidence to
    start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the next five to 10
    years. As the supplies increase in a commercially viable way, we will
    be able to increase the blend percentage over the years.

    Q4.  Have biofuel producers shown greater interest following recent
    flight demonstrations? Are there infrastructure and distribution issues
    that need to be addressed before widespread biofuel use is considered?
    If so, what are they?

    A4. Yes, biofuel producers have shown increasing interest. Please refer
    to answer to question #2. Biofuel providers, such as UOP, may have more
    insight on the infrastructure needs.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR ORAL TESTIMONY: See #2. While the test itself
    was highly successful, significant challenges must still be overcome to
    meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels in aviation.

              A fuel specific standard must be developed which
            meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
            safety.

              We need to develop a U.S. regulatory requirement
            mandating the level of quality throughout the supply chain;
            starting at the refinery all the way through to the airport.

              Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
            approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
            that have already been developed and tested.

              Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
            for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
            plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
            infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
            research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
            use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
            development plans to proceed.

              In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
            energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
            alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
            volumes that they are available at an economically viable
            price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
            alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
            continuing our work toward that goal is important now.

        With the help of the government and continued coordination of the
    industry, manufacturers and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as
    an alternative fuel is certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-
    in'' fuel requirement and is available at an economically competitive
    price as compared to traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have
    the confidence to start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the
    next five to 10 years.

    Q5.  Some critics minimize the importance of recent flight
    demonstrations. What is your response to such criticism?

    A5. The flight demonstration was a small, but significant step of many
    toward the development of alternative energy solutions. It was a
    visible milestone in getting public acceptance of biofuel as a viable
    fuel for aviation. Our goal in this test was to work with Boeing and
    CFM to demonstrate that biofuels are safe and we will continue to work
    with our partners to make sure that safety is our priority.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Although the flight
    demonstration was one small step of many toward the development of
    alternative energy solutions, we were able to help gather important
    data that is needed for the fuel certification process before the
    biofuel can be used by the airline industry.

    Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

    Engine Performance

    Q1.  What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
    fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
    generation turbine engines?

    A1. Continental and the airlines will work together with the aircraft
    and engine manufacturers to fully understand the performance of
    biofuels in engines, particularly during the biofuel certification
    process. To fully understand the scale of the research needed for the
    engines, we would need to defer to engine manufacturers such as CFM or
    Pratt & Whitney.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: To this end, Continental was
    pleased that the fuel property and performance tests showed that the
    biofuel blend we tested acted just like traditional jet fuel. The
    multitude of tests performed by Boeing, CFM, UOP, the Air Force
    Research Lab, as well as other third party labs on the biofuel prior to
    our flight, all show that the biofuel we used performs just like
    traditional jet fuel, with no difference in engine or system
    performance. Continental is working with Boeing and all of its other
    flight test partners to compile the results of the testing performed on
    the various biofuels used in other carriers' flight demonstrations.

    Cap-and-Trade

    Q2.  In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
    is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
    governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
    increased operational tempos into these markets?

    A2. The availability of biofuels at economically viable prices would
    allow our industry to meet increasing strict pollution standards
    without limiting the transportation industry's growth.
        WHAT WE SAID IN OUR ORAL TESTIMONY: Biofuels represents an
    important option for the airline industry to reduce their already small
    greenhouse gas footprint. We would be remiss if we did not mention that
    more focus on the potential, the development and the use of alternative
    fuels is far more productive than to consider the imposition of some
    kind of cap and trade policy on the airlines.
        As you probably know, government actions which ``cap'' a company's
    existing carbon footprint and then ``reward'' future improvement could
    have the perverse effect of punishing those who are already diligently
    reducing our greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily through the purchase
    of new aircraft. Instead of creating benefits for those who have been
    unwilling to invest in a clean environment until the government told
    them to do so, we ought to provide standards which reward excellence
    and are required to be met by all. Developing a safe and reliable
    biofuels alternative is an important means of meeting that goal.
                                  Appendix 2:

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record