[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 PROTECTING THE RFS: THE TRUMP 
              ADMINISTRATION'S ABUSE OF SECRET WAIVERS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 29, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-74
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
43-775 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Geoff Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer, Renewable 
  Fuels Association..............................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Gene Gebolys, President and Chief Executive Officer, World 
  Energy, on behalf of the National Biodiesel Board..............    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
Chet Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.............................    44
    Table, ``U.S. Consumption of Ethanol and Biodiesel is at/near 
      Record Levels,'' Energy Information Administration.........    45
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   139
Kelly Nieuwenhuis, President, Siouxland Energy Cooperative.......    58
    Prepared statement...........................................    60

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 3006, the Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act of 2019.....    95
Letter of October 29, 2019, from Biotechnology Innovation 
  Organization to Mr. Tonko, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko......    98
Letter of October 28, 2019, from United Steelworkers to Mr. Tonko 
  and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................   106
Letter of October 28, 2019, from Mike Carr, Executive Director, 
  New Energy America, to Mr. Tonko, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   111
Letter of September 20, 2019, from Rep. Collin C. Peterson, et 
  al., to Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection 
  Agency, submitted by Mr. Loebsack..............................   113
Letter of September 6, 2019, from the Labor Coalition for 
  Biofuels to Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental 
  Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Tonko......................   116
Letters from labor unions to Environmental Protection Agency 
  Administrators and President Donald J. Trump,\1\ submitted by 
  Mr. McKinley
Article of November 20, 2018, ``Palm Oil Was Supposed to Help 
  Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a Catastrophe,'' by Abram 
  Lustgarten, New York Times Magazine, submitted by Ms. Barragan.   121

----------

\1\ Labor union letters submitted by Mr. McKinley have been retained in 
committee files and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20191029/110175/HHRG-116-IF18-20191029-SD003.pdf.
Testimony of Anne L. Idsal, Acting Assistant Administrator, 
  Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, 
  October 29, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......................   133
Letter of September 10, 2019, from American Energy Coalition, et 
  al., to U.S. Senator Deb Fischer, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   136

 
 PROTECTING THE RFS: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S ABUSE OF SECRET WAIVERS

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Barragan, Blunt 
Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, 
Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking member), 
Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and 
Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Welch and Loebsack.
    Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, 
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Waverly Gordon, Deputy 
Chief Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; 
Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff 
Director; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Environment and Climate Change; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
CStaff Assistantounsel, Energy, and Environment and Climate 
Change; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; and Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment 
and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes 
for the purposes of an opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    This morning the subcommittee will examine H.R. 3006, the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act of 2019, a bipartisan 
bill sponsored by Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
    Last Congress, Mr. Shimkus led a series of hearings and 
roundtables taking a deep dive into EPA's Renewable Fuel 
Standard program. While the subcommittee covered many aspects 
of the RFS, the growing use of small refinery exemptions was an 
area we did not fully explore.
    Today is an opportunity to provide oversight regarding the 
recent rise of these waivers and the administration's overall 
implementation of the program.
    Based on our previous hearings, nearly everyone seems to 
agree that there have been challenges in the past with 
implementation, including setting an appropriate and timely 
annual Renewable Volume Obligation, or an RVO.
    I also believe most would agree that small refinery 
exemptions are a legitimate part of the program. Refineries 
processing less than 75,000 barrels per day that believe they 
are experiencing disproportionate hardship due to the program 
can petition for these waivers.
    During the Obama administration, EPA followed the 
Department of Energy's advice on which waivers to grant. This 
resulted in numerous years with fewer than 10 exemptions 
granted annually. Often, half of the petitions or more were 
rejected.
    It is also indisputable that we have seen a change in how 
petitions are being evaluated and granted. That change 
coincides with the beginning of the Trump administration.
    For 2016, some 19 waivers were granted. Just 1 was denied. 
For 2017, 35 waivers were granted and one denied, and for 2018, 
there were 31 granted and 6 denied.
    As more information has come out about these exemptions, it 
has become clear that EPA's actions are no longer aligned with 
DOE's recommendations.
    H.R. 3006 seeks to bring needed transparency into the 
process. The bill would set an annual deadline of June 1st for 
small refineries to petition for exemptions for that following 
year.
    Setting this deadline will mean granting waivers before the 
RVO is set, which would end the current retroactive process 
that has generated uncertainty in the RIN market.
    In order for the RIN market to function and properly 
incentivize investment, particularly in advanced biofuel 
production, it is critical that all market participants are 
receiving the same information and signals.
    The bill would also require public disclosure of any 
information included in exemption petitions.
    While I understand there are legitimate issues around 
confidential business information in these applications, surely 
there is some information that we can all agree would be 
appropriate to release.
    This includes details as innocuous as petitioners' names 
and locations of facilities receiving those exemptions. There 
is no good reason this very basic info should be treated as a 
trade secret.
    Currently, we do not know which, or even how many, 
facilities are receiving exemptions until long after they do. 
For a program that relies on trading to enable compliance, it 
is unbelievable that the program's regulator would give some 
participants market-driving information that can be traded on 
while everyone else is left in the dark.
    I do not think that it is a good or fair way for the RIN 
market to operate, and it certainly leads to greater volatility 
in RIN prices.
    The original goals of the RFS are still needed today, from 
supporting economic development in rural communities to 
developing domestic biofuel production, especially for advanced 
and cellulosic biofuels.
    The recent use of small refinery exemptions is failing to 
advance these goals. The administration is undermining market 
signals and certainty, which ultimately hurts rural 
communities.
    Adding greater certainty and transparency to the RIN 
market, and the RFS more broadly, is a necessary and valuable 
improvement.
    I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses 
on whether H.R. 3006 can help achieve those objectives.
    And so I do thank our witnesses for joining us today. I do 
want to also speak to the fact that we may be joined by many 
other Members of the House on different committees.
    I want to recognize the presence of those as they join us, 
the colleagues from our committee who will be joining us for 
our hearing this morning. We are happy to have them here and 
welcome them to the committee.
    This is an important hearing, and it's always good to see 
Members so motivated on an issue of importance to their 
constituents and to our Nation.
    I do want to remind our guests if they do choose to come, 
and our committee members, that while the rules of the House 
allow for our colleagues to join us, those rules also prohibit 
them from speaking or otherwise actively participating in our 
hearing.
    I also want to remind our committee members that it is also 
not in order to yield time to any of our colleagues who are not 
also members of this committee, and again, we will welcome them 
if they join us today. We appreciate the participation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change will now 
come to order. I recognize myself for five minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.
    This morning the subcommittee will examine H.R. 3006, the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act of 2019, a bipartisan 
bill sponsored by Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
    Last Congress, Mr. Shimkus led a series of hearings and 
roundtables taking a deep dive into EPA's Renewable Fuel 
Standard program. While the subcommittee covered many aspects 
of the RFS, the growing use of small refinery exemptions was an 
area we did not fully explore.
    Today is an opportunity to provide oversight regarding the 
recent rise of these waivers and the administration's overall 
implementation of the program.
    Based on our previous hearings, nearly everyone seems to 
agree that there have been challenges in the past with 
implementation, including setting an appropriate and timely 
annual Renewable Volume Obligation or RVO.
    I also believe most would agree that small refinery 
exemptions are a legitimate part of the program. Refineries 
processing less than 75,000 barrels per day that believe they 
are experiencing disproportionate hardship due to the program 
can petition for these waivers.
    During the Obama administration, EPA followed the 
Department of Energy's advice on which waivers to grant.
    This resulted in numerous years with fewer than 10 
exemptions granted annually. Often half of the petitions or 
more were rejected.
    It is also indisputable that we have seen a change in how 
petitions are being evaluated and granted. That change 
coincides with the beginning of the Trump administration.
    For 2016, 19 waivers were granted. Just 1 was denied.
    For 2017, 35 waivers were granted and 1 denied.
    And for 2018, there were 31 granted and 6 denied.
    As more information has come out about these exemptions, it 
has become clear that EPA's actions are no longer aligned with 
DOE's recommendations.
    H.R. 3006 seeks to bring needed transparency into the 
process.
    The bill would set an annual deadline of June 1st for small 
refineries to petition for exemptions for the following year.
    Setting this deadline will mean granting waivers before the 
RVO is set, which would end the current retroactive process 
that has generated uncertainty in the RIN market.
    n order for the RIN market to function and properly 
incentivize investment, particularly in advanced biofuel 
production, it is critical that all market participants are 
receiving the same information and signals.
    The bill would also require public disclosure of any 
information included in exemption petitions.
    While I understand there are legitimate issues around 
confidential business information in these applications, surely 
there is some information that we can all agree would be 
appropriate to release.
    This includes details as innocuous as petitioners' names 
and locations of facilities receiving exemptions. There is no 
good reason this very basic info should be treated as a trade 
secret.
    Currently, we do not know which, or even how many, 
facilities are receiving exemptions until long after they do.
    For a program that relies on trading to enable compliance, 
it is unbelievable that the program's regulator would give some 
participants market-driving information that can be traded on 
while everyone else is left in the dark.
    I do not think that is a good or fair way for the RIN 
market to operate, and it certainly leads to greater volatility 
in RIN prices.
    The original goals of the RFS are still needed today, from 
supporting economic development in rural communities to 
developing domestic biofuel production, especially for advanced 
and cellulosic biofuels.
    The recent use of small refinery exemptions is failing to 
advance these goals. The administration is undermining market 
signals and certainty, which ultimately hurts rural 
communities.
    Adding greater certainty and transparency to the RIN 
market, and the RFS more broadly, is a necessary and valuable 
improvement. I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our 
witnesses on whether H.R. 3006 can help achieve those 
objectives.

    Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, and welcome, 
Mr. Ranking Member.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    I want to welcome you back, all of you all back, to the 
Renewable Fuel Standard debate and extend a hearty welcome to 
all the new members of the subcommittee that haven't had the 
pleasure of trying to sort through the complexities of this 
issue prior to today.
    Quite frankly, I am surprised we are having any hearing at 
all whose title speaks to protecting the Renewable Fuel 
Standard when last fall it was suggested that the Federal 
Government should be advancing policies to reduce demand and 
reliance on liquid fuels--the thrust of the RFS--because the 
transportation sector is now the greatest source of greenhouse 
gas emissions in the United States, and climate policy must 
address it.
    So I want to set the stage. Last year, my friends said we 
ought to get out of the liquid fuel debate, period, because of 
climate.
    Now we are here talking about protecting it. It's dystopia 
that I am experiencing right now. Moreover, while I think it is 
fair to have an oversight hearing about the RFS, I would 
caution folks, like our hearing title suggests, making comments 
about the uniqueness of the situation.
    I want to associate myself with Mr. Tonko's comments from 
last fall, that for several years we have heard about issues 
with implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard program under 
administrations from both parties.
    For this reason, simply ``saving'' the RFS is not only a 
misnomer, it does a disservice to the many stakeholders 
impacted by this program.
    I would like to take this opportunity to renew my plea for 
this committee and the affected stakeholders to take a very 
serious look at the high-octane proposal that Congressman 
Flores and I have recently reintroduced.
    Even though we are both not seeking reelection, we think 
status quo with this program is not sustainable. Given the 
Energy Department's Energy Information Administration 
projections of declining liquid transportation and fuel demand, 
it's difficult to envision a post-2022 scenario in which 
biofuel volumes would not actually be lower than they are 
today.
    In addition, while it is true that the Renewable Fuel 
Standard does not disappear in 2023, the rules for allocation 
change quite a bit depending upon who is in office and what 
that administrator considers appropriate for the disparate 
interest involved in this issue.
    If you are looking for certainty, this is not a recipe for 
it. On top of that, just as Congress guessed wrong in 2007 on 
the levels and types of fuels that would be in the marketplace 
a decade or more later, we cannot predict market forces or 
trade impacts, or other political pressures on allocations, nor 
should Congress repeat the error of making fuel choices during 
any major change in auto technology, fuel efficiency 
regulation, and a push for removing liquid and higher carbon-
based fuels from the marketplace.
    Rather than looking at individual Federal transportation 
fuel policies on their own, I urge my colleagues, as we have 
done in a high-octane proposal, to take a wider view of those 
policies and consider how they might--using rather than 
manipulating the marketplace--work together to bring more value 
to consumers and more certainty to stakeholders.
    Our bill would transition from blend-specific mandates to 
performance-based standards for future fuels and vehicles, 
remove longstanding barriers to the availability and usability 
of higher ethanol blends, provide an additional decade of 
certainty for advanced biofuels, and harmonize EPA and DOT 
vehicle efficiency programs.
    It's time that Congress pursue this type of comprehensive 
reform. Stakeholders on all sides of this debate have been 
whipsawed for months by rumored and actual administration 
actions.
    Media reports and legal actions and the uncertainty will 
only increase after 2022 when EPA receives even broader 
discretion to set biofuel blending requirements.
    I welcome the witnesses today and their organizations back 
to the committee. I hope you will provide us with a 
constructive and, hopefully, objective and productive dialogue.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this time.
    I want to welcome you back to the renewable fuel standard 
debate and extend a hearty welcome to all the new members of 
the subcommittee that haven't had the pleasure of trying to 
sort through the complexities of this issue prior to today.
    Quite frankly, I am surprised we are having any hearing 
whose title speaks to protecting the Renewable Fuel Standard 
when last fall, Mr. Chairman, you suggested your belief that 
the Federal Government should be advancing policies that reduce 
demand and reliance on liquid fuels--the thrust of the RFS--
because the transportation sector is now the greatest source of 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and climate 
policy must address it.
    Moreover, while I think it is fair to have an oversight 
hearing about the RFS, I would caution folks from--like our 
hearing title suggests--making gratuitously political comments 
about the uniqueness of this situation. I want to associate 
myself with Mr. Tonko's comments from last fall that for 
several years we have heard about issues with implementing the 
Renewable Fuel Standard program under administrations from both 
parties. For this reason, simply ``saving'' the RFS is not only 
a misnomer, it does a disservice to the many stakeholders 
impacted by this program.
    I would like to take this opportunity to renew my plea for 
this committee and the affected stakeholders to take a very 
serious look at the high-octane proposal that Congressman 
Flores and I have recently reintroduced. Even though we are 
both not seeking re-election, we think the status quo with this 
program is not sustainable.
    Given the Energy Department's Energy Information 
Administration projections of declining liquid transportation 
fuel demand, it's difficult to envision a post-2022 scenario in 
which biofuel volumes would not actually be lower than they are 
today.
    In addition, while it is true that the Renewable Fuel 
Standard does not disappear in 2023, the rules for allocation 
change quite a bit depending on who is in office and what that 
Administration considers appropriate for the disparate 
interests involved in this issue. If you are looking for 
certainty, this is not a recipe for it.
    On top of that, just as Congress guessed wrong in 2007 on 
the levels and types of fuels that would be in the marketplace 
a decade or more later, we cannot predict market forces or 
trade impacts or other political pressures on allocations; nor 
should Congress repeat the error of making fuel choices during 
ANY major change in auto technology, fuel efficiency 
regulation, and a push for removing liquid and higher carbon-
based fuels from the marketplace.
    Rather than looking at individual Federal transportation 
fuel policies on their own, I urge my colleagues, as we have 
done in the high-octane proposal, to take a wider view of those 
policies and consider how they might--using, rather than 
manipulating, the marketplace--work together to bring more 
value to consumers and more certainty to stakeholders. Our bill 
would transition from blend-specific mandates to performance-
based standards for future fuels and vehicles, remove long-
standing barriers to the availability and usability of higher 
ethanol blends, provide an additional decade of certainty for 
advanced biofuels, and harmonize EPA and DOT vehicle efficiency 
programs.
    It's time that Congress pursue this type of comprehensive 
reform. Stakeholders on all sides of this debate have been 
whipsawed for months by rumored and actual administrative 
actions, media reports, and legal actions, and that uncertainty 
will only increase after 2022 when EPA receives even broader 
discretion to set biofuel blending requirements.
    I welcome the witnesses and their organizations back to the 
committee. I hope you will provide us a constructive--and 
hopefully objective and productive--dialogue.
    And with that I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. 
Flores.

    Mr. Shimkus. And with that, I'd like to yield the remainder 
of my time to Mr. Flores, my colleague and friend from Texas.
    Mr. Flores. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    At a hearing last December on the 21st Century 
Transportation Fuels Act, I outlined some basic concerns with 
respect to the status quo of America's current fuel policies.
    Number one, biofuel producers consistently raise concerns 
about the annual implementation on the RFS.
    Number two, refiners face increased cost of complying with 
the RFS, and those costs are borne by consumers.
    Number three, automakers face challenges in complying with 
the efficiency programs under two different agencies inside the 
EPA and the DOT.
    And four, some environmental communities believe that 
first-generation ethanol creates environmental problems.
    Almost 11 months since that hearing, we are back in the 
same room fighting over the same RFS. The 21st Century 
Transportation Fuels Act developed after several bipartisan 
roundtables and hearings addressed many of these concerns by 
taking a holistic view over transportation fuel policies.
    For consumers, higher octane fuels can bring increased 
efficiency and performance for the next generation of engines.
    For stakeholders, transitioning the RFS to a national 
octane standard creates new market opportunity for biofuel 
producers and gives compliance certainty to refiners and 
automakers.
    Mr. Shimkus and I have reintroduced this bill on October 
the 16th and, as I've said before, we need to go with the 
status quo, which almost everybody has said is broken.
    If we can have compromised solution like the 21st Century 
Fuels Act, I can guarantee all of you in this room and that are 
listening that we are not going to find a perfect solution that 
gives everybody 100 percent of what they want.
    With that, I look forward to questioning our witnesses, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. And Mr. Shimkus yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
    Chairman Pallone?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Today, this committee is continuing its oversight of the 
Trump administration by examining the EPA's abuse of secret 
waivers to undermine the Renewable Fuels Standard program, or 
RFS.
    Right now, President Trump is pitting farmers and refiners 
against each other to the detriment of all stakeholders and 
consumers. As a result, the RFS does not appear to be working 
the way it should for anyone involved.
    Last Congress, then-Chairman Shimkus held a series of 
roundtables and hearings on the RFS in a quest to try to 
determine a new course for the program going forward.
    And while I disagreed with the proposal he developed, his 
efforts were sincere and the hearings illuminated many 
important issues that we must deal with as we approach 2022 and 
the sunsetting of the current phase of the program.
    Unfortunately, President Trump does not seem interested in 
making the program work. In fact, the Trump administration has 
done its best to undermine the program at a time when American 
farmers are already struggling to deal with the collapse of 
markets for many of the products they grow here at home.
    The idea that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is somehow 
acting without the President's knowledge or approval defies 
logic. As we have seen throughout the last 3 years, anyone in 
the administration who acts against President Trump's stated 
desires is either subject to a public browbeating or they are 
dismissed from the administration.
    So it's clear that Administrator Wheeler is acting on the 
President's orders--orders that, once again, show President 
Trump is captive to the oil industry.
    Nowhere is this more evident than the President's huge 
expansion of small refinery waivers. Before President Trump had 
taken office, EPA normally approved around seven or eight 
petitions for these waivers each year.
    But that changed dramatically when Trump came to office. 
Former Administrator Pruitt retroactively approved 19 
exemptions for 2016, and then 35 were approved for 2017, 
followed by 31 in 2018.
    Now, I think it's fair to say that some exemptions to the 
law's renewable fuel blending requirements are necessary and 
that there are refineries that would be harmed without an 
exemption.
    In New Jersey, we have a number of small refineries, and 
these waivers can be important for a struggling facility. But, 
unfortunately, today we have no way of knowing whether any of 
the refineries granted these exemptions are actually 
experiencing the hardship envisioned by Congress when we 
created the RFS, and it is a frustration shared by both 
Democrats and Republicans.
    Senator Chuck Grassley has said, and I quote, he is ``very 
skeptical that every company receiving waivers truly needs 
them.''
    And this skepticism is completely understandable 
considering these hardship exemptions are granted in secret, 
with EPA not even revealing the name of the companies that 
receive them.
    Not even our committee, which created the RFS, receives 
that information, and there is simply no transparency in the 
process, and these decisions are far too consequential to be 
made in a dark back room without any sunlight.
    So that's why today we are holding a hearing on these 
exemptions and, specifically, on Representative Peterson's 
bipartisan legislation to bring at least part of this process 
out into the open.
    H.R. 3006, the Renewable Fuel Standard Integrity Act of 
2019, requires public disclosure of any information included in 
petitions for exemption from the annual blending requirements.
    The bill also sets an annual deadline of June 1st for small 
refineries to petition for exemption from the upcoming year's 
blending requirements in order to make the process more 
predictable and rational.
    Now, some of the information contained in the small 
refinery exemption petitions is likely to be confidential 
business information that shouldn't be divulged to the general 
public.
    But there is, clearly, a logical middle ground between 
releasing every bit of information on a petition and the 
complete blackout we are all subject to today.
    So we should be able to find a middle ground and move a 
version of this bill through the committee with bipartisan 
support, and that is what we are hoping to achieve today.
    And I thank you again, Chairman Tonko. This, I think, is a 
very important hearing. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today, this committee is continuing its oversight of the 
Trump administration by examining the EPA's abuse of secret 
waivers to undermine the Renewable Fuels Standards program or 
RFS. Right now, President Trump is pitting farmers and refiners 
against each other to the detriment of all stakeholders and 
consumers. As a result, the RFS does not appear to be working 
the way it should for anyone involved.
    Last Congress, then-Chairman Shimkus held a series of 
roundtables and hearings on the RFS in a quest to try to 
determine a new course for the program going forward. While I 
disagreed with the proposal he developed, his efforts were 
sincere, and the hearings illuminated many important issues 
that we must deal with as we approach 2022 and the sunsetting 
of the current phase of the program.
    Unfortunately, President Trump does not seem interested in 
making the program work. In fact, the Trump administration has 
done its best to undermine the program at a time when American 
farmers are already struggling to deal with the collapse of 
markets for many of the products they grow here at home.
    The idea that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is somehow 
acting without the President's knowledge or approval defies 
logic. As we have seen throughout the last three years, anyone 
in the administration who acts against President Trump's stated 
desires is either subject to a public browbeating or they are 
dismissed from the administration. It's clear that 
Administrator Wheeler is acting on the President's orders--
orders that once again show President Trump is captive to the 
oil industry.
    Nowhere is this more evident than the President's huge 
expansion of small refinery waivers. Before President Trump had 
taken office, EPA normally approved around seven or eight 
petitions for these waivers each year. But that changed 
dramatically when Trump came to office. Former Administrator 
Pruitt retroactively approved 19 exemptions for 2016, and then 
35 were approved for 2017, followed by 31 in 2018.
    Now, I think it's fair to say that some exemptions to the 
law's renewable fuel blending requirements are necessary and 
that there are refineries that would be harmed without an 
exemption. In New Jersey, we have a number of small refineries 
and these waivers can be important for a struggling facility. 
Unfortunately, today we have no way of knowing whether any of 
the refineries granted these exemptions are actually 
experiencing the hardship envisioned by Congress when we 
created the RFS. This is a frustration shared by both Democrats 
and Republicans. Senator Chuck Grassley has said he's (quote) 
``very skeptical that every company receiving waivers truly 
needs them.''
    And this skepticism is completely understandable 
considering these hardship exemptions are granted in secret, 
with EPA not even revealing the name of the companies that 
receive them. Not even our committee, which created the RFS, 
receives that information. There is simply no transparency in 
this process, and these decisions are far too consequential to 
be made in a dark, back room without any sunlight.
    That's why today, we are holding a hearing on these 
exemptions and, specifically, on Representative Peterson's 
bipartisan legislation to bring at least part of this process 
out into the open. H.R. 3006, the Renewable Fuel Standard 
Integrity Act of 2019, requires public disclosure of any 
information included in petitions for exemption from the annual 
blending requirements. The bill also sets an annual deadline of 
June 1 for small refineries to petition for exemption from the 
upcoming year's blending requirements in order to make the 
process more predictable and rational.
    Now, some of the information contained in the small 
refinery exemption petitions is likely to be confidential 
business information that shouldn't be divulged to the general 
public. But there is clearly a logical middle ground between 
releasing every bit of information on a petition and the 
complete blackout we are all subject to today.
    We should be able to find a middle ground and move a 
version of this bill through the committee with bipartisan 
support. I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the 
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
    Congressman Walden?

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to our 
witnesses, thank you for being here.
    I understand today's hearing has multiple objectives. It's 
a legislative hearing on H.R. 3006, the Renewable Fuels 
Standard Integrity Act. It's an oversight hearing of both small 
refinery exemptions and the recent supplemental proposed rule 
on required production of certain renewable fuels.
    I am sure H.R. 3006 is a well-meaning attempt to address 
concerns that biofuel feedstock producers have about the 
issuance of waivers. But I have questions about the 
legislation.
    From my reading, I am confused about the timing between the 
deadline for requesting a waiver and the rules establishing 
required volumes.
    I am also troubled by the broadness of the precedent the 
bill sets for removing protections for any legitimate trade 
sector intellectual property submitted to EPA as part of a 
waiver.
    I hope our witnesses can help us understand whether this 
bill needs changes to be workable and whether they would 
consider this a good policy if it applied to them.
    As the EPA's recent supplemental proposal on the required 
production amounts for certain biofuels in 2020 and 2021 and 
its administration of the small refinery waiver, I wish we had 
a witness from the EPA here to explain its logic for proposing 
the change calculations of renewable fuel percentages, how that 
will ensure industry blends what is intended, and required 
volumes are not reduced by future hardship waivers.
    Now, I understand the EPA offered alternate dates to appear 
before our committee. But considering the EPA is holding a 
public hearing on this subject tomorrow and it will be taking 
comment for another 30 days, it seems it would have been 
prudent for the committee to postpone long enough for us to 
engage in meaningful oversight.
    But this is hardly the only issue of the RFS. A broader 
hearing on the entire program seems like it would have been a 
more appropriate way to tackle this.
    Take renewable fuel source of woody biomass, something I've 
talked about for years and actually is occurring in my 
district, or will soon.
    Not only can woody biomass produce the most desired yet 
least produced fuel under the RFS, it also helps thin our 
forests and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire that pumps 
carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
    Despite these advantages, RFS treats wood from private and 
Federal land differently, even though there is no scientific 
difference. This is a missed opportunity.
    If we are serious about expanding renewable fuels and 
further lowering carbon emissions, we cannot establish 
arbitrary conditions and be so narrowly focused on who owns the 
wood.
    We need innovation, preparation, and conservation-based 
solutions. Let me be clear, though. The RFS is important to 
many people, particularly in a time of uncertainty and 
commodity markets.
    If we are going to look at this program seriously, we 
should do it in a way that's broader and improves the program 
for consumers and not just incumbent producers.
    Finally, let me say something about the most obvious part 
of this hearing. We are holding a hearing on the need for more 
biobased liquid transportation fuels when every other 
indication from the majority, whether talking points, its ill-
defined 100 by 50 proposal of which we have many questions, 
Green New Deal, or the LIFT Act, each revolve around doing away 
with liquid fuels to power light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles' 
fuel mix.
    Based on this policy desire, Department of Energy data 
showing decline in the use of liquid fuels, it's perplexing 
that we have this hearing to promote the use of liquid fuels 
and the Renewable Fuel Standard at the same time--that it's 
promoting policies against continued use of these fuels.
    Now, in the last Congress, I tasked Mr. Shimkus and Mr. 
Flores with the tough duty of coming together to see if we 
could figure a way through this for a modern RFS system and 
if--well, you know what happened.
    First, Mr. Shimkus announced he's not running again. Then 
Mr. Flores announced he's not running again, and then I 
announced I am not running again.
    So it's a hell of a mess, but it's one that I would caution 
anybody who wants to get close to--and you dropped out too. 
So----
    Mr. Loebsack. I am running again.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Walden. Yes. I mean, it's--I am just warning anybody on 
the committee stay away. Stay away from RFS.
    But it's a tough one. We all know that. Lots of competing 
interests, and I think we all want to get it right, Mr. 
Chairman.
    So, as always, we look forward to working with you, sir, 
and as this moves forward.
    And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I understand that today's hearing has multiple objectives: 
it's a legislative hearing on H.R. 3006, the Renewable Fuel 
Standard Integrity Act, an oversight hearing of both small 
refinery exemptions and the recent supplemental proposed rule 
on required production of certain renewable fuels, and, 
frankly, score political points with a specific group of 
voters.
    I am sure H.R. 3006 is a well-meaning attempt to address 
concerns biofuel producers and feedstock producers have about 
the issuance of waivers, but I have questions about this 
legislation. From my reading, I am confused about the timing 
between the deadline for a requesting waiver and the rules 
establishing required volumes. I am also troubled by the 
broadness of the precedent the bill sets in removing 
protections for any legitimate trade secret or intellectual 
property submitted to EPA as part of a waiver. I hope our 
witnesses can help us understand whether this bill needs 
changes to be workable and whether they would consider this a 
good policy if it were applied to them.
    As to the EPA's recent supplemental proposal on the 
required production amounts for certain biofuels in 2020 and 
2021 and its administration of the small refinery waiver; I 
wish we had a witness from the EPA here to explain its logic 
for proposing the changed calculations of renewable fuel 
percentages, how that will ensure industry blends what's 
intended, and required volumes are not reduced by future 
hardship waivers. I understand the EPA offered alternate dates 
to appear before our committee; but considering that the EPA is 
holding a public hearing on this subject tomorrow and then will 
be taking comment for another 30 days, it seems it would have 
been prudent to postpone long enough for our committee to 
engage in meaningful oversight.
    This is hardly the only issue with the RFS; a broader 
hearing on the entire program seems like it would have been 
more appropriate.
    Take renewable fuels sourced from woody biomass. Not only 
can wody biomass produce the most desired, yet least produced 
fuel under the RFS, it also helps thin our forests and reduce 
the risk of catastrophic fires that pump carbon emissions into 
the atmosphere. Despite these advantages, RFS treats wood from 
private and Federal land differently, even though there is no 
scientific difference. This is a missed opportunity. If we are 
serious about expanding renewable fuels, and further lowering 
carbon emissions, we cannot establish arbitrary conditions and 
be so narrowly focused on who owns the wood. We need 
innovation, preparation, and conservation-based solutions.
    Let me be clear though, the RFS is important to many 
people, particularly in a time of uncertainty in commodity 
markets. If we are going to look at this program seriously, we 
should do it in a way that is broader and improves the program 
for consumers and not just incumbent producers.
    Finally, let me say something about the most obvious part 
about this hearing:
    We are holding a hearing on the need for more bio-based 
liquid transportation fuels when every other indication from 
the majority--whether talking points, its ill-defined 100 by 50 
proposal, of which we have many questions, the Green New Deal, 
or the LIFT Act--each revolve around doing away with liquid 
fuels to power light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles fuel mix. 
Based on this policy desire and Department of Energy data 
showing a decline in the use of liquid fuels, it is perplexing 
that the majority called this hearing to promote the use of 
liquid fuels and the Renewable Fuels Standard at the same time 
that it's promoting policies against continued use of these 
fuels.
    I know the House Majority Leader has signaled to the press 
that Democrats are for farmers because they oppose the 
administration's latest proposal, but folks in farm country, 
while frustrated with the situation, can see right through this 
to what it is.
    We should be about solutions, not duplicitous, one-off 
political pandering. This committee is better than that.
    As Mr. Shimkus and Flores showed us last year, we know 
farmers, biofuels producers, and refiners have concerns about 
the RFS, but union workers and others have major concerns about 
the RFS, too. If we're sincere about a future that includes 
liquid transportation fuels, let's bring all the people 
affected into this discussion and let's try to work through 
some of these problems.
    Mr. Chairman let's do some real bipartisan work we can be 
proud of. I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. Well, we appreciate those comments and the 
warnings.
    Mr. Walden. Good luck.
    Mr. Tonko. And the warnings. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    Now we will introduce our witnesses, and we welcome them 
all for joining us on what is a very important discussion.
    We will begin with Mr. Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of 
Renewable Fuels Association. Seated next to him is Mr. Gene 
Gebolys, president and CEO of World Energy.
    Next to him, Mr. Chet Thompson, president and CEO of 
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and then finally, 
Mr. Kelly Nieuwenhuis, president of Siouxland Energy 
Cooperative.
    Before we begin, gentlemen, I would like to explain the 
lighting system. In front of you are a series of lights. The 
light will initially be green at the start of your opening 
statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute 
remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that 
point. The light will turn red when your time has expired.
    At this time, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Cooper for 5 
minutes to provide his opening statement, and again, welcome, 
Mr. Cooper.

   STATEMENTS OF GEOFF COOPER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION; GENE GEBOLYS, PRESIDENT 
  AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WORLD ENERGY, ON BEHALF OF THE 
 NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD; CHET THOMPSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS; 
 AND KELLY NIEUWENHUIS, PRESIDENT, SIOUXLAND ENERGY COOPERATIVE

                   STATEMENT OF GEOFF COOPER

    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, Ranking Member 
Walden, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Geoff Cooper, and I am the president and CEO of 
the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade association 
representing the U.S. ethanol industry.
    I appreciate the opportunity to share our industry's 
concerns regarding EPA's rampant abuse of RFS Small Refinery 
Exemptions, or SREs.
    When properly implemented, the Renewable Fuel Standard is 
an extraordinary program. It decreases reliance on imported 
petroleum, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, lowers gas prices, 
and boosts the economy.
    The RFS achieves these goals by ensuring that biofuels are 
afforded access to a fuel market that is otherwise closed to 
competition.
    Unfortunately, the current administration's approach to 
implementation has destabilized the RFS and created significant 
uncertainty in the marketplace.
    Specifically, EPA's flagrant abuse of SREs has resulted in 
lower production and use of ethanol, increased emissions, 
higher gas prices, and lost jobs.
    In recent years, EPA has granted an unprecedented number of 
SREs and disregarded the established requirements for 
eligibility. SREs were intended to be temporary, meaning there 
should be fewer exemptions granted each year as more small 
refineries come into compliance.
    Further, exemptions were meant to be available only to 
refineries that demonstrate compliance with the RFS itself 
would cause them disproportionate economic hardship, something 
that would be incredibly difficult for any refinery to show 
today, given historically low RIN prices and the fact that 
compliance costs are fully passed through to the refiner's 
customers.
    Under the current administration, EPA has granted an 
average of 28 SREs per year, eroding renewable fuel blending 
requirements by an average of 1.35 billion gallons annually.
    That compares to just seven SREs per year on average and a 
reduction in the RFS requirements of just 230 million gallons 
under the previous administration.
    So we have seen a fourfold increase in the number of 
exemptions granted and a sixfold increase in the volume of 
exemptions granted. The dramatic increase in SREs has resulted 
in demand destruction and some of the worst market conditions 
in the industry's history.
    The RFS was intended to continually grow the volume of 
domestic ethanol consumption. But, unfortunately, the demand 
increase promised by the RFS has not materialized due to the 
SREs.
    After 22 straight years of successive increases, U.S. 
ethanol demand in 2018 fell from 2017 levels, and before the 
massive increase in SREs, U.S. ethanol consumption for this 
year--2019--was expected by EIA to top out at above 14.8 
billion gallons.
    EIA now expects 2019 consumption will be closer to 14.3 
billion gallons. So a loss of 500 million gallons of demand.
    Ethanol consumption would have fallen even further if not 
for the dramatic downward adjustment in ethanol prices. Ethanol 
had to maintain competitiveness, and so prices fell, and as 
prices fell net returns at ethanol plants deteriorated to the 
lowest levels since at least 2007.
    Facing weaker negative margins, ethanol plants have been 
forced to idle or permanently shutter. We have seen 19 ethanol 
plants--at least 19 plants--idle or close since spring of 2018 
when this issue really began.
    When an ethanol plant goes down, the local community 
suffers. We are talking about lost jobs. We are talking about a 
reduction of 20 to 25 cents per bushel in corn prices.
    We estimate that, you know, with these 19 plants that have 
recently idled or closed, we are talking about 700 direct jobs 
that have been lost and about 2,800 jobs indirectly that have 
been affected in related sectors.
    Unfortunately, EPA's recent supplemental proposal, which 
was intended to implement a relief package promised by 
President Trump, fails to correct these problems.
    The bait-and-switch employed by EPA in this latest proposal 
does not ensure that the statutory volume for conventional 
biofuels will be enforced in 2020 or beyond, and we think it is 
likely the 2020 requirement for conventional biofuels could, 
again, be eroded to less than 15 billion gallons.
    In short, EPA's proposal will not bring idle plants back 
online, and it won't put furloughed workers back to work.
    I want to close by expressing RFA's strong support for H.R. 
3006--where I come from, we'd call that 30 aught 6--which 
begins to resolve some of the problems we are discussing today.
    The bill would ensure EPA's final RVOs are actually 
enforced and not eroded by SREs. The bill also contains 
important provisions that would greatly enhance transparency.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. You're most welcome, and thank you for your 
presentation.
    Now we'll recognize Mr. Gebolys for 5 minutes for your 
opening statement, please.

                   STATEMENT OF GENE GEBOLYS

    Mr. Gebolys. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and members of the committee.
    I am Gene Gebolys, president and CEO of World Energy, one 
of the largest and longest-standing advanced biofuels suppliers 
on North America.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of 
the National Biodiesel Board and the 65,000 workers associated 
with America's biomass-based diesel industry who, collectively, 
generate $17 billion in economic activity, dramatically reduce 
our Nation's reliance on fossil fuels, and substantially 
lighten the national carbon footprint.
    On August 9th, the Environmental Protection Agency 
announced that it had waived Renewable Fuel Standard 
requirements for another 31 refineries, bringing the total 
issued in just the last 2 years alone to 85.
    The move ensured that over 4 billion gallons of biofuels 
would be replaced by fossil fuels in the national fuel tank, 
adding more than 20 million tons of carbon back into the 
atmosphere.
    For an agency whose namesake mission is environmental 
protection, these moves are not only alarming but fully 
perplexing. For years, the EPA had routinely issued seven or 
eight waivers a year, totalling a couple hundred million 
gallons in total impact.
    But now, the most recent waiver deluge set off a wave of 
plant closures, impacting thousands of workers in biofuels, 
agriculture, and related industries.
    On August 16th, one week after the EPA announcement, I had 
to tell our employees, suppliers, and the communities where we 
work that we were shutting down production at our plants in 
Rome, Georgia, Natchez, Mississippi, and Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania, as a direct result of the EPA's misuse of its 
Small Refinery Exemption authority.
    Our closures alone impacted more than a hundred workers 
directly and many hundreds more indirectly. An analysis 
conducted at the University of Illinois found that Small 
Refinery Exemptions issued over just the last 2 years have 
slashed demand for biomass-based diesel by over 2 billion 
gallons, with the economic damage expected to reach $7.7 
billion.
    The blowback to the latest round of waivers has been swift 
and widespread, and by the end of August President Trump 
promised a giant package to address the problems stemming from 
the EPA's excessive use of waivers.
    On October 4th, the White House announced that a deal had 
been reached to use an average of the gallons exempted over the 
previous 3 years to estimate expected 2020 waivers in 
establishing the renewable fuel volume obligations for the 
coming year.
    While the deal would not make up for the billions of 
gallons of advanced biofuels demand already lost, if 
implemented correctly it promised to soften the blow of 
exemptions in the future.
    Now the EPA has offered its proposed solution in the form 
of a supplemental rulemaking and, regrettably, it falls 
woefully short of the President's advanced billing.
    Again, the EPA had gone astray. Now, instead of taking the 
average of the waivers the EPA actually granted over the last 3 
years, the agency is proposing to offset in 2020 the average 
volume that the Department of Energy originally recommended 
that the EPA grant.
    Why? Because what DOE advised is dramatically lower than 
what EPA has actually done. Now we know what we suspected all 
along, that EPA ignored DOE recommendations and handed out 
nearly twice as much waiver volume as DOE had recommended.
    As hard as that is to fathom, it's harder still to 
understand why it would make sense for EPA to now go back to 
the very same DOE recommendations it blatantly ignored to 
account for next year's proposed waivers.
    The Agency is doing nothing to assure that they will 
discontinue the practice of promoting compliance avoidance over 
compliance and is doing little to establish RFS stakeholder 
confidence that the Agency intends to chart a new course based 
on the plain intent of Congress to grow the Nation's use of 
advanced biofuels.
    EPA's job is to administer the law Congress enacted, not to 
rewrite it. EPA must be held to account to do the public's 
bidding in public.
    There should be nothing secretive about who gets waivers, 
why they get them, and for how many gallons the relief is 
provided. There is absolutely nothing confidential about the 
damage our industry is experiencing.
    How can it be reasonable that those seeking noncompliance 
can be allowed to continue to lurk in EPA's shadows when those 
of us impacted by their actions have nowhere to hide?
    When EPA finalizes its 2020 renewable fuel obligations rule 
by the end of this year, it must fully account for Small 
Refinery Exemptions--those actually given, not those 
recommended but ignored.
    The agency must recognize and support the biodiesel 
industry's ability to grow under the RFS in 2020 and beyond, as 
Congress intended. The war on biofuels in agriculture must end.
    It's time for the secret waiver program to be brought into 
the light and for EPA to reestablish public trust.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gebolys follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Gebolys.
    And next, we will move to Mr. Thompson. You are recognized 
for 5 minutes with your opening statement, please.

                   STATEMENT OF CHET THOMPSON

    Mr. Thompson. Good morning.
    Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
the rest of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify today and to share the views of AFPM on the topics of 
today's latest RFS hearing.
    My members produce the gasoline, the diesel, the jet fuel, 
and other products that make modern life possible, as well as 
20 percent of U.S. ethanol and a substantial amount of 
renewable diesel.
    My members are obligated parties under the RFS and, hence, 
are directly impacted by this program, SREs, H.R. 3006, and 
EPA's recent supplemental proposal.
    This morning I would like to highlight just a few of the 
points made in my written testimony.
    First, our Nation's more than 50 small refiners are 
national security assets. They are critical sources of our fuel 
supply. They employ tens of thousands of women and men across 
the country, and they are the lifebloods of communities, again, 
all across the country. This very body--Congress--recognized 
the importance of these refineries and the threat posed to them 
by the RFS.
    Thus, Congress first exempted small refineries from the 
program outright and then allowed small refineries to seek 
waivers, quote, ``at any time'' and instructed EPA to grant 
them upon a showing of a disproportionate economic hardship.
    As predicted by DOE as far back as 2011, the RFS's rising 
mandates and the emergence of the blend wall has created 
hardships for the entire refining industry but, particularly, 
small refineries. Rising RIN and compliance costs of the RFS is 
what explains the rise in SREs in recent years.
    [Slide follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Thompson. Second, as the graphs on the chart and the 
screen show, the notion that SREs are hurting biofuel market 
share is false. EIA data, the Government's own data, 
demonstrate that biofuel consumption and blending are at or 
near all-time highs.
    Third, H.R. 3006 would be bad for small refineries, bad for 
their workforce, and bad for consumers all across the country.
    Requiring facilities to apply for waivers months before EPA 
has even finalized and, in some cases, probably even proposed 
the RVO and requiring that all supporting financial data be 
publicly disclosed would effectively eliminate this very 
critical important safety net, again, one established by 
Congress.
    It would be challenging to make the requisite showing of 
disproportionate hardship without knowing some pretty key 
information such as the volume of the mandate in the particular 
year and the price of RINs.
    Having one fixed application date as well, as proposed on 
June 1st, would deprive facilities of the ability to seek 
waivers in response to the many unforeseen circumstances that 
can arise in a given year.
    And, as you know, waiver applications require very 
sensitive financial data such as profitability, cash flow and 
balances, refining margins, debt, loan covenants, and business 
plans.
    Mandating that the public--that all this information be 
publicly released, which is exactly what H.R. 3006 would do, 
would create a Hobson's choice for small refiners: forego the 
waiver and experience the disproportionate hardship calls by 
the RFS, or apply for the waiver and grant your competition 
into an ability to exploit your financial weaknesses.
    It is clear that the real purpose of H.R. 3006 is certainly 
not to reform the waiver process but to eliminate it. For this 
reason, we cannot and do not support it.
    AFPM similarly opposes EPA's supplemental proposal. This 
supplemental proposal is unfair to nonexempt refineries and 
unnecessary to maintain the robust demand for domestic 
biofuels, as the chart on the screen shows.
    Its only beneficiary would be foreign biofuel producers.
    Finally, we continue to support smarter fuel policies that 
can really help all stakeholders. That is why we testified 
twice before this very committee last year about the great 
potential of transitioning away from the RFS to a 95 RON octane 
standard.
    By better optimizing fuels and engines, we can increase 
vehicle efficiency at a lower cost, increase market-driven 
potential for biofuels, and reduce compliance costs for 
refineries.
    As refiners and as producers--as I said, 20 percent of the 
U.S. ethanol--we believe 95 RON would be a win for all 
stakeholders and for the environment.
    So, to that end, we appreciate the efforts of Congressmen 
Shimkus and Flores to advance that discussion, and they will be 
missed.
    We also support near-term bipartisan legislation by 
Congressmen Flores and Welch that recognizes the blend wall and 
sets volumes based on the market we have today rather than the 
one that was incorrectly projected more than a decade ago.
    With that, I thank you again for being here, and I look 
forward to answering any of your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, and welcome again.
    And finally, Mr. Nieuwenhuis, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, and appreciate your testimony.

                 STATEMENT OF KELLY NIEUWENHUIS

    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, 
and members of the subcommittee, my name is Kelly Nieuwenhuis. 
I've been farming for 37 years with my brothers and father near 
Primghar, Iowa.
    We grow corn and soybeans on our family farming operation, 
and roughly 95 percent of the corn we produce goes to ethanol.
    I also serve as president of Siouxland Energy Cooperative. 
I am taking time away from harvest because today's topic is 
critically important.
    Plain and simple, the EPA's abuse of Small Refinery 
Exemptions under the RFS is crippling rural America. I've seen 
this firsthand as president of Siouxland Energy, a farmer-owned 
ethanol plant in Sioux Center, Iowa.
    Each year our plant produces up to 80 million gallons of 
clean, renewable biofuel, including up to 2 million gallons a 
year of cellulosic ethanol.
    Because of the EPA's actions to help the oil industry's 
bottom line at the expense of farmers and the biofuels 
producers, we had to make a hard decision to idle our plant and 
shut off a key market for hundreds of local farmers, including 
myself.
    The morning we announced that we were idling our plant, I 
was tasked with delivering the bad news to our 42 employees. 
The team sat quietly, wondering about their future in the event 
we would have to permanently close our facility. This is one of 
the toughest things I have ever had to do.
    Even 8 years ago during a 50-year drought, our plant had 
significantly more debt than we do today and yet we had no 
problem accessing capital. This time around, our local bank 
increased the scrutiny for borrowing, given the lack of 
certainty with the RFS.
    The reality is that they read the same news that we read, 
and they understand the EPA is taking actions that have 
dramatically undermined the market.
    The economic crisis created by the EPA's abuse of SREs 
started 3 years ago. At first we couldn't put a finger on what 
it was. But the fundamentals and our markets seemed off.
    It was only after the press started reporting the rapid 
escalation of SREs being granted behind closed doors by the EPA 
that we began to understand what was happening to our business.
    I am a simple numbers guy. In 2018, if the integrity of the 
RFS was upheld and we blended 15 billion gallons of ethanol, 
coupled with the 1.7 billion gallons of exports, that's 16.7 
billion gallons of ethanol demand.
    That year, the U.S. ethanol industry set a record 
production of 16.1 billion gallons. If the RFS had been upheld, 
then today we'd be growing this industry.
    A few weeks ago, we did get a small piece of good news for 
our plant at Siouxland Energy. The State of California is using 
a significant amount of ethanol to meet its requirements under 
the low-carbon fuel standard, and CARB lowered our plant's 
carbon score by roughly 10 percent, giving us a new market 
opportunity.
    As a result, now we are back online and operating at 50 
percent capacity. So we are only losing slightly less money 
than we would be if our whole plant was idle
    This small boost came directly from California, not the 
EPA. The regulatory attempts by the EPA give us little 
confidence that we will see the relief we need.
    That's why the agricultural and biofuels industry strongly 
support H.R. 3006, the RFS Integrity Act, sponsored by 
Representatives Collin Peterson and Dusty Johnson.
    This bill would address the EPA's dismal record on SRE 
transparencies. We have no idea of the specifics used by DOE or 
EPA in making SRE decisions, and this bill takes care of these 
basic transparency concerns by setting a reasonable deadline 
for SRE applications and giving the public greater insight on 
this murky process.
    On behalf of our employees and the ethanol producers, thank 
you for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nieuwenhuis follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Nieuwenhuis, and thank you again 
to our panel for your contributions here this morning.
    We'll now move to Member questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cooper, let's begin with you. Can you briefly explain 
the relationship between SRE approvals and RIN prices?
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, and I 
certainly can.
    I think the clearest example of the impact of Small 
Refinery Exemptions on RIN prices really occurred in the first 
quarter and second quarter of 2018.
    Prior to that, if you looked at the late 2017, early 2018, 
we had RIN prices for ethanol--D6 RINs--that were trading in 
the 80-to-90-cents-per-gallon range. That was really 
stimulating investment in downstream infrastructure for higher 
blends. It was stimulating growth in production.
    When the public and the marketplace became aware of this 
first massive round of SREs from former Administrator Pruitt, 
RIN prices tanked immediately and we went from 80 cents or 90 
cents to about 20 cents for RIN prices virtually overnight, and 
we've been at that low level--around 20 cents or below--for RIN 
prices really ever since the first or second quarter of 2018.
    That's had a dramatic impact on the investment signal for 
downstream retailers and blenders, and it's had, you know, 
obviously, a significant impact on the incentive to produce 
ethanol as well. We are seeing plants close down and seeing 
reduced output rates as well, and we point to the drop in RIN 
prices as partly responsible for that.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And what role does the RVO play in providing a signal to 
market participants from the refineries all the way over to the 
biofuel producers?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, in the past, when the marketplace had 
faith that the RVO was a real number, it sent a strong signal 
and it would--you know, if the RVO was interpreted by the 
marketplace as a number that was going to be hard to meet, RIN 
prices reacted and you would see strong RIN prices, and they 
would do their job to kind of force more biofuel into the 
marketplace.
    Today we have a situation where nobody in the marketplace 
views the RVO--the annual number--as a real number, because 
they know it's going to be eroded and undermined by these 
retroactive Small Refinery Exemptions.
    So when EPA last fall published a 15-billion-gallon 
requirement for conventional biofuels in 2019, the market 
barely blinked. The market barely reacted because nobody 
believes the number is real.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Gebolys, your company has existed and grown since 
the RFS began. Is having confidence in certainty in the RVO 
important for investments and business decisions that you have 
made?
    Mr. Gebolys. Yes, it's absolutely critical. The big 
investment that we are working on right now is our renewable 
aviation fuel and renewable diesel facility in Los Angeles.
    We've announced a project to expand capacity there 
substantially. We'll be investing hundreds of millions of 
dollars. We are making that investment because of California 
legislation, not because of the Federal legislation.
    At our plant in Houston, Texas, where we have been working 
on a substantial expansion, we've had to put that project on 
hold because that project only serves the non-California 
market.
    So, just by looking at those two facilities alone, we are 
spending money in California because California policy works. 
We are not spending money in Texas because Federal policy 
doesn't work.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Nieuwenhuis, in regards to that RVO impact, what 
are your thoughts?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. It's definitely part of the certainty of 
the industry. You know, I talked about our financing at our 
local plant, and 8 years ago when we had a lot more debt we had 
no problem with capital.
    Now, with the fear of the RFS being undermined by these 
SREs and the RVO numbers not being where they're supposed to 
be, that's the uncertainty in the industry, and it's fearful.
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Cooper, do you believe that RIN market 
manipulation is possible due to the current secrecy around the 
issuance of exemptions?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a very 
clear correlation between the issuance of SREs and the reaction 
of the RIN market, and it's pretty clear that--at least in my 
opinion--you know, EPA is using the SRE program as a back-door 
way of managing RIN prices and controlling RIN prices, which 
was, clearly, not something that anyone intended EPA to be 
doing.
    The RIN market was intended to operate freely to help--you 
know, help achieve the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard, 
which is to grow the consumption and use of biofuels.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes to ask 
questions.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Our hearing title today suggests a desire to keep liquid 
fuels powering passenger cars and light vehicles for a long 
time, and I like that.
    Yet, last week, Senator Schumer proposed a $454 billion 
program to get all Americans out of their liquid-fuel-powered 
vehicles and into electric-powered vehicles.
    Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nieuwenhuis, what would be the impact of 
this proposal on rural farm economies?
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.
    You know, I think the impact of--if we are talking about 
H.R. 3006----
    Mr. Shimkus. No, we are talking about Senator Schumer's 
proposal last week to move all passenger vehicles to electric.
    Mr. Cooper. OK. I think there's a broad understanding that, 
even if that proposal were to be enacted, it would be very 
long-term transition. I think we all agree that we are going to 
be using liquid fuels for a very, very long time.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. All right. I am disappointed in that 
answer, because it's a simple answer and a simple question. If 
we moved to all-electric vehicles, that's less liquid 
transportation fuels.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I guess I don't know a whole lot about the 
electric vehicle industry, but I do know the ethanol industry 
has been working for 40 years and we are still working on 
infrastructure, and I can't see how the electric industry can 
change that infrastructure that fast. So I don't have----
    Mr. Shimkus. What would it do, basically, on your ability 
to sell a commodity product like ethanol if all our vehicle 
transportation fleet moves to electric? Do you have a market?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I don't know. I don't know that answer 
because I've seen a lot of----
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me--let me go to----
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I've seen a lot of information from----
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Thompson.
    What would be the impact of such a proposal on unionized 
workers at your members' facilities?
    Mr. Thompson. It would, obviously, be very bad. Right now, 
we produce approximately 143 billion gallons of gasoline to 
supply today's transportation fleet. If it all went electric, 
that would go away. There is no ethanol used in an electric 
vehicle.
    Mr. Shimkus. Would this be a good policy for consumers and 
taxpayers?
    Mr. Thompson. No, it would be a very bad policy. One only 
needs to look at the data out there of how much more expensive 
electric vehicles are, and certainly there's lots of research 
that show they're not better for the environment. I do not 
think it's better for consumers----
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Gebolys because, you know, as 
we move in this debate on electric vehicles for passengers--and 
we've already had this in the heavy-transportation hearing we 
had last week--there will be a movement to eventually go to 
electrify heavy-duty vehicles. What would do--what would that 
do to your market?
    Mr. Gebolys. It would be a very long transition. The 
average----
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. But all right, I got the answer.
    Mr. Gebolys. The average diesel vehicle is on the road, 
sir, for up to 15 years.
    Mr. Shimkus. I know. We had a hearing last week, and the 
Port of Los Angeles is exploring electric heavy-duty vehicles 
that would get recharged halfway to the distribution center.
    Can you sell biodiesel to an electric vehicle?
    Mr. Gebolys. We cannot.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Thank you.
    Ten months ago, I asked many of your groups about the 
future of RFS. I stated, absent legislative action, the EPA 
will retain its waiver authority--now, we are talking about 
certainty here--including the authority to exempt certain 
refiners from their obligations under the RFS, especially after 
2022, when all agency loses its statutory biofuel targets in 
2022.
    So if you can, give me a higher, lower, the same. Given the 
Energy Information Agency projects 31 percent decrease in motor 
fuel consumption by 2017 to 2025, do you expect RVOs to be 
higher or lower post-2022 than they are today?
    Higher, lower, or the same, if the Energy Information 
Agency predicts less liquid fuel use?
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you. And the RFS is not a 
percentage-based program. It's a----
    Mr. Shimkus. Higher, lower, or the same?
    Mr. Cooper. The same.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Mr. Gebolys?
    Mr. Gebolys. The same.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. Substantially lower.
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. And Mr. Nieuwenhuis?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. The same.
    Mr. Shimkus. Given that ethanol is such an overwhelming 
cheap octane enhancer in addition to environmental benefits, 
wouldn't some refiners be more competitive if they were to opt 
for this lower cost of octane?
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, I believe they would.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Thompson, seeing as your members are in 
competition against one another for the client business, to 
what extent do you think refiners would be influenced by market 
forces to use the cheapest source of octane, which is ethanol, 
in order to keep their product prices competitive?
    Mr. Thompson. Very influenced by that, which is why data 
shows that lend rates are as high as they've ever been today 
even with the SREs.
    All the testimony that we've heard today is contradicted by 
EIA data that I put on the screen. Every--this is the highest 
ethanol blend rates as a country we've ever had, and the reason 
for that is because my members make blends stocks that cannot 
be sold until the octane is added, and the cheapest source of 
octane is ethanol. That's why the data is not consistent with 
the testimony today.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    Before we go to our next Member, I want to recognize the 
presence of Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, who is 
cosponsor of H.R. 3006, and we welcome him here today. You are 
welcome.
    And next, the Chair will recognize Congressmember Barragan 
for 5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    I want to start off by being the Member who represents the 
Port of Los Angeles and applauding them for their efforts to go 
electric.
    The district is one where we have high air pollution, and 
from everything I have seen indicates that electric will help 
the environment. And so I wanted to take my opportunity to 
applaud them in their efforts.
    There's a lot of conversation about ``Oh, well, it doesn't 
go very far.'' When you take a look at distribution from the 
Port and to the Port, it's coming from the Inland Empire. 
That's not more than 150 miles. And so I just wanted to put 
that on the record, given this is a continuing issue I keep 
hearing about in the reference to the Port.
    I want to start off by saying that I share the goal of many 
on this committee and on this panel to reduce America's 
dependence on oil. I also think it's reasonable to want 
predictability on EPA regulatory decisions such as exemptions 
that alter the intent of our laws.
    However, I think we need a much broader conversation on the 
future of the Renewable Fuel Standards. My district, as I 
mentioned, is 90 percent African American and Latino. It bears 
a great part of the burden of our dependence on fossil fuels.
    We have had to live with urban oil wells, liquefied 
petroleum gas facilities, Superfund sites, and underregulated 
heavy industry.
    Consequently, we have had some of the highest asthma rates 
in the country, and it is one of the most heavily polluted 
district in this country.
    No one wants America to move off of oil more than I do. 
However, we have to be mindful of the unintended consequences 
of the policies we are putting in place to bring us to a 
fossil-fuel-free economy.
    The Renewable Fuel Standards was well intentioned. But we 
have since then learned from the EPA's own 2018 report titled 
``Biofuels and the Environment'' second triennial report to 
Congress that the increased demand for biofuels has driven land 
conversion here and abroad to biofuels to produce corn and 
soybeans and palm oil. This has led to the national and 
international land use changes that have replaced carbon 
sequestering and biodiverse natural landscapes with large corn 
and soybean farms.
    Further, efforts to meet the advanced biofuel mandate has 
led to the importation of biofuels from palm oil in countries 
such as Indonesia, causing widespread deforestation.
    I hope that in the future this committee can take up the 
work of crafting a comprehensive, evidence-base policy approach 
to reforming the Renewable Fuel Standards.
    Building off that statement, I have a joint Pro Publica 
investigative report and New York Times article titled ``Palm 
Oil Was Supposed to Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a 
Catastrophe.'' It's dated November 20th, 2018. I would like to 
request unanimous consent to enter it into the record.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Barragan. My question for the biofuel representatives 
on the panel is, what steps are you taking to make sure that 
you're not sourcing biofuels from land at home or abroad that 
has been converted from forest land or natural wilderness to 
farmland?
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the question.
    On the ethanol side, which I can comment on, the RFS law 
itself, the statute--the 2007 statute--includes a provision 
that specifically prohibits our member companies from using 
feedstock that was cultivated on land that wasn't already in 
cultivation at the date of enactment in 2007.
    If they were to do that--and EPA annually conducts an 
analysis to see if land has expanded--and if they find that it 
has as a consequence of the RFS, that triggers all sorts of new 
onerous requirements--reporting and record keeping requirements 
for the industry.
    What EPA has found every single year when they do that 
analysis is that crop land is shrinking and that the amount of 
crop land under cultivation today is lower than it was in 2007 
when the act was passed and far lower than it was 40, 50, 70, 
100 years ago.
    So this narrative that we hear that the RFS is somehow 
driving expansion of crop land is not borne out in the data. It 
is not--there is no evidence of that.
    Now, you know, the EPA triennial report, there's modeling 
studies and economic, you know, modeling exercises, scenario 
analysis, and when you plug the right numbers in, yes, it'll 
give you a scenario where crop land expands.
    The real-world evidence shows that it is not occurring, 
however, certainly in terms of U.S. crop land and, frankly, 
globally crop land expansion has not accelerated in the era of 
biofuels. You know, the trend of crop land expansion globally 
is today what it was prior to passage of the RFS.
    Mr. Gebolys. If I might just quickly add, the RFS 
specifically excludes the use of palm oil. Soybeans are not 
grown for their oil. They're grown for their meal, and we use 
feedstocks that come from used cooking oil, animal fats, and 
oil that exist because we use protein from soy to feed animals 
and people.
    Ms. Barragan. And my time has expired. The issue is, I 
believe, not how much crop land there is. The issue is how much 
conversion has happened. I am interested in that.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Rodgers from Washington State for 5 
minutes for questions, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I, too, want to thank the panel for joining us today as 
we discuss the RFS and its future. I think it's important to be 
conscious of consumer demand and advances in vehicle technology 
and how that affects the fuel market.
    So I wanted to ask the panel, as automobiles and truck 
fleets turn over to more efficient vehicles, what will this do 
for demand for fuels? Do the statutory blending goals of the 
RFS program still make sense when looking at the future of the 
transportation fleet?
    Maybe I will just start right here and ask each one of you.
    Mr. Cooper. Happy to answer that question, and yes, I think 
as we look at the evolution of the light-duty vehicle fleet 
into more efficient internal combustion engines, those engines 
want and need and the automakers are demanding higher octane, 
which Congressman Shimkus and Mr. Flores, of course, have been 
very much focused on.
    Ethanol is the highest, cleanest source of octane 
available, you know, on the market, and so we think when you 
pair those two things and RFS and a high-octane fuel standard, 
the RFS requirements do make sense long term.
    They guarantee that the octane source for more fuel-
efficient vehicles, higher octane, high-compression-ratio 
engines comes from biofuels and not from, you know, dirty 
hydrocarbons, which lead to the asthma problems that we just 
heard about in California.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Very good.
    Mr. Gebolys. So my business works primarily in the diesel 
side of the equation. On the diesel side, the equipment tends 
to exist for a very long time. So the transition on the diesel 
side will be slow in coming.
    Progress will come, and that's a good thing. Vehicles 
should get more efficient. We should move to cleaner and better 
technologies over time.
    But we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. 
While we are transitioning to cleaner and better technologies, 
we have cleaner and better technologies today.
    Advanced biofuels are called advanced because they reduce 
carbon footprint by 50 percent or more, and it's important that 
we continue to do what the RFS was put in place to do, which is 
to continue to use more of them while we continue to use 
vehicle diesel equipment.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Thompson. Certainly, the more efficient car on the road 
today is part of what explains why gasoline demand is much 
lower today than it was when this program was created.
    When the program was created, it was premised on the 
estimate of today about 160 billion gallons of gasoline use, 
which is why there was no concern of the blend wall back then.
    Today, we are about 142 or 143 billion gallons, which is 
what is causing the root cause of the problem, is there's no 
place for the ethanol to go once the blend wall is reached, 
right around 14.2 or .3 billion gallons of ethanol.
    That's the root cause of the problem. That's why, 
fundamentally, this program needs to be reformed.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I guess I would just like to say that I 
realize in the future higher octane fuels are going to be used 
for the engines designed for better efficiencies.
    And I think the one advantage to the ethanol industry is to 
grow the blend rate to a higher blend, and mainly because of 
the Clean Air Act and benefits of ethanol and the less 
greenhouse gas emissions created from ethanol.
    So I think it would be down the road the higher blends of 
ethanol will help with the higher octane engines and also the 
environment.
    Mrs. Rodgers. I would be interested in hearing what you 
believe should be done to address the implementation of the 
statute while protecting the interests of small refiners from 
disproportionate harm, as Congress had envisioned.
    Anybody want to start that? Yes, Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. We would say that, again, last year and, 
frankly, for the last couple years we have been working with 
Congressman Shimkus about such an alternative, which is why we 
supported the concept of moving away from the RFS--the command 
and control approach--into a 95 RON approach, which we believe 
would be better for all stakeholders, for the biofuel industry, 
for the auto industry--it makes for a more efficient 
automobile, for consumers and, certainly, refiners.
    We believe if we transitioned away to a performance-based 
standard, that would be better for small refiners because it's 
the compliance costs of the program that is causing the 
hardship, not the use of ethanol in and of itself.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Anyone else?
    Yes?
    Mr. Gebolys. This really isn't very complicated on the 
existing RFS side. The law is extremely straightforward. At 
this point in the program, advanced biofuels are supposed to be 
making up the vast majority of the program's growth.
    The SREs are by--have, clearly, caused that not only to 
stop but to start to retrench. We don't have to look any 
farther than the data that AFPM has put up there earlier and 
keeps pointing to. That data, clearly, makes my point.
    The expansion should be happening in the advanced biofuels 
sector. Now it's not because of the SREs. We need to have a 
light shined on what's happening in the SRE program.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
    My time has expired.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, 
Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking 
Member Shimkus, and I want to thank the panel for your 
testimony today.
    All of the panelists have raised concerns about how the RIN 
market is functioning, and so I have one two-part question to 
each member of the panel, and in the interests of time you will 
each get about a minute to answer this one two-part question.
    Do you think the RIN market has functioned properly 
throughout the lifetime of the RFS program, and if you do think 
there is a problem with the RIN market, how has it affected 
your business or industry?
    And we'll start with Mr. Cooper.
    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you for the question, and I will 
try to answer briefly.
    I think the answer to whether the RIN market has functioned 
properly relies upon was EPA enforcing the RVOs, and when they 
were enforcing the RVOs that were finalized annually, yes, the 
RIN market was doing its job. It was helping to expand and grow 
the market and provide the incentive to do that.
    When EPA is not enforcing or implementing the program 
properly, the RIN market does not function properly.
    And then, secondly, you know, I think the lack of 
transparency in the RIN market, which has been brought up a few 
times today, is absolutely an impediment to the effective 
operation of that market, and that's something that I know that 
the legislation we are discussing here today would help 
address.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    Sir?
    Mr. Gebolys. Yes, the fundamental logic of the RIN 
component of the RFS makes perfect sense and, theoretically, it 
should work perfectly fine and, largely, does when there's open 
access to information.
    But when some participants in a market have more 
information than others, markets don't function properly. The 
fundamental structure of the RIN market makes sense. The 
fundamental logic of the RFS makes sense.
    But it all is dependent on EPA administering the program 
such that all market participants have the same amount of 
information at the same time.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. We certainly don't believe the RIN market has 
operated as envisioned. At the time the program was enacted, 
RINs were supposed to be a minor transactional cost.
    As we all know, that is not the case today. It's created 
great hardship for not only small refineries but all 
refineries.
    Now, as far as to some of the testimony that the biofuel 
industry believes there needs to be higher RINs to drive 
demand, simply not true.
    Analysis after analysis shows zero correlation between RIN 
prices and--D6 RIN prices--and ethanol consumption. Zero 
correlation, and only a weak correlation as it relates to 
biodiesel.
    So the assertion that you need high RIN prices, there's 
only one thing that--high RIN prices do two things: It creates 
hardship for the refining industry and more expensive fuel for 
consumers.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I believe the RIN market has worked 
successfully with the RFS. You know, it's a pass-through cost 
to the refineries. If they meet their obligations, they recoup 
the price.
    But also in our situation at Siouxland Energy, we produce 
about 2 million gallons a year of cellulosic ethanol through 
cell-based or fiber-based ethanol, and the D3 RIN values help 
promote that project to create some cellulosic ethanol with our 
corn fiber.
    So I do think it's been a successful part of the RFS.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I would also 
agree with Mr. Walden. This is one of the complex issues that 
this committee has to deal with. So thank you for your 
testimony, and thank you for your leadership.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, 
Representative McKinley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Mr. Walden 
for giving up his slot so that I could ask this question.
    The biofuel industry argues that granting hardship 
exemptions to small refineries--boutique refineries like Ergon 
in Newell, West Virginia, which produces 23,000 barrels a day--
and they say if we grant that exemption it will be, quote, 
``demand destruction'' is what I am hearing from the biofuels.
    Now, let's put this in context. That may sound like a lot 
of production--23,000 barrels. But Marathon produces over 3 
million barrels a day, 130 times what Ergon is producing.
    So there's a reason for these exemptions for small 
refineries that were put in the Clean Air Act, and it's been 
upheld by the courts. It was for facilities just like Ergon.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter letters of 
record from the labor organizations which support these small 
refinery exceptions and oppose the RFS from the steelworkers, 
the plumbers and pipefitters, the boilermakers, the IBEW, 
Northwest Building Trades, the National Building Trades, and 
the AFPM--organizations that say we should do this.
    Now, EIA data that, Mr. Thompson, you brought up shows that 
the ethanol production and blending has gone up to record 
highs, so even when these exemptions have been granted that 
they say were so sinister in the last 2 years plus.
    When do you think biofuels will be able to compete in an 
open market without a mandate?
    Mr. Thompson. That's a difficult question. I will say when 
they become, you know, more--at least from the biodiesel side, 
when they become more cost competitive, frankly, right.
    It's 75 cents to a dollar more expensive on a gallon basis 
of biodiesel than the diesel that my members produce. Ethanol 
is cost effective right now and, like I said, you know, ethanol 
is being used. Back to the data--it's being used.
    So this isn't a fight. We are not anti-ethanol. We are 
anti-mandates, and we are anti-programs that are trying to 
smother our small refineries.
    Mr. McKinley. Let me follow up with a second question with 
you. The legislation we are talking about today would require 
the release of proprietary business information. Is the intent 
of the bill, in effect, to keep small refineries from filing 
these hardship petitions, and is that workable?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, it sure seems that way, as I talked 
about in my opening remarks, because you create this Hobson's 
choice, as I said, for refiners who are going to be asked to 
put their most sensitive information into the public.
    There is no more competitive market in this country than it 
is for motor gasoline. Asking a small refinery to put all their 
financial data and then make it publicly available certainly 
plays right into that competition.
    It's not something that most small refineries would 
welcome, and I think what it would do it would chill refineries 
from seeking such relief.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, did you--did I get unanimous consent?
    Mr. Tonko. You certainly did.
    [The letters appear at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, and I appreciate that.
    Back to Mr. Cooper, as we close out on my time for 
questioning, let me just clarify. You said several times when 
you didn't answer Congressman Shimkus's question that it was 
going to take a long time.
    The Green New Deal says by 2030. Nine years, 10 years--is 
that a long time?
    Mr. Cooper. I think everyone who has looked at how this 
transition to electric vehicles could play out from a very 
analytical standpoint knows it's going to take more than 10 
years. We are talking 40, 50----
    Mr. McKinley. But that's what they're--that's what they're 
pushing on it is the 10-year window, and the presidential 
candidates have all been embracing that. They think that's a 
great idea, and I think that Congressman Pallone's offer is 
another alternative--to change that to 2050.
    Again, we've heard from some other folks from the 
Department of Energy in a previous administration, with Moniz 
and others have said that's not workable to be able to think 
about. Even 2050 can't work.
    So I just want to make sure that you understand. I am aware 
of the time frame, and I don't think even by 2050 we are going 
to be ready. The devastation it's going to do to our country is 
incredible.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chair, 
for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Let me just ask Mr. Gebolys--if I am pronouncing it right--
your company has been in business for about 20 years, a little 
longer than the RFS program has existed, and the original RFS 
granted a blanket exemption for small refineries for several 
years in the beginning of the program.
    And when the blanket exemption in the law expired, EPA 
continued to approve some Small Refinery Exemptions virtually 
every year.
    In your testimony, you say that recently you have had to 
close three facilities. So my question is, has this type of 
setback happened in past years when there were fewer Small 
Refinery Exemption?
    Mr. Gebolys. Thank you for the question.
    As you point out, in the early days of the RFS there were 
waivers given as of right and then subsequently extensions of 
those.
    Starting around 2012, companies had to apply for the 
waivers, and there were only a few given--seven, right--
totaling about 200 million gallons annually.
    Those were relatively modest. They didn't substantially 
change the markets. In the early going, they didn't change 
markets at all because they were--the waived gallons were 
picked up by other obligated parties.
    Only starting 15, 18 months ago with the very significant 
expansion of the waiver program did it show up in decreased RIN 
values, which go directly to our economics and our ability to 
produce.
    Mr. Pallone. Right. But in your testimony, you said that 
one of your products is sustainable aviation fuel, and last 
week we had a hearing on the transportation sector with a 
representative of Neste who talked about the need to increase 
demand for this fuel if we are to lower climate pollution from 
the aviation sector.
    So let me just ask a couple questions. Are we going to get 
new investment in alternative fuels without the RFS?
    Mr. Gebolys. It makes it very difficult. As I was pointing 
out earlier, we are investing in California because California 
is investing in California.
    With the signals that we are getting out of the EPA, it 
makes it very difficult to invest.
    Mr. Pallone. What is the----
    Mr. Gebolys. Not only does it chill demand in the moment, 
it makes it very hard to project forward an environment in 
which we can justify investments today that we'll have to pay 
out over time.
    Mr. Pallone. And this is because the EPA continues to grant 
a large number of exemptions, or what is it?
    Mr. Gebolys. For us, directly so. I think there's been a 
lot of quoting of studies one way or the other. There's 
absolutely zero question that the Small Refinery Exemptions are 
killing demand in biodiesel and advanced biofuels.
    Mr. Pallone. And so the--I mean, what kind of signals does 
this, you know, implementation of the RFS send to the 
investment community with respect to advanced biofuels, 
essentially?
    Mr. Gebolys. Well, it's not a positive one.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Can I ask Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nieuwenhuis, you know, about 
the same topic, if you want to express your views?
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you for the question, and I guess I would 
respond by really challenging what you have heard from Mr. 
Thompson regarding demand destruction in the ethanol industry.
    We absolutely have experienced demand loss in the ethanol 
industry as a consequence of these Small Refinery Exemptions, 
and the signal that sends to the industry is, hey, stop 
investing. If there's not going to be a market for larger 
volumes of renewable fuels, we are not going to invest in 
expanding capacity.
    You know, as I said in my testimony, 2018 consumption was 
about 150 to 200 million gallons lower than it was in 2017.
    That's the first time in more than 20 years that we saw a 
year-over-year loss in ethanol consumption, and now this year 
EIA is saying actual consumption is likely to be about 500 
million gallons lower than they initially projected.
    So there absolutely has been demand destruction in the 
ethanol side as well, and we expect that to accelerate now that 
we have another 31 exemptions that came out in August.
    Mr. Thompson's slide showed everything going through July. 
Well, you know, what about the impact of these 31 waivers that 
were announced after----
    Mr. Pallone. I think I have 20 seconds left for Mr. 
Nieuwenhuis, if you want to say something.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. The August 9th 31 Small Refinery 
Exemptions really crushed the ethanol market and crushed the 
prices, and that's when the bottom fell out of our industry.
    In our local plant that I am president of the board, like I 
talked about, our capital projects--we are actually doing a 
capital call to our initial shareholders right now and to raise 
some cash to keep the plant running.
    So those Small Refinery Exemptions have done a lot of 
damage not only to the ethanol demand but also to the 
investment side of things and the fear of not having the 
certainty of an RFS that's being upheld.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Thank you all.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, full committee ranking 
member, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks to the 
panel, and as you have heard, some of us have a hearing 
upstairs and this one as well. But we appreciate your 
information.
    So I just have one question to start with for everybody on 
the panel. I think businesses generally would have a problem 
with a blanket statement that anything submitted to the 
government that was unique to their operation's competitive 
position should be given to the general public, right.
    So my question, does that seem reasonable to each of you, 
and kind of a yes or no, if you can.
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Yes. You know, I think--we are not suggesting 
that refineries should turn over private financial operational 
data to the public. Nobody's asking for that.
    Names of the refineries and their locations--even EPA has 
said that's not confidential business information and should be 
publicly available.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Let me work down the panel here.
    Mr. Gebolys. So a company chooses to seek an exemption, I 
cannot fathom why it doesn't make sense for that company to 
reveal who they are, where they are, and why they are seeking 
the exemption.
    Mr. Walden. Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. Again, I've made it clear we certainly don't 
support that.
    Something Mr. Cooper said, that no one's asking for that to 
be the case. Unfortunately, that's what H.R. 3006 says 
directly, that any information submitted as a part of the 
waiver application shall be deemed to be, you know, available 
for public disclosure.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Thompson. Now, even the name of a company can hurt you, 
given that all fuel markets are regional and very competitive; 
even people knowing you have got one and that your distress 
could put you at even further distress.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I realize the SREs are part of the RFS, 
and they're--it's designed for the small refineries, and, you 
know, and they're supposed to show a hardship.
    So, unless you know who they are, how are they going to 
show that they are actually suffering a hardship from the RFS? 
So I think the SREs or the H.R. 3006 is very important, going 
forward, for transparency.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you all.
    Mr. Gebolys and Mr. Cooper, for many years I've been 
promoting policies to increase the use of woody biomass in our 
environmental policies, given the great forest stocks we have 
and the need to thin out our forests and trying to figure out 
markets to pay for all that.
    So I recently visited an innovative project in Lake View, 
Oregon, where Red Rock Biofuels is constructing a gasification 
facility. Now, that will turn woody biomass into jet and diesel 
fuel, and they already have contracts.
    This is the first gasification project in the world to use 
woody biomass from forest-thinning-related activities. It may 
serve as a blueprint for producing advanced renewable biodiesel 
and at the same time help keep forests healthy and more 
resilient to these awful wildfires we've been having.
    So I understand it already has contracts with Southwest 
Airlines, Fed Ex, and DoD. One problem is, due to RFS and tax 
credit prohibitions, the project cannot take biomass from 
Federal lands or wood chips from a local mill. Yet, there's no 
way to determine whether chips are from Federal or private 
land, since it sources from both.
    So, from your perspective, what are the prospects that 
innovative projects like this can provide additional fuel 
sources for biodiesel and transportation fuels, and what would 
be the impact on greenhouse gas emissions?
    Do either of you want to comment?
    Mr. Gebolys. I can't speak to that particular project. But, 
in general, the way innovation happens is that there are market 
signals set and then companies compete to respond to those.
    And so, whether it's the project that you referred to or 
the project that we are doing in Los Angeles or projects that 
are happening throughout the country, that is what the RFS was 
meant to do.
    It was meant to drive innovation. It was meant to push 
forward. And so I think we are all--I can't speak to the 
particular----
    Mr. Walden. Well, you could come out and visit, and then 
you could. We'd be happy to----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Walden [continuing]. Anybody wants to come out to Lake 
View, we'll take you.
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. I would say that, you know, the issue we are 
talking about today--Small Refinery Exemptions--have 
absolutely, you know, dampened the incentive to invest in the 
type of innovation that you're talking about as well.
    We've talked a lot about the impacts on first-generation 
biofuels--corn ethanol, soybean-based biodiesel. But, when EPA 
issues an SRE, it affects every category of the RFS. We've seen 
lower cellulosic RIN prices and, therefore, lower investment in 
those technologies as well.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Again, thank you all for helping us better understand the 
issues today and those that lie ahead in this big issue set.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 
Representative Soto, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This hearing is part of our historic set of hearings to try 
to get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, to have a Clean 
Climate Act for the 21st century.
    So, when I hear that we can't get to clean energy by 2050, 
I worry that our Nation's in deep trouble and our world is in 
deep trouble if we can't do that.
    I just got a announcement the other day by the Union of 
Concerned Scientists about the rise in extreme heat in my 
district in central Florida from four days a year to 141 by the 
end of the century if we don't do anything.
    Coupled with extreme weather and rising seas, obviously, 
this is something that we are concerned about. For this 
particular hearing, how many of you all--and we'll go down the 
list--agree that the RFS lowers greenhouse gas emissions 
overall?
    We'll start from left to right. Do you agree or disagree?
    Mr. Cooper. I agree 100 percent.
    Mr. Gebolys. There's no question about it.
    Mr. Thompson. I agree there's reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I agree 100 percent.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks. We want to at least establish basic facts 
as we are going forward on these issues.
    Overall, how many of you agree that these applications 
should remain secret, or be in the sunshine? I come from a 
State where everything is a public record unless you get an 
exemption--the State of Florida.
    So let's go down the list, and then I had some particular 
questions for Mr. Thompson to try to get at what may be common 
ground.
    But, from left to right, how many of you agree that these 
should still be totally secret or not?
    Mr. Cooper. I believe that basic information about the 
petitioner should be revealed to the public. The name, 
identity, location of the refinery should absolutely be 
available to the public.
    Mr. Gebolys. The SEC requires that companies report 
material financial information, and because of that we know 
some of who has pursued these, including Chevron, Exxon, and 
others.
    Mr. Soto. Now, is that comprehensive, or we just know--we 
get sort of a glimmer of some companies that are doing it, but 
not all of them?
    Mr. Gebolys. We get what they deem to be material and what 
they share under SEC rules. At least the name, the location, 
and the volume has got to be the bare minimum.
    Mr. Soto. Sure.
    Mr. Thompson, I know you had mentioned just merely 
disclosing the hardship is an adverse consequence. We have, 
obviously, SEC where you have disclose earnings and other 
things that companies have to do all the time.
    What could be disclosed? Or is your position that nothing 
should be disclosed because you're admitting a hardship?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, let me just start by answering your 
first question, which is I think the application should be--
remain confidential. Let's use the correct words.
    Mr. Soto. Sure.
    Mr. Thompson. Not secret. Confidential, as long as the 
applicant desires them to remain confidential. By the way, this 
is the exact same policies under the Trump administration--I 
mean, the Obama administration. Exact same.
    And they were kept confidential pursuant to CBI regulations 
that EPA must adhere to.
    Mr. Soto. But we have a lot of new----
    Mr. Thompson. This information can jeopardize the 
competitive standing of organizations. It's always been treated 
as confidential.
    Mr. Soto. Well, we are here today because it's the opinion 
of the committee that it could be abused right now--that we are 
seeing a bunch of new applications being sent forward, and we 
have no way to determine whether or not they should have it.
    Mr. Thompson. Well----
    Mr. Soto. Just this--your identification of it, you are 
opposed to because you think it'll be a hardship?
    Mr. Thompson. I would say that what EPA did recently with 
their website in which they announced the applications--how 
many are granted, how many volumes, how many RINs--I think 
that's a step in the right direction.
    And by the way, one last thing: there's no shortage of 
lawsuits filed by folks around me related to SREs. Obviously, 
this information is getting out in some quarters.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Yes, I would like to say I think these 
SREs need to be 100 percent transparent. But, speaking from a 
farmer's perspective who--over the last 37 years, we've had 
farm subsidies, and everybody knows that.
    But everybody sitting in this room can go online and find 
out how much my family has received from farm subsidies. And so 
I don't see where the Small Refinery Exemptions should be 
different than what agriculture has to deal with.
    Mr. Soto. Sure. So you all----
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. And so I think 100 percent transparency in 
SREs is necessary.
    Mr. Soto. So you all, in effect, are admitting as farmers 
to having a hardship and needing that help, and we want you to 
have that help. Those programs are in place.
    So there's other industries that have to admit when they 
may need a little help from the Government, and that hasn't put 
you under, has it?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. But one thing I will say is the farming 
industry--we want to move away from subsidies. We want markets. 
We've been working on this for years. The biofuels industry has 
been the best thing that ever happened to my farming career, 
and I want to see it continue to grow and give us markets so we 
don't need farm subsidies.
    Mr. Soto. Well, that's actually happening in actual trade 
policy on China and getting USMCA in for a landing. But that's 
for the Ways and Means Committee.
    So thanks for being here.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Flores for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    To our witnesses, I want to--I've asked this question 
before, particularly last December when Chairman Shimkus and I 
had a hearing on this. Which of these two options would you 
prefer: Option A, keep the status quo and let the regulatory 
agencies decide what annual RFS compliance is, or option B, 
come up with a legislative solution to fix these concerns?
    Mr. Cooper, option A or option B?
    Mr. Cooper. We would prefer that EPA enforce the law that 
Congress gave it.
    Mr. Flores. Mr. Gebolys?
    Mr. Gebolys. The same answer.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. B.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Nieuwenhuis?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I would prefer that the RFS stay intact 
and we do it the way it's been done.
    Mr. Flores. Is that option A?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. No.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Flores. It's not option A. So that's an option C then, 
I guess.
    Mr. Cooper, you seemed to hedge when I asked you that 
question last December. You did state, however, that there are 
things that could be improved with the current program, and the 
EPA does have the administrative authority to make those fixes.
    Since that hearing last December, does your organization 
still prefer constant litigation of these RFS battles in the 
administration of courts, or would you prefer a legislative 
solution?
    Mr. Cooper. We still believe that the administration can 
resolve these issues with EPA's administrative authority. It 
just requires the will to do so, and that's what we are focused 
on currently.
    Mr. Flores. To my next question, I imagine that liquid-
fuel-powered vehicles will face increased competition from 
electric and hybrid vehicles in the years ahead.
    So the questions are this. Do you agree that liquid-fuel 
vehicles will have to find ways to improve fuel economy and 
lower emissions, and B, do you believe that high-powered--
excuse me--that a high-octane standard is the most effective 
way to improve the fuel economy of liquid-fuel-powered 
vehicles?
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, I do believe there's a tremendous role for 
high-octane fuel vehicles to improve efficiency and reduce 
emissions moving forward.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Yes to both questions.
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Flores. And Mr. Gebolys?
    Mr. Gebolys. Oh. Yes. Obviously, the world's changing and 
we are going to get to greater and greater efficiency, and the 
liquid fuels market is going to have to change with it.
    Mr. Flores. Do you feel that high-octane standards are a 
way to achieve that?
    Mr. Gebolys. I don't have an opinion on that one way or the 
other.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. Certainly, we believe there's a lot of 
potential and, as you know, when transitioning away from the 
RFS to a 95 RON standard, we believe that would be in the best 
interest of all stakeholders.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Nieuwenhuis, do you agree that liquid-
fuel vehicles are going to have to find ways to improve fuel 
economy and lower emissions?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Flores. OK.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. And I feel the best way is through high-
octane fuels with ethanol blends.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Well, I think you all support the approach 
that Mr. Shimkus and I are trying to take versus the constant 
litigation and arguing with the EPA.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Matsui, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 
attention to one out of the many issues that come out of this 
administration's handling of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
    While many of us were excited about the promise of the RFS 
and the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our 
Nation's transportation sector, it's been clear for the past 
two and a half years that it's not an interest of this 
administration to execute the programs Congress intended and 
abundantly obvious that the ultimate goal of the RFS to combat 
climate change is not one shared by the President or his 
political appointees.
    A critical issue that has been gaining attention lately is 
the liberal use of the small refinery exceptions--SREs--and how 
they are not only undercutting the program but hurting 
industries across the country, including Pacific Ethanol, which 
is headquartered in my district of Sacramento.
    I met with Pacific Ethanol's CEO, who has communicated to 
me firsthand how SREs are hurting his company and threatening 
good-paying jobs in my district.
    Now, I want to now turn to the subject of advanced 
biofuels. We have not seen the level of deployment of advanced 
fuels that was originally envisioned under the RFS. We can 
point to issues that have come up over the years.
    It is also clear that difference in emissions between this 
administration and the last is having an impact here.
    For example, the EPA under President Trump has put a freeze 
on all new cellulosic biofuel registrations and pathways.
    Mr. Cooper or Mr. Gebolys, how has this freeze impacted the 
ability to deploy a higher percentage of advanced biofuels, 
specifically cellulosic biofuels, into our fuel mix, and if you 
could be--make it quickly.
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, thank you for the question.
    Pacific Ethanol is actually one of the leaders in adopting 
cellulosic ethanol technology, and they are today producing 
cellulosic ethanol right alongside starch-based ethanol.
    We have 200 corn-based ethanol plants across the country. 
Every one of them was in a position to quickly adopt the same 
technology to produce cellulosic biofuels that would reduce 
carbon emissions 70 to 80 percent relative to gasoline.
    But, as you mentioned, the EPA put a freeze on those 
registrations, put a freeze on those pathway petitions. And so 
today we have maybe half a dozen facilities that are using that 
technology.
    So EPA's, you know, mismanagement of the RFS goes far 
beyond the Small Refinery Exemptions and also deals with these 
pathway approvals and registrations.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, has the increase in approval of SREs 
impacted development of cellulosic biofuels' inability to 
penetrate the market? Either one of you.
    Mr. Gebolys. Yes, I can't speak to cellulosic, although it 
has. But more directly, by far the largest advanced biofuel in 
the country is biodiesel and biomass-based diesel, and the 
impact on biomass-based diesel has been severe and immediate.
    All of the expansion in the RFS is supposed to be in the 
advanced biofuels sector as of 2016, and we have flatlined 
despite the fact that the basic concept of the RFS was that the 
program would be emphasizing advanced biofuels, all of which 
have a 50 percent greater reduction in carbon impact.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. So an issue that's come up as this year's 
rulemaking has unfolded is whether or not and in what volume 
the waived gallons of renewable fuel might be incorporated back 
into the market by requiring refineries that did not receive a 
waiver to blend additional gallons.
    Mr. Cooper, would H.R. 3006's June 1st deadline for Small 
Refinery Exemption petitions address this issue?
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, it would, on a prospective basis, moving 
forward. I think the 4 billion gallons that we've lost already 
as a consequence of these exemptions would not be addressed by 
the legislation.
    But it would stop the bleeding and ensure that, moving 
forward, those exemptions--which we are saying, you know, if a 
small refiner deserves one, go ahead and give it to him. Just 
make sure that lost blending volume is made up and accounted 
for by larger nonexempt refineries. The bill would do that.
    Ms. Matsui. All right. Well, should there be additional 
public transparency milestones such as deadline for EPA to 
report to the public how many petitions they have received? Is 
that helpful?
    Mr. Cooper. Yes, that would be helpful.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. What other information could be made public 
that is not currently available?
    Mr. Cooper. I think, as we've discussed, we think the 
identity of the refineries submitting a petition, the volume, 
you know, that is seeking an exemption, and the location of the 
refinery.
    Those are three basic things that are not confidential 
business information and don't involve financial or operational 
factors.
    Ms. Matsui. How about the criteria EPA uses to evaluate 
these petitions?
    Mr. Cooper. It would be very helpful to know exactly what 
criteria EPA is using and how that's changed, absolutely.
    Ms. Matsui. So you want more transparency all the way 
around?
    Mr. Cooper. Certainly.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Well, I've run out of time. So thank 
you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Mullin, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've just got a couple questions.
    Mr. Thompson, under the RFS, are waivers allowed?
    Mr. Thompson. Yes.
    Mr. Mullin. They are allowed?
    Mr. Thompson. Waivers? Yes.
    Mr. Mullin. Yes. OK. Are there court cases to back this up?
    Mr. Thompson. Yes, there are lots of court cases, including 
several that deal specifically with Small Refinery Exemptions.
    Mr. Mullin. So the President is within his authority to be 
able to do this, right?
    Mr. Thompson. Absolutely.
    Mr. Mullin. OK. That's pretty much all my questions with 
that. I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Buddy Carter.
    Mr. Carter. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Gentlemen, can you clear something up for me? Mr. Thompson, 
you said in your testimony that the data--the EIA data--says 
that both volume and blend rates for ethanol are at a near all-
time high.
    But I've heard you, Mr. Cooper, and you, Mr. Nieuwenhuis, 
say that they're--they've decreased. I am confused. Who's right 
here? Who's wrong?
    Mr. Cooper, do you want to take a shot at it?
    Mr. Cooper. Absolutely. I am not sure what EIA data Mr. 
Thompson is looking at. The data we look at shows clear 
evidence of demand loss. We are consuming less ethanol last 
year than we have in 2017. That's the first year-over-year loss 
we've seen----
    Mr. Carter. And are you saying that the SREs are the reason 
for that?
    Mr. Cooper. They are certainly part of the reason for that, 
yes.
    Mr. Carter. How much of the reason for that, and why?
    Mr. Cooper. We would suggest that SREs are primarily 
responsible for that demand loss because you have reduced----
    Mr. Carter. OK. Because----
    Mr. Cooper. You're reduced the requirement--you know, the 
RFS requirement. You have lowered that below the so-called E10 
blend wall and taken the pressure off the marketplace to expand 
ethanol blending.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Thompson, what----
    Mr. Thompson. The only data that I have is from the EIA, 
and the EIA data which, again, was on display is pulled right 
from their website. It's the latest data available publicly.
    It's only available up through July of this year, and it 
shows that ethanol blend rates are at 10.17 percent, which is 
the highest of all time. It shows that bioconsumption is 
certainly slightly down by it looks like 4,000 or so gallons. 
And so, you know, as far as they're--I have proof for my data 
points. It's the EIA data.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Well, and I am not--I am not doubting you. 
I am just a little bit confused.
    Mr. Thompson. No, I am not suggesting you're doubting me. I 
am suggesting I have no way to refute the data that just 
happens to fall in their testimony.
    Mr. Carter. OK.
    Mr. Thompson. You know--right, this is the ethanol that 
speaks for itself.
    Mr. Carter. Fair enough. Fair enough.
    Well, let me ask you this. Would the SREs impact the 
ethanol more so than biofuels, or would it be the same for 
both, Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, I would say that there's probably more 
of an impact on biodiesel than ethanol because, as we say, my 
members make blends--you know, BOBs--that have to be blended 
with octane before they can be sold, and that octane source is 
ethanol.
    So, regardless of SREs, remember, SREs only give relief 
from compliance of, you know, handing over RINs to the 
Government. It does not give them relief from, you know, making 
sure that they're selling to consumers a compliant product.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Gotcha.
    Mr. Cooper?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, you know, again, we could--and we have 
been, are arguing for quite some time about what the EIA data 
show.
    When you look at the facts on the ground, though, we have 
19 ethanol plants that have shut down. You can't tell me that 
that hasn't happened because there hasn't been some loss of 
demand, and that's absolutely what has occurred. Our production 
is down. That's a response to the lower demand that we've seen 
as well.
    Mr. Carter. OK. All right. Fine. Enough.
    Let me ask you this. I am going to shift gears and, Mr. 
Thompson, I am going to ask you this. You said in your 
testimony that the RFS is explicit in providing small 
refineries the ability to apply for a petition at any point in 
the year.
    How important is that to be flexible? I know that we've had 
a number of floods in the Midwest, and certainly that had to 
have had some impact on it as well.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, you have hit it on its head. There's 
lots of circumstances that can arise.
    Again, it was Congress--if you go back and look at the 
legislative history around SREs, it goes back to the early 
2000s. It was bipartisan. These small refineries are the 
lifebloods of communities. You want to protect them and make 
sure they remain viable.
    And so there are things that can crop up at any time in the 
year that could impact the ability to comply, and refineries 
should have the ability and the flexibility to seek relief when 
they need relief.
    Mr. Carter. Very good, and I am going to yield to Ranking 
Member Shimkus.
    Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague.
    And the point I--the point I want to stress is, and whether 
you want to dispute this or not, is that the volume of the 
liquid transportation fleet, based upon the Energy Information 
Agency, is going to decline.
    Well, how fast? How slow? If we move to a Green New Deal, 
it's going to be rapid and it's going to be based upon in 
intervention by us, regulations, and rules.
    So we are trying to protect the liquid transportation 
market and we have to rewrite the law, and that's what I was 
trying to do and I need your help.
    I will yield back to my colleague.
    Mr. Carter. And I yield the remainder of my time. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and I thank the witnesses. 
I apologize for missing your testimony.
    But this is a complicated issue, and I appreciate there's a 
lot of different sides to it. My district has Pacific Ethanol, 
which produces 60 million gallons a year. So it is important to 
me.
    Mr. Cooper, in your testimony you mentioned how the 
response to sustained or weak, negative margins trends that 
coincide with the Trump administration's expansion of the SRE 
program--that ethanol plants have been forced to idle or shut 
down permanently.
    Can you speak to the impact that this has had on the 
biofuel producers, specifically with regard to both the direct 
and indirect jobs associated with those losses?
    Mr. Cooper. Certainly, and thank you for the question.
    Yes, as I mentioned, we've seen 19 ethanol plants either 
temporarily idle or permanently close. There's four or five of 
those facilities that have shut their doors and will never come 
back online.
    The jobs--each of those ethanol plants employs 45 to 50 
workers directly at the plant. Those are great jobs in rural 
areas, typically. But the impact goes far beyond that. There's 
lots of indirect and induced jobs.
    We have estimated the impact of these 19 plant closures as 
700 lost direct jobs and 2,800 indirect and induced jobs. 
That's about 3,500 jobs that we believe have been affected 
because of these Small Refinery Exemptions. It's a serious 
issue.
    We are also experiencing the worst margins, you know, for a 
sustained period of time that this industry has probably ever 
seen.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Gebolys, one of the biggest complaint surrounding how 
the EPA has managed the SRE program is there's been a lack of 
transparency--that's come up several times this morning--and 
with these waivers that's being granted, who's receiving them.
    Would you say that all the secretive and capricious nature 
of the SREs can have a destabilizing effect on the renewable 
energy sector, specifically with regard to ethanol production 
and job loss?
    Mr. Gebolys. Yes. There's no question that the secretive 
nature destabilizes markets. Some market participants have 
information. Others don't. You can't have a functioning market 
like that.
    If I might just quickly add to your previous question, Mr. 
Cooper. Look, we can quote all the studies we want. I had to 
make a decision to close three plants.
    I couldn't personally be in three places at the same time, 
so I had to do those by video. One after another after another, 
even through video, I made eye contact with the folks that were 
going to be furloughed later that same day. There is zero 
question that these SREs are crushing small refineries. They're 
just idle refiners.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis, can you speak to the impact of the EPA's 
decision to not fully reallocate the negotiated amount of 1.3 
billion gallons of SREs in 2020----
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Yes, absolutely.
    The deal that we were approached with on October 4th from 
the Trump administration was to head back our 3-year rolling 
average of the waived--gallons that were actually waived of the 
4.04 billion gallons. So that would be, like, 1.4 billion 
gallons per year in a 3-year thing.
    Now, there was some certainty in that proposal. But the 
proposal that the EPA came out with 11 days later cut that in 
half just in--and that didn't even assure that the waivers that 
they granted wouldn't offset that to keep us under 15 billion 
gallons.
    So, as president of a board of a plant, when we heard the 
first proposal we were excited, and then when we heard the 
actual proposal from the EPA we were disappointed and saw that 
that wasn't going to be the answer to the situation.
    Mr. McNerney. Yes, businesses thrive on certainty and the 
predictability, and this is, in my opinion and many people's 
opinion, a real problem.
    Mr. Cooper, you noted in your testimony that, while the 
practice of issuing retroactive exemptions has continued since 
2013, they only emerged as a significant concern under the 
Trump administration's massive expansion.
    Can you speak to the importance of closing this loophole?
    Mr. Cooper. Absolutely, and again, this program--you know, 
the Small Refinery Exemption program has been around since the 
beginning of the RFS.
    It hasn't really been an issue for us until the recent--
until the last few years when the refining industry did find 
numerous loopholes available in this program and exploited 
those loopholes and had a willing partner in EPA.
    So we do think there are a number of ways to close those 
loopholes. We believe H.R. 3006 begins to close some of those, 
the biggest loopholes, you know, being the deadline for 
submitting these petitions and ensuring that we know before 
that RVO is finalized every year what volume of gasoline and 
diesel is going to be exempted from an obligation.
    That allows that volume to be restored or redistributed to 
nonexempt parties. That's the big issue here.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, the EPA has the flexibility to 
deal with this. It's just using it in a bad way, in my opinion.
    Mr. Cooper. Absolutely.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 
Representative Schakowsky, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    So the current issue surrounding the Renewable Fuel 
Standard perfectly, in my mind, sums up the priorities of the 
Trump administration.
    President Trump and his cronies, they get theirs while 
ordinary Americans get hurt. We saw this in 2014 when the Trump 
Taj Mahal Casino filed for bankruptcy only to be bailed out by 
billionaire Carl Icahn, who bought it, and when casino workers 
went on strike two years later, Icahn did everything he could 
to try to strip them of their pensions and bankrupt the casino 
to his benefit, and he is definitely an--he is the definition 
of a vulture capitalist.
    Well, President Trump then rewarded Icahn with an advisory 
role in the White House. Icahn used his position to line his 
own pocket by pursuing the--pushing the EPA to overhaul the 
Renewable Fuel Standard in order to benefit his own energy 
interests.
    And this administration is working overtime to promote big 
oil at the expense of farmers and rural communities and average 
Americans everywhere.
    What's worse is that they're afraid to admit it, resulting 
in a shameful lack of transparency.
    Mr. Cooper, would you say that anything that I said just 
now--this characterization--is incorrect?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, I would say the President on numerous 
occasions has voiced strong support for the ethanol industry 
and the RFS specifically. But the actions of his EPA and the 
actions of this administration are inconsistent with those 
commitments and promises.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis, has the Trump administration given small 
refinery waivers to big companies like those Icahn has invested 
in and put farmers' interests--or has it put farmers' interests 
first?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Well, from my perspective, it's put the 
oil industry's perspective first, and the rural communities 
have taken a lot of abuse through these Small Refinery 
Exemptions.
    And, you know, part of the Small Refinery Exemptions when 
they started that discussion was because of the cost of RINs 
was the reason they were asking for the hardships.
    Well, August 9th, when they granted the last 31 Small 
Refinery Exemptions, RIN prices were at an all-time record low. 
So we were shocked when those were granted because we thought, 
with record-low RIN prices, why should anybody qualify for a 
hardship?
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    So climate change has worsened disasters, such as floods 
across the Midwest, where I live. This endangers the food 
security of Americans and the livelihood of our farmers.
    Illinois has the third-highest ethanol production capacity 
in the United States. Again, I want to ask Mr. Nieuwenhuis, as 
a farmer, is there any evidence that Carl Icahn, when he was at 
the White House--in the White House--has the best interests of 
Illinois farmers at heart?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Oh, absolutely not. He has the best 
interests in his own pocketbook in that situation. You know, he 
was calling for the change of point of obligation to start with 
and just--he's been trying to destroy the RFS since the Trump 
administration got into office.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Mr. Cooper, what would the administration--what the 
administration has proposed--the changes that it's proposed to 
the Renewable Fuel Standard mean to Illinois farmers, in your 
view?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, as Kelly pointed out earlier, you know, 
the deal or the agreement that was promised to the biofuels 
industry was, we are going to make whole the Renewable Fuel 
Standard. We are going to make sure that in 2020 15 billion 
gallons of required blending actually means 15 billion.
    And there's a methodology for doing that that involved the 
3-year rolling average of actual exemptions that Mr. 
Nieuwenhuis referred to.
    What we've seen in the proposal is that EPA has gone back 
on that agreement and is proposing to use a surrogate for 
projecting those exemptions that would result in a 15 billion 
gallon number again eroding to something less than 15 billion 
gallons and being inconsistent with what appears in the 
statute.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Cooper, I saw you shake your head when 
it was suggested that--on the question of transparency, et 
cetera--that essentially that the Obama administration has just 
been exactly like the Trump administration. Could you speak to 
that?
    Mr. Cooper. I would be happy to. In 2016, under the 
previous administration, EPA actually proposed in a proposed 
rule that went out for public comment to kind of lift the veil 
on the Small Refinery Exemption program, and they actually 
said, you know, and I quote, that ``small refineries are not 
entitled to CBI protection for certain information,'' including 
the name and location of the refineries, the nature of the 
relief that was being sought, and the volumes affected.
    EPA tried to float that proposal out again recently, and it 
got withdrawn and pulled back. So it is inconsistent to say 
that the Obama administration had the exact same approach to 
transparency on this issue. They understood there was a 
problem, and they were trying to resolve it.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. 
Welch, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I appreciate the witnesses 
and the information provided. I am a little disappointed at the 
narrow scope of this hearing.
    The whole issue of the ethanol mandate has raised a lot of 
policy questions--environmental, cost of food, impact on 
farmers who use grain.
    But I certainly appreciate the advocacy of friends like Mr. 
Loebsack, who are really concerned about the well-being of the 
farmers that grow grain that goes in--corn that goes into 
ethanol.
    And I come from a dairy State where grain is feed, and 
there is a lot of evidence that the higher the ethanol mandate, 
there used to be a tax benefit and there used to be, as you 
know, a tariff. All of that added to the cost of the dairy 
farmers who were paying more for the corn.
    So there's a dilemma here, OK. We like farmers, but if 
you're a corn producer you like the ethanol mandate. If you're 
a corn consumer for your dairy cows, it's a lot tougher.
    And I've been working with Mr. Flores and others to try to 
deal with some of these problems and get some stability, and I 
want to just ask--so I just needed to say that, that there's an 
immense amount of evidence that, as a result of the ethanol 
policy--in fact, I disagree with you're all raising your hand--
we are using more--we are creating more greenhouse gases net 
than without it.
    There's an enormous amount of evidence about overproduction 
of row to row--a lot more planting, millions of acres and the 
loss of habitat life, and then higher costs for consumers if 
they're buying their food and a higher cost for farmers that 
are using grain, whether it's dairy, chicken, or hogs.
    So, in full disclosure here, I love farmers. But I don't 
necessarily love ethanol. Let me ask just a couple of questions 
to get this moving.
    With the status of this confusion between EPA and 
everything you're talking about, what specifically, Mr. 
Nieuwenhuis, do you think has to be done to address this?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. I think the RFS needs to be upheld on this 
situation and on the Small Refinery Exemptions. You know, it's 
been excessive during the Trump administration--the 4 billion 
gallons that have been granted waivers--and now it's a lot of 
demand that----
    Mr. Welch. So transparency and a limitation on waivers?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Transparency and limitation would be huge.
    Mr. Welch. OK. All right.
    And Mr. Gebolys--did I pronounce your name right?
    The Greener Fuels Act, which I support, supports advanced 
biofuels, and that, as I understand it, is what the RFS was 
originally intended for.
    Can the RFS as it is now get us to a broader demand and use 
of advanced biofuels, and what are the major reforms to the 
program needed to achieve this goal?
    Mr. Gebolys. Thanks very much for the question.
    The response is absolutely, the RFS, as it is currently 
constructed, is not an ethanol mandate. It is a broad biofuels-
pushing structure that was designed to start with conventional 
biofuels, get to a maximum of 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 
2016, and then all of the growth after that was--is designed to 
be in the advanced category.
    Mr. Welch. But it's not there.
    Mr. Gebolys. I am sorry?
    Mr. Welch. We are not getting it.
    Mr. Gebolys. We are not getting it because we are getting 
SREs instead. I see Mr. Thompson react to the--to my comment. 
But that is absolutely what is happening.
    There's an economist at the University of Illinois named 
Scott Irwin. He's written a paper in March of this most recent 
year that lays it out in three very easily read pages on 
exactly how that is impacting us.
    Mr. Welch. And without having an argument about the net 
carbon impact of ethanol, there's no question that advanced 
biofuels have a much more significant carbon reduction impact.
    Would you speak to that, Mr. Gebolys?
    Mr. Gebolys. Yes. You can't be an advanced biofuel unless 
you demonstrate without any question that your fuel reduces 
carbon by no less than 50 percent. In the biodiesel world, many 
of ours, depending on what you're using for feedstock, reduce 
the carbon impact by upwards of 85 percent.
    The other thing that I wanted to address is the issue about 
food versus fuel. The reason that soybeans, which are the main 
source of feedstock for biodiesel--the reason those are grown 
is for the protein, not the oil, and when you get a higher net 
back to the oil, the protein actually becomes less expensive.
    You get more value in the bean from the oil contribution, 
and the protein, which is the good stuff, actually becomes less 
expensive.
    So the growth of advanced biofuels actually goes hand in 
hand with the growth of protein.
    Mr. Welch. OK. I yield back. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Loebsack, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus, for allowing me to waive on to this subcommittee, and 
thank you to the witnesses for being here as well.
    The RFS does support, as we know, thousands of jobs across 
the country. It's an economic driver in many rural and farming 
communities in Iowa and across the Midwest.
    Unfortunately, over the past 3 years, this administration 
has undermined this program at every turn without providing a 
shred of transparency along the way, and today, dozens of these 
plants have shut down or halted production.
    Our farmers are feeling real pain watching their local 
economies disappear right along with their jobs. I am proud to 
have championed the legislation we are discussing today, the 
RFS Integrity Act, introduced by my colleague and fellow 
cochair on the Biofuels Caucus, Collin Peterson, and 
cosponsored by a number of Republicans as well.
    This much-needed legislation would increase transparency 
around these waivers and allow EPA to account for waived 
gallons when setting the RVO for the coming year.
    And I've got a bunch of questions. I am going to go through 
them a little bit quickly, if I may.
    Mr. Cooper, why is it important that we know who is 
receiving these waivers and also exactly how many gallons are 
being exempted before the RVO is set?
    Mr. Cooper. Well, thank you for the question, and it really 
comes down to accountability and fairness. I mean, transparency 
is necessary if we are going to have an accountable program.
    Again, we are not suggesting that private, financial, or 
operational or sensitive data should be disclosed. But, 
certainly, the name and location of the facility, you know, 
that is asking for an exemption should be publicly available.
    Mr. Loebsack. How many gallons are being exempted before 
the RVO is set then?
    Mr. Cooper. So, I mean, the last few years it's been an 
average of 1.35 billion gallons.
    Mr. Loebsack. OK.
    Mr. Cooper. We are simply asking EPA to add that into their 
RVO moving forward, to make sure it's accounted for----
    Mr. Loebsack. So does the current proposed rule guarantee 
15 billion gallons?
    Mr. Cooper. It doesn't, because EPA is proposing to only 
project 770 million gallons of exemptions when the actual total 
has been 1.35 billion gallons. So about----
    Mr. Loebsack. Can you address how the market has responded 
to the supplemental rule and whether the current proposal will 
circumvent the closure of more ethanol plants?
    Mr. Cooper. The market has barely blinked at the 
supplemental proposal from EPA. RIN prices have remained low. 
Corn prices, ethanol prices, did not react, you know, and I 
think that's a pretty strong signal that the market doesn't see 
this as a proposal that's really going to put the RFS back on 
the right track.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thanks, Mr. Cooper.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis, thank you for being here. It's good to see 
you again. I see you in Iowa from time to time. Too bad we 
don't have the Corn Indy 300 any longer.
    But at any rate, thank you for being here. I think it's 
just so important that we hear directly from an Iowa farmer 
about the consequences of these waivers.
    How did the most recent batch of SREs play into your 
decision to close down your ethanol plant? And I am happy that 
at least some--it's going at least some capacity now.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Thank you for the question, Mr. Loebsack.
    You know, that August 9th announcement of the 31 last SREs 
being granted, ethanol prices dropped 18 to 20 cents a gallon 
in a couple days. That's a huge move in the ethanol market, and 
it just took the--knocked the wind out of our sails in our 
plant at Sioux Center at that point.
    The month of August we lost millions of dollars. You know, 
if we would have had a crystal ball and knew this was going to 
happen, we probably would have idled our plant sooner. Did not 
drive it off a cliff----
    Mr. Loebsack. And so what was--and if I might, what was the 
local impact of this?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. You know, when we idled our plant it's a 
trickle-down effect. We not only weren't producing ethanol, but 
we weren't producing--we produce 350,000 tons of wet 
distiller's grain in our plant alone every year, and we got--
it's all fed within a three-county area with two cattle 
producers. It's a huge market for our coproduct there.
    We weren't producing any corn oil, which we either used for 
livestock feed as a high-energy product or it can go into 
biodiesel.
    Mr. Loebsack. Right.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. And then also the trucking industry--our 
plant alone trucks in 24 million bushels of corn a year and it 
trucks out 75 million gallons of ethanol a year.
    Mr. Loebsack. And I think that those effects--those sort of 
forward and backward linkages, the economists call them, 
right--I think that we often forget about those as well and 
that effect.
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. And our plant is unique also. We usually 
crack and pack 4 to 5 million bushels of corn during harvest, 
and we are not doing that this year.
    Mr. Loebsack. So what about the effect on prices that 
farmers receive for their grain--their ability to deliver 
during the harvest?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. You know what? It is huge. You know, our 
local location with our farmers--and we have 385 members to our 
plant, which are pretty much majority farmers--them not being 
able to deliver corn there and for us to take our bid off the 
tables is about a 15 to 20 cents a bushel drop in bases because 
of the----
    Mr. Loebsack. If Mr. Wheeler were here today, what would 
you say to him about the proposal?
    Mr. Nieuwenhuis. Well, the latest proposal is woefully 
inadequate to give the certainty to our industry so we can move 
forward and grow the use of biofuels.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to enter the following item into the record. It's a 
letter from the Biofuels Caucus, including my Iowa colleagues 
Representatives Axne and Finkenauer, to EPA Administrator 
Wheeler. I request unanimous consent that I enter that into the 
record, if I could--the letter to Mr. Wheeler.
    Mr. Tonko. So granted.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Loebsack. OK. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    I believe that concludes all Members that were choosing----
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Can I just ask a point of personal privilege for 1 second?
    To all my friends here, I just want to go over a little 
history. My first legislative success was enacting biodiesel in 
the fleets in 1998 with Karen McCarthy, and Clinton signed that 
bill.
    MTBE got excluded. Ethanol found a market. I was in this 
room when we passed the RFS, thanks to the then-Speaker. I 
voted for the Democratic 2007 RFS revision and expansion.
    I just want that on the record, as I've been trying to deal 
in this very contentious debate. I think we are trying to find 
a solution, and I really would encourage my friends and my 
colleagues. I think we are threatened by a changing world, and 
we better get united.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following into the 
record: a letter from BIO, the Biotechnology Innovation 
Organization, a letter from the United States Steelworkers, a 
letter from New Energy America, a letter from 25 Members of 
Congress to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a labor coalition 
letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler--Labor Coalition for 
Biofuels--a set of letters from the labor community to the 
administration submitted by Representative McKinley, an article 
published in the New York Times Magazine entitled ``Palm Oil 
Was Supposed to Help Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a 
Catastrophe,'' testimony from EPA Acting Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Anne L. 
Idsal, a post from EIA's website, and finally, a letter, I 
believe, from the Biofuel Caucus and a letter from a coalition 
of many organizations that was received on September--dated 
September 10.
    Without objection----
    [Side comments.]
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The EIA post appears during Mr. Thompson's oral testimony. 
Labor community letters submitted by Mr. McKinley have been retained in 
committee files and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20191029/110175/HHRG-116-IF18-20191029-SD003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. And finally, that concludes our business here. I 
would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us at 
today's hearing.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witnesses.
    I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
questions that they may receive.
    And with that, we again thank them for appearing before the 
subcommittee, and at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]