[Senate Hearing 119-343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-343
A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION
DRAFT OF THE WILDFIRE EMISSIONS PREVENTION
ACT; AND S. 881, THE RENEWABLE FUEL FOR
OCEAN-GOING VESSELS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-269 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Sabo, Johnny, Director, Georgia Forestry Commission, on behalf of
the National Association of State Foresters.................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........ 12
Wood, Jonathan, Vice President of Law and Policy, Property and
Environment Research Center.................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........ 25
Metcalf, Kathy, President Emeritus, Chamber of Shipping in
America........................................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Vijayan, Abirami (ABI), Senior Climate Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Pavlenko, Nikita, Program Director, Fuels and Aviation,
International Council on Clean Transportation.................. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters to Senator Ricketts from:
American Soybean Association and National Oilseed Processors
Association................................................ 59
Associations representing America's renewable fuel supply
chains and related maritime interests...................... 60
Letter to Senator Capito from American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers.................................................. 64
Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from National
Association of Convenience Stores and two other organizations.. 66
Submission from Senator Merkley: The Nature Conservancy in
Oregon: Ryan Haugo; TNC Sycan Marsh Preserve and the 2021
Bootleg Wildfire............................................... 68
A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION
DRAFT OF THE WILDFIRE EMISSIONS PREVENTION
ACT; AND S. 881, THE RENEWABLE FUEL FOR
OCEAN-GOING VESSELS ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in
room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Curtis, Ricketts,
Kelly, Blunt Rochester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Well, good morning, everybody. Thank you
all for being here. Just by way of explanation of why we have a
lot of empty--there is lots going on on Capitol Hill, so we are
expecting people in and out of the committee as we move
forward.
I want to thank everybody for being here as we will discuss
two pieces of legislation, a discussion draft titled the
Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act (WEPA), we all have a name
for everything, and then S. 881, the Renewable Fuel for Ocean-
Going Vessels Act, which is sponsored by Senators Ricketts and
Klobuchar.
I thank the witnesses for traveling and for coming.
The WEPA discussion draft amends the exceptional events
process to make it easier for States to manage their forests,
to reduce wildfire risk, we see them all over the place, and to
protect human health and the environment through prescribed
burns.
The Clean Air Act has been a success story. Since the Clean
Air Act was signed into law in 1970, the U.S. has reduced
criteria air pollutant emissions by 78 percent. That reduction
is largely attributed to significant decreases in emissions
from the energy and transportation sectors.
Today, a large share of emissions that remain come from
hard-to-abate sources, such as wildfires. Wildfires are growing
in size and severity, and the National Academies found that
wildfires pose an increasing threat to air quality and public
health.
In a 2024 fact sheet, the EPA estimated that wildland fires
accounted for 44 percent of the Nation's primary emissions of
fine particulate matter. Passing WEPA would help us to reduce
those emissions.
In 2023, many Americans experienced what western States
have been dealing with for decades when smoke from Canadian
wildfires blanketed the East Coast. There is little we can do
to regulate wildfires and their emissions. We cannot install
traditional air pollution control technology on a wildfire.
However, we do have tools that can reduce their impact,
like the use of prescribed burns. Studies consistently find
that prescribed burns are a proven method to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfires and their associated emissions. For
example, Stanford University scientists recently found that
prescribed burns can reduce the net emissions of subsequent
wildfires by 14 percent.
In 2021, the EPA determined that targeted prescribed burns
could have reduced particulate matter emissions from the 2015
Rough Fire by 20 percent, and caused a 40 percent reduction in
respiratory-related emergency room visits and premature deaths.
However, prescribed burns are severely underutilized as a
tool to mitigate wildfires. According to the GAO, EPA's air
quality requirements limit the use of prescribed burns that
reduce smoke from wildfires. This is because emissions from
prescribed burns and wildfire smoke impact a State's ability to
comply with the EPA's air quality requirements.
The EPA's Exceptional Events Rule provides a mechanism to
account for air pollution from wildfire smoke. However, this
process is complex and resource intensive, and smoke from
prescribed burns is treated less favorably than wildfire smoke.
While the Exceptional Events Rule allows for prescribed
burns in theory, the cumbersome process has limited states from
using them in practice. The GAO stated that ``State and local
agencies may not use the provision because exceptional event
demonstrations are technically complicated and resource
intensive.''
Instead of going through this challenging process, State
and local agencies often limit the number of eligible burn days
to ensure they do not have to use this process, which limits
the use of prescribed burns.
WEPA would ensure that States will not be penalized for
using prescribed burns and facilitate State leadership on
actions that would mitigate wildfire risk. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses about the environmental and public
health benefits that would come from having WEPA signed into
law.
This morning, we will also discuss S. 881, the Renewable
Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act. Ocean-going vessels include
the large cargo and container vessels used to transport more
than 80 percent of our international goods. Currently, using
biofuels to power ocean-going vessels is not a qualified use
under the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, potentially limiting
broader adoption of biofuels.
S. 881 amends the RFS to allow U.S. companies to use
biofuels for ocean-going vessels to comply with the RFS. In
addition to biofuels, U.S. shipping companies and fuel
producers are exploring various other alternative fuel options
for maritime use. As these companies explore alternative fuels,
they must consider various measures of viability, including
compatibility with conventional fuels and existing
infrastructure, as well as cost, emissions, and availability.
I thank Senator Ricketts for his role in championing
biofuels and look forward to learning more about the use of
alternative fuels in shipping today.
I will now recognize Senator Whitehouse for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman, for this
hearing on Clean Air Act legislation.
Whether it is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions or
assuring Americans breathable, unpolluted air, we are falling
dreadfully short and urgently need real solutions to very real
problems.
Let me turn first to wildfires. Climate scientists have
warned since the very first Intergovernmental Panel On Climate
Changes (IPC), report back in the early 1990's that wildfires
were becoming more destructive. It is getting worse fast, as
western colleagues like Senator Curtis know all too well.
Insurance markets have noticed and pulled back homeowners'
coverage in wildfire areas, just as they have in coastal areas,
translating climate risk into rising costs and availability
problems for families.
The great climate insurance collapse, when it happens, will
likely prompt a failure cascade, first into mortgage markets,
then home values, then our entire economy. The Fed Chair has
already warned us to expect entire regions of the Country where
mortgages just are not available. I ask that my more complete
warnings list be appended as an exhibit to these remarks.
Senator Capito. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Better forest and land management has a role, but as
Stanford Professor Michael Wara said in our Budget Committee
hearing, these fixes may help win wildfire battles, but without
addressing climate change, ``we're going to lose the war.''
To vessels. A quick victory is near on maritime fuels.
Marine shipping is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions
fueling wildfires around the world. If marine shipping were its
own country, it would be the world's sixth largest carbon
polluter.
It also produces 9 percent of global sulfur oxide and 18
percent of global nitrogen oxide emissions. Locally, as these
ships come into port, their fumes pollute neighborhoods along
our coast. Most vessels are not U.S.-flagged and most of the
goods, and related pollution, come from China.
How is a victory near? The International Maritime
Organization, which regulates global shipping, is implementing
a binding emissions standard, with an economic penalty for
vessels violating the standard. Industry supports it. Shipping
giant Maersk has long called for a $150 per ton pollution fee
on maritime carbon emissions. It works; the IMO's 2020 policy
capping sulfur in marine fuels has already reduced sulfur oxide
emissions.
To no one's surprise, the Trump Administration is trying to
undermine this process, another trophy for its fossil fuel
donors. Few ships governed by this are U.S.-flagged, and the
effect on American consumers will be negligible: pennies on a
pair of Chinese-made shoes.
Senator Padilla and I have bills to strengthen this
standard for ships operating in U.S. waters, and I urge the IMO
and the big international shippers to stick to their guns and
finalize the fee.
That is important context for our discussion today on the
Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act, which would extend
the Renewable Fuel Standard to maritime fuels. The global
shipping community is already moving to low-carbon fuels like
methanol and ammonia, to next-generation batteries, and, where
they measure up, to advanced biofuels.
Biofuels, to succeed, will need to measure up.
Unfortunately, the carbon accounting for conventional biofuels,
under lifecycle emissions analysis, often does not measure up.
Indeed, studies suggest that lifecycle emissions make some
biofuels worse than petroleum.
The United States is the largest market in the world.
Everyone wants to bring their goods to our ports to sell to
U.S. consumers. We have the opportunity to compete and win in
the market for low-carbon marine fuels, actually a win-win-win
for our economy, our health, and our planet, but not if we do
not even try. Not if we set up for a competition that does not
exist. That is a prescription for failure.
Investments already made in hydrogen and other low-carbon
technologies were setting us up to be a global leader in this
space. Unfortunately, the recently passed Republican mega bill
undermined those investments. I hope together we can re-right
that ship. American families and the rest of the world can no
longer afford American inaction and backsliding on carbon
pollution.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
I will now turn to our witnesses for their opening remarks,
and thank all of you all for being here. Our first witness is
Johnny Sabo, Director of the Georgia Forestry Commission,
testifying this morning on behalf of the National Association
of State Foresters. Mr. Sabo brings a wealth of knowledge and
experience in forest management and prescribed fire.
Welcome, Mr. Sabo, and you can proceed with your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHNNY SABO, DIRECTOR,
GEORGIA FORESTRY COMMISSION
Mr. Sabo. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Capito,
Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee, for
inviting me to this hearing today and for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the National Association of State
Foresters and the Georgia Forestry Commission.
My name is Johnny Sabo, and I am the Georgia State
Forester.
My comments today focus on the Wildfire Emissions
Prevention Act of 2025, a bill that National Association of
State Foresters (NASF) supports, and for which I want to offer
my sincere appreciation to the committee for considering today.
All State forestry agencies have a commission to protect
America's forests and most have statutory responsibility to
provide wildland fire protection on all lands, public and
private, and to reduce wildfire risk on those lands through
tools such as prescribed fire. This is true in Georgia, where I
am responsible for the protection and conservation of Georgia's
22.4 million acres of forest resources, 88 percent of which is
privately owned.
Our forests are under increasing pressure from a variety of
threats, including catastrophic wildfires, forest pests and
diseases, natural disasters, and conversion to other uses.
Notably, wildfire risk is increasing across the Nation, from
Georgia and West Virginia in the East and Utah, Arizona, and
Wyoming to the West. USDA Forest Service estimates that
approximately 1 billion acres of land across America are at
risk for catastrophic wildfire.
It is nearly universally agreed that a significant increase
of prescribed fire and fuels treatment is needed to reduce the
wildfire threat. Most ecosystems in the United States evolved
with fire, are fire-prone and even need fire to sustain healthy
conditions. We cannot suppress fire indefinitely, and doing so
only increases the intensity of damage of wildfire when it does
start.
Prescribed fire is a tool relied upon by natural resource
professionals to reduce hazardous levels of vegetation that
fuel wildfires by simulating natural wildfire disturbance
through carefully planned and managed ignitions. Prescribed
fire also improves wildlife habitat and recycles nutrients back
to the soil.
Georgia is a leader nationally in prescribed fire, treating
roughly 1.5 million acres annually through a network 3,800
prescribed fire burners, utilizing comprehensive burn plans and
emerging technologies such as drone-based ignition.
Turning to the EPA Exceptional Events Rule for prescribed
fire, NASF and its members have been longstanding supporters
and partners with the EPA in implementation of the rule. A key
aspect of the Wildlife Emissions Prevention Act is a continued
State-Federal partnership that is at the heart of the Clean Air
Act by placing priority on engagement with the States, but then
developing the rules and crafting exceptional event
determinations for EPA to review.
These partnerships have significantly ramped up in the wake
of the lower PM2.5 Air Quality Standard in 2024. States like
Georgia have been actively working with the EPA and making sure
the tools and processes are in place for demonstrations to
proceed.
To this end, a wildfire emissions prevention act would be
essential in codifying exceptional events demonstration
processes for prescribed fire, given the Supreme Court ruling
that courts cannot defer to agency interpretations of law.
We particularly appreciate that this bill would clarify
exceptional events to include activities such as prescribed
fire that are ``intended to mirror the occurrence or
reoccurrence of a natural event.'' This definition recognizes
both the critical need for wildfire risk reduction in forests
and that risk reduction through prescribed fire is mirroring
the natural fire return intervals and the resultant natural
smoke and emissions that would occur in the absence of human
intervention.
Also, the economic costs of suppressing large wildfires and
the damage they cause far exceeds the cost of planned,
controlled burns. By reducing fire severity through prescribed
fire, we protect not only ecosystems but rural communities,
infrastructures, and human life.
As someone who has served as a wildland firefighter, I
believe the core question underpinning the Wildfire Emissions
Prevention Act is simple: would you rather fight fire in a
forest that has been responsibly managed with prescribed burns,
or one left to accumulate decades of fuel waiting for a
disaster?
Prescribed fire is science-based, State-led, and essential.
Without it, we are left on the defensive.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how responsible
forest management rooted in science and partnership can protect
both our environment and our communities. I appreciate the
committee holding this important hearing, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sabo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Our next witness is Jonathan Wood. He is the Vice President
of Law and Policy for the Property and Environment Research
Center. Mr. Wood has testified before several congressional
committee on environmental and conservation issues, and has
litigated cases in the Supreme Court and is involved with the
Environmental Law Institute Emerging Leaders Institute.
Mr. Wood, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAW AND POLICY,
PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, members of the committee, for inviting me to
participate in this morning's hearing.
As the Chairman just said, I am Jonathan Wood with the
Property Environment Research Center (PERC), a conservation
organization based in Bozeman, Montana.
Forest health has long been a focus of PERC's work. Every
summer, the skies over Bozeman remind us of the stakes of the
wildfire crisis facing the west. In fact, this weekend as I
prepared my testimony, the smoke was so bad, the mountains were
invisible, invisible through a brown haze.
While prescribed fire and cultural burning were suppressed
for much of the 20th century, a large and growing consensus now
recognizes the need for good fire to restore forests throughout
the Country. To that end, I and my colleagues at PERC have
prioritized policy reforms that will make it easier to apply
good fire on the ground, including helping to establish
Montana's Prescribed Fire Council through which Federal and
State agencies, landowners and conservation groups collaborate
to promote prescribed fire's use, as well as passing State
legislation earlier this year to establish a permitting,
training and certification program in Montana for landowners
that want to use this tool.
PERC is happy to support the Wildfire Emissions Prevention
Act (WEPA) which would address a persistent and unintended
regulatory obstacle to be used for prescribed fire.
In my written testimony, I describe the growing body of
evidence including work done by my colleagues showing that
prescribed fire is an effective tool for reducing wildfire
severity, improving air and water quality and conserving native
plants and wildlife. In my short time this morning, I want to
focus on why WEPA's policy reforms are so essential.
Despite wildfire smoke being the largest source of several
air pollutants, and prescribed fire resulting in net
improvements in air quality, the Clean Air Act unintentionally
discriminates against prescribed fire smoke. Wildfire smoke, as
the Chairman said, is routinely excluded from air quality data.
Prescribed fire counts against State compliance, creating
incentive for States to limit its use.
To its credit, EPA has long recognized this is a problem
and tried to address it through regulations. It is forced to
shoehorn prescribed fire into a provision of the Clean Air Act
that was clearly not written with it in mind, and includes
requirements that are, at best, an awkward fit for prescribed
fire. As a result, those regulations and the attempts to make
them work in practice is overly complicated.
The Chairman began by stating that the regulations work in
theory but not in practice, and that is the assessment of most
of the experts who have studied this issue. Indeed, there has
only been one successful application of these regulations in
the nearly 20 years since they were first established, and that
was a special case that is unlikely to be repeated at the scale
required.
While southeastern States, like my colleague represents,
have mature prescribed fire programs that may some day be able
to run this difficult gauntlet, I am most concerned with what
this means for western States like Montana that are only
beginning to develop their programs. Within the Montana
Prescribed Fire Council, our Department of Environmental
Quality regularly expresses concern about the ability to stand
up a program like this and be able to navigate EPA's difficult
process.
Senator Padilla explained in a 2023 letter to EPA, joined
by most of the California delegation that, ``The reality is
that this process is unworkable for the scale of prescribed
fire that will be necessary to protect our communities from
increasing catastrophic wildfires.'' I could not agree more.
We should also note that the regulations are also legally
untested. There are lots of unanswered questions there.
The Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act is a straightforward
solution to the problem that would give EPA and States much-
needed flexibility to promote prescribed fire and improve air
quality. It would make prescribed fire an exceptional event,
subjected to standards that make sense for prescribed fire, and
it would streamline the approval process.
While there is an understandable reluctance to amend the
Clean Air Act, which I completely understand, that should not
be a concern here. WEPA is a narrowly tailored solution to a
very specific problem. It would not affect EPA's regulatory
authority, the pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act or any
substantive environmental standard.
Ultimately, restoring this Nation's forests on both public
and private land is essential to protect air and water quality,
to conserve native wildlife and their habitats, and to protect
communities from catastrophic wildfire. Prescribed fire is one
of our best tools for doing this, but currently is not being
used at the scale needed.
WEPA would address a persistent obstacle to its use, and
should enjoy the broad support of this committee.
Thank you again for allowing me to join you today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Kathy Metcalf. Ms. Metcalf is the
President Emeritus, I like the title, of the Chamber of
Shipping of America. Ms. Metcalf has worked in shipping issues
for more than 30 years, and is well-versed in alternative fuel
development for the marine industry.
Ms. Metcalf, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF KATHY J. METCALF, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CHAMBER OF
SHIPPING IN AMERICA
Ms. Metcalf. My pleasure, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Whitehouse.
As mentioned, I am testifying on behalf of the Chamber of
Shipping of America, well over 30 entities that are engaged in
the ship chartering operation of ocean-going vessels.
We also have other members who are interested in those
operations as well, such as classification societies.
I have a tendency to do what most aides do not like, and
that is to throw the written stuff out, because I find it works
better, and listening to the comments from the dais, I think it
is in order.
We are in a parallel universe right now; I sort of feel
like I am. My colleague from International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT) may feel the same way. For
decarbonization, and new regulations, typically you see
industry on a ``no'' side, and you see governments, both at the
national and international level at the ``yes'' side. What we
are experiencing now, as alluded to by Senator Whitehouse, is
the flip of that.
First, let me address, and Senator Ricketts, thank you for
the bill on renewables. We completely support that bill. We
support that bill as only one piece of an overall strategy to
address decarbonization of marine transportation.
This is a very large, complicated spider web. If we pull on
one side of it, the other one gets distorted, so we have to
work together. First, thank you, totally support the bill.
Let me talk a little bit about marine fuels. With the
jurisdiction of this committee, I suspect you may be hearing
some other discussions on marine transportation, regardless of
the administration's position on climate change.
The global marine industry is agnostic as far as fuels go.
We will build ships that burn fuels that are available in the
ports in which we call. That is what we need. With that in
mind, they need to be in sufficient quantity to supply the
world's fleet.
We also have domestic fleets as well, which is a little
easier to manage, because the range of those voyages is much
more determined and shorter. We are not talking about the
entire globe.
With that in mind, I just want to add that there are a
number of fuels that are being discussed over the last 20
agonizing years at the International Maritime Association. We
are on the cusp of an agreement with an extraordinary session
scheduled for October. We are hopeful that that will move
forward, likely without the U.S. as a party, from what we
understand.
That is Okay, because global shipping is not just the
United States, although a lot of ships come to the United
States. The good news is if we get a global agreement, those
ships coming to the United States are going to have to comply
with a global standard, even though the U.S. would not require
it. That is a side benefit of that happening.
What fuels are we looking at? Well, obviously renewables,
biofuels. Biofuels are unique and in fact there are a bunch of
different base biofuels. Each one has a different profile.
Marine engines have to be designed for a specific profile. I
can not just have a marine engine that runs on any biofuel. It
is usually a particular biofuel.
With that in mind, the only concern we have with marine
fuels, or biofuels, is the fact that we are going to be in
direct competition with land-based users. There are some
concerns globally and also within the United States as to
whether the quantity is going to be available in sufficient
measure.
Let us just talk last now about marine vessels. What do we
have to look at to make sure that we can keep moving and moving
cargo. You have to look at trading patterns. Tramp vessels go
anywhere in the world, based upon the charter, or the buses of
the seas, which are the container ships, which have very fixed
patterns.
We have to look at vessel types, power demand, the vessel
age, is it economical to retrofit a vessel to use an
alternative fuel, or is it better just to scrap it and build a
new one?
Then obviously, we need the infrastructure to be able to
take the fuel from the producer to the ship. I thank you for
the opportunity to testify. Thank you, Senator Ricketts, for
your bill. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Abi Vijayan, did I say that correctly?
Ms. Vijayan. It is Vijayan, and thank you, Chair Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Ms. Vijayan is a Senior Climate
Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Previously,
she was an attorney for EPA's regional office in Texas, and
served 11 years in EPA's Office of General Counsel, including
as lead for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
group.
Thank you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF ABIRAMI VIJAYAN, SENIOR CLIMATE ATTORNEY, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Vijayan. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and Ranking Member
Whitehouse, for the opportunity to testify today.
As noted, my name is Abi Vijayan, and I am a senior
attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
From my experience as a former EPA attorney and working
with scientists and experts in air quality, public health and
climate science, I know that wildfires are dangerous to human
health and welfare, are exacerbated by climate change, and are
increasing every year in intensity. Wildfire destruction causes
the U.S. billions of dollars annually, and causes a significant
amount of air pollution that is unsafe for Americans to
breathe, particularly emissions of fine particulate matter, or
PM2.5, and ozone.
Over 150 million Americans live in areas that suffer unsafe
levels of smog and PM2.5 pollution. Breathing these pollutants
can cause a litany of health issues, including lung disease,
cardiovascular problems, stroke, and premature death. Under the
Clean Air Act, the EPA sets air quality standards for PM2.5 and
ozone, and States, of course, have primary responsibility for
assuring that the areas within their jurisdiction attain and
maintain those standards, with the EPA then determining whether
those States are in attainment.
Under Section 319 of the Clean Air Act, there is clear
legal authority for finding that both wildfires and prescribed
fires are exceptional events, as implemented by EPA's
regulations, which again, clearly State that prescribed fires
can be qualified as exceptional events. I would note that those
regulations have been challenged and upheld in the D.C.
Circuit, so remain good and effective law. The time to
challenge those regulations has long since passed.
While prescribed fires have been used to address wildfires,
they historically have not been demonstrated to be make or
break events that push States into non-attainment. They do
produce pollution, particularly emissions impacting air
concentrations of PM2.5. The EPA has developed a strong
regulatory framework and toolkit for States and air agencies
that are considering whether to request that prescribed fires
be treated as exceptional events and air quality data
influenced by such treatment be eligible for certain regulatory
exclusions.
The EPA's 2016 Exceptional Events Rule clearly states that,
again, prescribed fires can be eligible for treatment as an
exceptional event if the required demonstration is made and the
regulatory criteria are met. EPA has also explicitly addressed
these criteria in those regulations and released a number of
helpful guidance documents as well as templates and tools to
assist States in meeting those statutory and regulatory
requirements, specifically for prescribed fires.
For example, in November 2024, EPA issued a demonstration
template for prescribed fire events on wildlands that may
impact PM2.5. This template provides clear and helpful
information on what data a demonstration or a prescribed fire
could look like, as well as a conceptual model for States to
assess and develop as appropriate for their particular facts.
Concurrently with this informative template, the EPA also
issued a publicly available FAQ document containing numerous
questions and answers regarding the treatment of prescribed
fires under EPA's regulations and how those States can meet the
criteria for exceptional events under Clean Air Act Section
319.
Given the growing wildfire threat, there is increased
interest, certainly, in the use of prescribed fire and other
tools that may mitigate wildfire risks, and States are, of
course, invested in ensuring they attain and maintain the
NAAQS.
Having worked on air pollution issues and climate issues
for the entirety of my career, with specific expertise in the
NAAQS and exceptional events, I believe that the Wildfire
Emissions Prevention Act is unnecessary to address this issue.
As I have explained, the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations
already clearly provide for the consideration of prescribed
fires under the Exceptional Events program.
Amending an already extant authority that is actively being
implemented by the States through guidance and other tools
would be redundant, at best, and at worst, result in regulatory
or legal confusion that could unnecessarily complicate or
hinder protection of public health from harmful air pollution
resulting from wildfires.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vijayan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
Last but not least, our final witness is Nikita Pavlenko,
Program Director for Fuels and Aviation at the International
Council on Clean Transportation.
Mr. Pavlenko, am I saying that correctly?
Mr. Pavlenko. Yes.
Senator Capito. Thank you. He has a background in lifecycle
assessment and carbon accounting with a focus on the climate
implication and deployment of alternative fuels like
sustainable aviation fuels.
Mr. Pavlenko, please proceed with your opening statement.
Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF NIKITA PAVLENKO, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, FUELS AND
AVIATION, THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Pavlenko. Thank you, Chairman Capito. It is a privilege
to be given the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Nikita Pavlenko. I am the Director of the Fuels
and Aviation Programs at ICCT is an independent, non-profit
research organization that provides technical analysis to
policymakers and to regulators. Our research is focused on
reducing the climate and the public health impacts of
transportation.
Our review of the Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels
Act suggests that it will have a negligible impact on reducing
the air pollution and climate impacts of maritime fuels. We can
draw upon the example of jet fuel in the Renewable Fuel
Standard for some historical context. While jet fuel was
introduced in the RFS in a similar provision in 2014, it did
not materially affect sustainable aviation fuel production.
Even today, a decade later, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
blending in the aviation sector remains below 1 percent.
This type of opt-in provision does not mandate the
production of either renewable maritime or jet fuel, it only
means that if a producer produces it, they can opt into the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program and generate Renewable
Identification Numbers (RIN) credits. There are also some
further reasons why renewable maritime fuels may fail to reach
the market and may face an even steeper slope than sustainable
aviation fuels. Given compatibility issues, the likeliest
renewable maritime fuels produced in the near future would be
something akin to biomass-based diesel. In most cases, it is
much more lucrative to sell that fuel into the road sector.
There are a few reasons why: renewable diesel commands a
higher market price, it qualifies for credits in west coast
low-carbon fuel standard policies, and it can be used for
compliance under west coast cap and trade programs. By instead
selling into the maritime market, a producer is losing out on
all these valuable incentives.
Including renewable maritime fuels in the RFS can also
create some unintended second order effects as well. For
example, the inclusion of a new sector may prompt EPA to
propose higher volume targets in future RFS rulemakings. Our
analysis of the summer 2025 rulemaking suggests that this may
exacerbate underlying issues in the program that we have
identified.
The current proposal already raises the advanced biofuel
volumes in excess of domestic availability, while also reducing
the compliance value of imported feedstocks. This has the
contradictory effect of one, further increasing the quantity of
advanced biofuel needed to meet obligations leading to even
greater reliance on foreign imports, and two, raising prices.
All of this for very little, if any, climate benefit.
If the inclusion of maritime fuels is used as a
justification for further increases in RFS blending targets, we
risk deeper trade imbalances, diversion from food markets, and
price increases.
Now, there are several promising pathways for producing
sustainable alternative maritime fuels that could achieve deep
greenhouse gas savings, whether using biomass waste and
residues, cellulosic energy crops, or by e-methanol or e-
ammonia. However, the current structure of the RFS, even with
this proposed change in eligibility, does not create sufficient
value certainty to incentivize producers to enter the market.
Interviews and surveys of project planners and industry
stakeholders in the SAF industry suggest that policies that
mitigate investment risks and complement top-down mandates such
as the RFS are critical to ensure the deployment of the more
challenging, lowest-carbon fuel pathways. Further, promising
non-biomass-based pathways, such as blue ammonia or e-methanol,
are not even eligible in RFS and would thus not generate RINs
despite their potential emission savings.
One potential outside development which may influence the
impact of this proposed revision to the RFS is the
implementation of IMO's net-zero framework, which includes a
global fuel standard that could offer a powerful complementary
signal to decarbonize maritime fuels. If that policy does move
forward, it could then backstop this proposed change in the
RFS. To have a meaningful impact on climate, it must, too,
correctly account for indirect land-use change emissions, or
include some other forms of meaningful safeguards.
To conclude, while the promotion of alternative fuels in
the maritime sector is a laudable goal, doing so through the
RFS opt-in provision will likely provide a minimal signal. If
used as a justification for higher volume targets in future RFS
rulemakings, there is a risk that this could further increase
the demand for virgin vegetable oils beyond domestic
availability, with unintended trade, climate, and price
effects.
Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pavlenko follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you all. We will proceed to
questions. Senator Curtis is going to start us off.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
letting me slip in line here a little bit.
Senator Capito. Of course.
Senator Curtis. We have a couple of police officers we want
to honor in Utah, and I need to be on my way to do that.
Ranking Member, thank you as well.
I would love to start with a shout-out to my colleague,
Senator Padilla, for his work, and Senators Hickenlooper and
Sheehy on Fix Our Forests, which has a section for prescribed
fires in it. I think that is important legislation that the
Senate will be considering soon.
I am also really pleased to be working on the Wildfire
Emission Prevention Act, WEPA. A big thanks to committee staff,
to the Chair and Ranking Member, and of course, to my staff,
for bringing this to this point.
I think it is fair to say that in Utah, we know first-hand
the burdensome problem with wildfires. This year has been a
record year, not just for Utah, but for the west. We also know
the burdensome problem of waivers and processing through all of
this as well.
I also want to start by acknowledging that Utahns very
clearly are attuned with leaving this earth better than we
found it, and that emissions are a big deal, that this bill is
not an attempt to get a loophole into emissions but a firm
belief that done well, we can actually reduce emissions through
proper prescribed burns.
I would like to begin with Mr. Sabo. Could you just
explain, from your perspective, why these prescribed burns are
so important, particularly in the west, where we now say that
our wildfire season is not seasonal, it is literally year-
round?
Mr. Sabo. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator.
As you stated, they are extremely important. We spoke
about, or I testified about, if we do not have prescribed fire,
we are constantly playing defense, which a lot of my colleagues
do continually out west. First off, most ecosystems, especially
in Georgia, they evolved with fire and need fire to thrive. It
naturally thins out stands, is good for the wildlife, early
successional species in the southeast, such as species as
gopher tortoises, that are keystone species.
Then we also utilize fire in techniques that allow us to
both protect the forests and wildlife at the same time, where
wildfire does not care. It does not protect anything. It does
not hesitate to cause destruction.
Prescribed fire is an essential tool in which we can
mitigate those risks and we can protect the timber, protect our
communities, and protect the firefighters alike.
Senator Curtis. We have a unique characteristic in Utah,
the dryness. I was in Acadia National Park and was surprised at
all of the what we would call fuel on the floor, and that it is
not the same problem for them because of the humidity that we
have in the west, which also plays into these prescribed burns.
They are very complicated. You have to check humidity, you have
to check all sorts of weather conditions and so many layers of
check-off. I think that is one of the reasons that more layers
of Federal intervention and waivers make this nearer possible.
We had the largest fire in the State this year was the
Monroe Fire. I sat down with the Forest Service, and they
showed me on a map where they had done prescribed burns. Almost
to the inch where they had done prescribed burns, they were
able to contain this fire. Had we had more time to do more
prescribed fires, we would have been able to contain that fire
even more.
Just because of time I want to pivot to Mr. Wood. Can you
talk about, so, we have this going on and if in the back of the
States' minds they have to worry about litigation, that is an
even bigger problem. Can you talk a little bit about why these
lawsuits on States that are attempting to use prescribed burns
are such a problem, and why that is an issue we need to deal
with?
Mr. Wood. Yes, I absolutely think it is a serious concern.
I will note that we have not used this regulation in practice
very much. It has only been used successfully once.
States like Alabama have submitted many proposed
Exceptional Event determinations to EPA, and there is a notable
litigious group, environmental group that has been filing
objections to many of them. I think we are still waiting to see
what that legal landscape looks like.
From the perspective of States and indeed prescribed burns
generally, this is just another risk added to the pile. You are
exactly right, that especially out in the west, when we are
doing prescribed fire, we are already worrying about humidity,
amount of fuels, level of fuels and all sorts of other risks,
that this is just another major thing added on top of it that
we will not know the answer to for years, and that your bill, I
think, could be really helpful in simplifying the process and
making it much easier to fight fire on the ground.
Senator Curtis. I am out of time; I yield my time. Thank
you very much. Thanks for your consideration.
Senator Capito. Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. I would just like
to echo Senator Curtis' words, ``if done well,'' and relate
that I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on
trying to make sure we have a good ``if done well'' solution
here.
Ms. Vijayan, has NASA determined that human-caused climate
change is the main cause for increase fire weather in the
American west?
Ms. Vijayan. Thank you for the question, Senator. There is
significant research, including by NASA, showing that climate
change is a primary driver and intensifier of wildfires. There
is also significant research showing that climate change is
also exacerbating wildfire threats to the west in particular.
Senator Whitehouse. Our work has shown that from 2013 to
2022, home insurance costs have more than doubled. Is there
evidence that these insurance increases relate to wildfire risk
in areas that are subject to wildfire risk, and would it be
reasonable to say that that is likely to get worse if we do not
tackle the underlying NASA-designated climate problem?
Ms. Vijayan. I appreciate the question, Senator. I will
note that I am not an insurance expert. Based on my expertise
as an air attorney and climate attorney, and given the
incontrovertible evidence that climate change is causing and
exacerbating the problem, wildfires certainly, again, are
leading to billions of dollars in property damage.
Given that the wildfire threat is ongoing and worsening, I
think it is reasonable to say that threats to property damage
will also be at great risk and likely of recurrence. As a
homeowner, even though I am not an insurance expert, I do know
and have experienced one insurance company's rising costs. They
do pass those costs on to property owners and homeowners and
homeowners that are at risk of rising costs as well.
Senator Whitehouse. While a prescribed burn is likely and
hopefully less of a conflagration than a full-on wildfire, it
nevertheless creates the same risks of health impact that a
full-on wildfire does, although as a lesser conflagration to a
lesser degree. Is that a fair way to look at this?
Ms. Vijayan. Yes, definitely, Senator. It is unquestionable
that smoke from fire does cause emissions that lead to PM2.5
and ozone impacts among other pollutants.
Senator Whitehouse. The fire does not care whether it was
prescribed or not prescribed?
Ms. Vijayan. It does not distinguish between the type of
fire.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Pavlenko, the IMO has put forward a
proposed carbon price for marine shipping emissions with strong
support from within the industry, the international industry.
Why do you believe the industry supports those market-based
mechanisms?
Mr. Pavlenko. Thank you for the question, Senator.
When it comes to industry, in my view, what they value is
stability and predictability. When it comes to investing in
maritime decarbonization, you are dealing with an industry that
is very risk-averse. Ships have a very long lifetime, much
longer than a passenger car, for example. When you are thinking
about what investments you are making for your choice of ship,
your choice of fuel, you want stability and predictability. A
global scheme that is consistent across different jurisdictions
will help to ensure level playing fields for the international
maritime shipping industry.
Senator Whitehouse. To the question of a level playing
field, presumably those that want to behave well do not want to
see people who cheat get a price advantage. The emissions fee
would protect against that as well, would it not?
Mr. Pavlenko. Yes, definitely. However, with respect to the
emissions fee, there are still important decisions to be made
at IMO on how it is levied and how greenhouse gas reductions
are counted. It is still critical for IMO to ensure a truly
level playing field by ensuring accurate carbon accounting
and----
Senator Whitehouse. To that point, let me ask you about the
phrase you used, ``indirect land-use change.'' Why does that
matter and why should it be counted?
Mr. Pavlenko. It is critical because it is an important
component of the well-to-wake life cycle emissions attributable
to different fuels. All else equal, when you create demand,
let's say new demand for the maritime sector, for something
that uses dedicated crop land, let's say a crop-based biofuel,
you are increasing pressure on land use and that could lead to
indirect market negative effects like deforestation.
Now, it is not just limited to deforestation. You can
increase yields; you can use marginal lands. You can shift food
away from other sectors. That is why you have to use these
complex economic models to balance all these different ways of
responding to that demand and figuring out what the emissions
from indirect land use change might be.
Senator Whitehouse. Short answer: proper scoring matters,
correct?
Mr. Pavlenko. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
I will begin my questions. I want to start with you, Mr.
Sabo.
You mentioned in your opening statement that you had 3,821
certified burn--describe to me: are those individuals that can
actually have a prescribed burn on their personal property? Is
that how that works?
Mr. Sabo. That is correct, Chairman, to the degree, those
are the professional practitioners. Georgia offers what we call
a certified prescribe burn program, where we educate land
managers, private forestry consultants, and we will teach them
how to best manage their smoke, if they are burning next to
critical infrastructure, State laws, resources that are
available to them, and give them knowledge to where we know
that when we issue them an authorization to burn, they are a
little bit better than just somebody that has never done it
before.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Sabo. Then they also have to have a few burns under
their belt before we actually issue them a certified number.
Senator Capito. Okay. Mr. Wood, as I look at it from a
practical standpoint, obviously I am on the east coast. I think
Mr. Sabo mentioned West Virginia; we have a lot of forest land.
We have had our experience with wildfires, although nothing
compared to what you are seeing in Montana.
If I look at it from a practical matter, what I am hearing
are prescribed burns are smaller, more contained, to prevent a
larger, uncontained, which would have more pollution associated
with it. From a practical standpoint, what you are trying to
prevent are the larger fires that are more damaging to our
atmosphere and particulate matter and all that.
That is the crux of the argument that we are having here,
am I corrected in that?
Mr. Wood. Yes, that is exactly right. Prescribed fires are
lower intensity, and you can control when they happen, so the
smoke is less destructive. I described in my oral testimony
that this weekend you could not see the mountains from Bozeman
because of wildfire smoke.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Wood. That does not happen from prescribed fire.
Senator Capito. When you say the Exceptional Event
prescription that you can use through EPA, nobody is using it?
Sounds like very few use that.
Mr. Wood. They are trying, and my colleague can speak to
that. It is just not working.
Senator Capito. Right. Why is it not working? Is it just
pent up in regulation? This bill would clarify those?
Mr. Sabo. It would help bring clarity. Georgia, in February
2025, submitted 129 exceptional events. Eighty-nine of those
were prescribed fire. That was from 2021 to 2023. That took
that long to quantify everything. We have still not heard back
from EPA.
We are ready to submit another 20 for 2024, but as these
stacked up, if they are denied, if somehow this gets viewed to
where prescribed fire is not an exceptional event, then we
start seeing non-attainment areas potentially and we lose the
ability for prescribed fire. Then States like Georgia then
become States that are not utilizing prescribed fire and have
catastrophic wildfires.
Senator Capito. Being in non-containment damages your State
how? Obviously, the health aspects.
Mr. Sabo. Right. We could lose the ability for prescribed
fire, and then even things from, when we are talking about
attracting industry, different levels in there.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Sabo. It takes away that head space.
Senator Capito. Ms. Metcalf, let me talk a little bit about
alternative shipping fuel. I thought you did a really nice job
of sort of educating the uneducated on this issue. We obviously
do not have big shippers going out of the State of West
Virginia; they can not quite get through Virginia. That is a
problem.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. Give it time.
Senator Capito. Give it time--oh, I fed right into that,
did I not?
In terms of the options, it sounds like the industry is
very active in trying to find alternatives or at least
additives in certain areas to be able to bring down the carbon
footprint. Where do you see this going? Will it eventually get
to a full-out non-carbon-intensive industry? Or will it be a
blend, in your mind?
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you for the question. First of all,
ammonia, hydrogen, my colleague at ICCT went through a number
of them, methanol, slightly politically a hot one, nuclear.
There are some small nuclear reactors that people are looking
at as potential energy sources for port operations.
No, I do not think it is going to be a mix. The ultimate
goal is to go to zero emissions by 2050. That is the IMO goal.
Now, whether we get there or not, we can have that
discussion over a beer later. That is the goal, and there will
be no room for high-polluting or high-Green House Gases (GHG)-
emitting vessels as we move forward.
The point I wanted to make also is that we need to look at
decarbonization of any source, but especially maritime
transportation. It is not a light switch; it is a transition.
Senator Capito. Right.
Ms. Metcalf. It takes time to get there in a wise and
economical way. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to also
discuss the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act. I wish I had
more time to talk about ships, something I am very interested
in.
The goal of this bill is to reform the Exceptional Event
process under the Clean Air Act, so basically the process is
intended to make sure that local regions are not penalized for
air pollution that they cannot control. This process needs
improvements, and we need to do this in a way that also
protects air quality.
I have some technical questions for our witnesses about the
specifics of this bill. Let's start with the definition of
exceptional events. The Clean Air Act does not explicitly list
these types of exceptional events. It just says an exceptional
event is something that is not reasonably controllable or
preventable.
Mr. Wood, can you very briefly explain why that is an issue
when it comes to prescribed fires?
Mr. Wood. The simple reason is that if you are doing
prescribed fire well, it is controllable, and it is done on a
recurring cycle. As we have talked a lot today, EPA has tried
to make prescribed fire fit in that language. If you were
writing from scratch, you would never include that language to
cover a prescribed fire.
Senator Kelly. Prescribed fires can help prevent worse
wildfires in States like Arizona, States in the west, that is
pretty clear. Right now, the Clean Air Act could penalize a
State for using prescribed fires if it makes emissions worse,
which just means that we get worse wildfires in the future and
then we also get worse air quality.
That seems like something we should fix. This bill seems to
go far, too far in certain places. It redefines exceptional
event as an event that prevents more severe emissions. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Wood. Yes, that is one of the factors that would be
required for a prescribed burn to qualify under the current
text.
Senator Kelly. Ms. Vijayan, there is also a new definition
added for actions that mitigate wildfire risks. My read of this
is it also could be read to include industrial emissions. Is
that correct?
Ms. Vijayan. Senator, I think that is a reasonable read of
that new language. I do just want to note that as per my
opening statements as well that the existing EPA regulations do
squarely provide for prescribed fire under the statutory
language that you are raising concern about as events that are
reasonably controllable, or not reasonable controllable.
Senator Kelly. To avoid the confusion here, we could solve
this, right? Most exceptional events are wildfire-related.
Ms. Vijayan. Most exceptional events are wildfire-related.
I would just note that those definitions that I am alluding to
that make clear prescribed fires are covered under EPA's
regulations, those regulations have been challenged and upheld
by the court. They do remain good law.
Senator Kelly. There is also an important procedural change
in this bill. Right now, a State has to request an exceptional
event designation from the EPA. The bill kind of flips that on
its head. Now, a State could deem a day to be an exceptional
event unless EPA subsequently disapproves the determination. Is
that correct?
Ms. Vijayan. That is right, Senator.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Wood, is it true that EPA takes a long
time to approve exceptional events?
Mr. Wood. Yes, as my colleague was saying, they submitted
dozens of requests and they are also pending.
Senator Kelly. If a State is trying to put together their
latest attainment plan, not knowing if an exceptional event is
approved or not, it can become a real issue?
Mr. Wood. Yes. I would say it is broader than that. If a
State is deciding whether to approve a prescribed burn today,
they need to know how this process is going to work three, 4
years down the road.
Senator Kelly. I am hearing the same thing from our air
quality planners in Arizona. I am sympathetic to this.
The language in this draft bill seems pretty easy to
exploit right now. Is there anything that will prevent a State
from deeming hundreds of days a year as exceptional events, and
then overwhelming an already overworked EPA staff?
Ms. Vijayan. In this bill, I do not think there is really a
way to prevent that sort of exploitation you are referring to,
Senator. As you note, it shifts the ability for the base to
determine whether something is an exceptional event and just
gives EPA the ability but not the mandate to step in after the
fact to evaluate the State's determination.
Definitely, this bill does give States a lot of latitude
without really seemingly many protective parameters in
determining what an exceptional event would be in the first
instance.
Senator Kelly. What if we were more specific?
Ms. Vijayan. I do think that the regulations in their
current form give a lot of those parameters that we think are
protective, even if this bill were to similarly put in some of
those parameters, a cause for great concern would still be
shifting the authority to the States in the first instance.
The Clean Air Act, as we all know, is a great success in
terms of cooperative federalism. This would kind of turn that
on its head. EPA has a great amount of expertise and resources
to do the necessary technical and scientific evaluation to
determine whether something is actually an exceptional event.
As we have seen, States sometimes do not have those
resources, whether it is because of funding or just limitations
on those resources. They often approach EPA for assistance.
To leave States kind of out there on their own without that
benefit of technical rigor could result in risks to having
exceptional events that might be exploitative of such a large
loophole.
Senator Kelly. Madam Chair, carrying out prescribed burns
and fixing the exceptional event process is an important issue
for Arizona. I hope we can agree that the goal of this
legislation is not to add vague new terms and a cumbersome new
process with the Clean Air Act.
My staff and I are happy to work with you to improve the
language to be more specific and to try to get a better bill.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and of
course, the Ranking Member for holding this hearing today.
Thank you for our witnesses coming to talk about these pieces
of legislation, especially the one that I am going to talk
about, which is the Renewable Fuels for Ocean-Going Vessels
Act, our bipartisan bill, which I introduced with Senator
Klobuchar.
As you know, Chairman, I love this committee, because we
get to talk about biofuels. It is one of the things I love. The
previous Chairman knew that as well.
In Nebraska, agriculture is the backbone of our economy,
and biofuels provide an important market and benefit energy
consumers, agricultural producers, and the environment. It is
really a win-win-win. Last time I went and filled up with E10,
89 octane at my local Hy-Vee, I saved 45 cents a gallon versus
the regular 89 octane gasoline. Again, this is just a big
benefit for not only consumers, but it helps cleanup the
environment, and it is great for farmers and ranchers as it
creates a premium market for producers, offering crucial
support in challenging years, when staying profitable could be
difficult.
This would be one of those years where it is difficult,
with corn at 350 roughly and soybeans 9 and change. I will tell
you right now; our farmers are really in a bad position right
now. The feedstock to manufacture biofuel production helps
stabilize prices for corn and soybeans. About 40 percent of our
corn crop goes to actually producing ethanol. Is really
critical at times like these when we see these commodity prices
down.
One of the things we have also seen is Brazil continuing to
increase its exports of soybeans. Right now, Brazil is
projected to export 80 million tons more of soybeans than the
U.S. Put that in perspective; they are going to export over 100
million tones, we are going to be about 24. By the way, that
has dropped about 20 million tons from just last year.
What we are seeing is Brazil having the ability to double
crop and so forth, that they are significantly increasing their
soybean production. Getting back to what Ms. Metcalf was
looking for, with regard to, do we have supply, between the
U.S. and Brazil there is lots of soybeans out there in the
world. In fact, that is one of the reasons suppressing soybean
prices right now.
That is a big challenge for us as well, and of course, this
really just may sound ridiculous to just say that somehow,
biofuels are taking away from the food supply. It is just
simply not true.
Expanding in new and diverse markets is critical for
driving demand for U.S.-grown soybeans, especially with Brazil
displacing the United States in the Chinese marketplace, and
ensuring stronger returns for American farmers. One market to
tap that we have just talked about is the maritime sector,
where ocean-going cargo tanker and passenger ships are driving
greater demand for biofuels.
At its core, the renewable fuels standard supports American
agriculture. It directly impacts what farmers receive for what
they grow. However, because the RFS excludes ocean-going
vessels, the shipping industry is missing out on a proven
cleaner fuel.
The Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act would clear
a major roadblock by allowing U.S. biodiesel and renewable
diesel producers to meet the needs of ocean-going vessels while
preserving RFS credits. It would expand agricultural
marketplaces and enhance American energy security, and create
parity for maritime fuels with over-the-road and aviation fuel
types in the Renewable Fuels Standard.
The vast majority of ocean-going vessels that are operating
today were originally designed to use liquid fuels derived from
crude oil meeting the International Organization for
Standardization's, ISO, marine fuel standard. The ISO recently
modified the standard to allow ship owners to utilize blends of
up to 100 percent biodiesel or renewable diesel in their
existing ships. This change would help make these fuels a cost-
competitive option for ship owners who want to decarbonize
using domestically produced fuel in their existing ships
without the need to invest in new vessels or undergo extensive
retrofitting.
Additionally, the use of cleaner fuels such as biodiesel or
renewable diesel is a part of cleaning up the environment. The
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together handle 40
percent of the containers entering the United States, produce
100 million tons of smog every day, more than the daily
emissions of 6 million cars in Southern California.
A typical ocean-going vessel carries between 1 and 4
million gallons of fuel, depending on the size and route. If a
vessel runs on, say, 2 million gallons of fuel blended with
just 5 percent biodiesel, that is 100 million gallons of
biodiesel used on a single ship.
When just one ship makes that switch, it cuts about 504
pounds of particulate matter and 564 pounds of hydrocarbons
from the air. That is only with a 5 percent blend. A 100
percent biodiesel blend with one vessel using 2 million gallons
would cut particulate matter by 5.04 tons and hydrocarbons by
5.64 tons. Obviously, the more you multiply, the more the
savings goes up.
It seems to me it is common sense, and a common-sense
immediate solution is to reduce particulate and carbon
emissions around our ports and waterways would be to use more
biodiesel or renewable diesel. The Port of Portland, Oregon is
already utilizing renewable diesel to reduce environmental
impact. In addition, the Port of Tacoma in Washington began
using renewable diesel called R99, a drop-in fuel that is part
of their efforts to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by
2040.
The maritime industry is responding, and now policy needs
to keep up. Expanding biofuel use in the maritime sector
strengthens our energy security and energy security is national
security. Domestic biofuel production is a key piece of the
pie.
Administrator Zeldin has unleashed American energy by
setting unprecedented RVOs that reflect the capacity of the
industry. The administrator has also committed to following the
law by releasing them on time and in line with statutory
requirements, unlike the previous Biden administration. Biden's
EPA missed the mark for advanced biofuels by setting volumes
for the targets at over 2 billion gallons below, and finalizing
the RVOs below industry capacity.
Unlike the Biden's delays and low-ball targets, the Trump
administration restored confidence in the program with timely
and achievable RVOs. This is critical getting industry to
invest.
As the administration and EPA have shown support for these
efforts with domestic production already strong, the solution
is here and ready to grow. This bipartisan bill will deliver
new market opportunities for Nebraska farmers who have played a
critical role in creating the strong biofuel economy.
Thank you, Chairman, for letting me go on. You told me I
could do that ahead of time; just remember you said that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ricketts. Ms. Metcalf, do you agree that biofuels
are a practical part of the fuel mix for ocean-going vessels?
Ms. Metcalf. Absolutely.
Senator Ricketts. Do you agree that the maritime industry
has a need to expand access to these fuels?
Ms. Metcalf. Maritime industry has a need to expand access
to all fuels across the spectrum. Biofuels is certainly one of
the big ones we are looking at.
Senator Ricketts. Can you just talk about, could you
mention some of the other technologies that are in the
marketplace right now? Can you just talk about what is being
developed and relative, where is that being adopted? I
mentioned the Port of Tacoma, I mentioned the Port of Portland
using biofuels. What else is out there and where is it relative
to biofuels as far as the maritime industry?
Ms. Metcalf. We speak globally. In the U.S., we have a lot
of detached good ideas that I would like to get some sort of an
idea magnet and get them all in one room, so we could have a
really concerted strategy development. Globally, we are looking
at ammonia, hydrogen, methanol, LNG, LPG, biofuels, and
electric hybrid.
Although I will warn you that people think electric is the
answer. If you are going to have a 50,000-deadweight ton tanker
and expect to get it across the Pacific with batteries, you are
probably going to have room for about 100 gallons of fuel. The
rest of the vessel is going to be carrying batteries.
There are hubs globally. There are hubs in Singapore, hubs
in northern Europe. The Maersk Foundation is looking at a
variety of fuels. What we are seeing is certain areas are
focusing on certain fuels. Let us say northern Europe is
looking at methanol. Some other area is looking at hydrogen.
We do not expect one fuel to be the fuel of choice
globally. The technology development obviously relative to the
development of engines that can burn these, not burn, propel
themselves. We do not use burn anymore, right? We are taking
fossil fuels out of the mix.
Senator Capito. Controlled burn.
Ms. Metcalf. Controlled burn.
Senator Ricketts. A very different thing right there. If it
is controlled burn it is----
Ms. Metcalf. That is when my ship sails into your forest.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Metcalf. There are a number of technologies out there.
Again, the fuels development. In one case it is biofuels, it is
a little bit of chemistry but a lot of agriculture. In the case
of these other fuels, it is a lot of chemistry. Obviously, when
I say ammonia, hydrogen, we also have safety issues, carriage
issues, how to deal with those fuels. It is a whole new world.
I hope I have answered your question.
Senator Ricketts. Yes, great. Thank you, Ms. Metcalf. I
appreciate that.
Again, I just emphasize that if you look at the soybean
exports of both Brazil and the United States, and frankly, one
of the things that I have been told is that we have shipped a
lot of soybeans to the Pacific Northwest right now, and there
are zero orders from China. We have a lot of soybeans on hand.
Getting back to your point about, is there a supply
available to handle it, obviously there would have to be more
investment in crush plants to be able to do that. We are seeing
that investment in Nebraska. I think with a robust RFS you
would see continued investment in being able to get that done.
I would also like to submit a couple of letters I have got
for the record indicating support from stakeholders for the
Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act.
Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking Member, for our
hearing today. I look forward to continuing to work on this.
Senator Capito. Thank you. We will submit those, without
objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Capito and to
the Ranking Member. Thank you to the witnesses for being here
today.
Although as written, I cannot support the Renewable Fuels
for Ocean-Going Vessels Act, I want to recognize the bipartisan
effort to focus on legislative solutions that support
decarbonizing the marine vessel industry. I hope that we can
continue the conversation by focusing our efforts on bipartisan
solutions that make significant reductions in pollution for
maritime fuels.
During my time in the House, I fought for the EPA Clean
Ports Program, which was based on my Climate Action Planning
for Ports Act. That program was an important step to help ports
decarbonize by investing in climate action plans and zero
emissions port equipment infrastructure. Decarbonizing marine
vessels is another critical component to reducing air pollution
at ports and in coastal communities like those outside the Port
of Wilmington.
Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and help expand the renewable energy
industry. Mr. Pavlenko, can you discuss to what extent the
Renewable Fuel for Ocean-Going Vessels Act will help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions at ports and in coastal communities?
Mr. Pavlenko. Sure, thank you for the question, Senator.
I expect that the effects of this bill as proposed will be
minimal. On its own, this bill only allows maritime fuel
producers to tap into the RFS, but it at its core is
fundamentally a mandate for road-sector biofuels. It does
little to stimulate demand. All it does is narrow the price gap
somewhat between producing a fuel for the maritime sector and
producing one for the road sector.
However, absent some kind of outside policy, say, IMO's
net-zero framework, or a separate, dedicated maritime fuel
policy here in the U.S., it just will not make very much
economic sense to sell fuels into the maritime market, because
you're losing out on incentives from west coast cap and trade
policies, from west coast low carbon fuel standards.
Furthermore, it also, by including this within the RFS, you
are leaving a few very important options off the table. For
example, onshore power supply, using electricity to power ships
when they are at berth is a relatively low-hanging fruit to
reduce emissions at ports. It is cost-effective, reduces
climate impact significantly, not eligible in the RFS.
Similarly, e-methanol, e-ammonia, those are not biomass
based in many cases. Therefore, they are not eligible.
Based on that, I do not expect this to have a very
meaningful impact on port emissions.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. In your testimony, you
drew a comparison to a similar provision in 2014 that expanded
the RFS program by including jet fuel. You noted that the
provision was not successful in materially affecting
sustainable aviation fuel production.
What else can we learn from this provision in helping to
support the decarbonization of the maritime industry and
encouraging the production of renewable energy fuel?
Mr. Pavlenko. Definitely. The jet fuel often has not really
lifted the SAF market in the U.S. I would say that SAF is a bit
easier than biomass-based diesel for the maritime sector. When
you produce renewable diesel, you get some SAF anyway as a co-
part for the process. That provision at least helped them
monetize a little bit.
What we can learn from the aviation sector is that you need
a stable source of demand. It is not nearly enough to allow a
fuel to opt in for the program. The aviation sector is very
price-sensitive. The maritime sector as well. Without a
meaningful lever to create a market for those fuels, in most
cases those consumers will not purchase them unless you
subsidize it down to parity.
This bill, and the RFS opt-in for jet do not fully
subsidize fuels down to parity. Hence, their uptake has been
small.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I know I have about 28 seconds,
but I will leave this question for you and you can answer
later. Expanding renewable maritime fuel production is just one
way to support decarbonization in the maritime industry and at
ports. Mr. Pavlenko, can you discuss other steps that Congress
can take to support maritime decarbonization, in 7 seconds?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pavlenko. I am happy to followup.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I yield
back, Madam Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank all of you. I would
like to just, since I am the only one left here, ask Mr. Sabo,
as really the practitioner in your State, as the State
forester, how long have you been the State forester?
Mr. Sabo. September 1st was a year, and I was a deputy
prior to that.
Senator Capito. Kind of to respond to Senator Kelly's
questioning, in my view it sort of left an impression that as a
State forester, that you would try to take advantage of
loopholes and just go full forward and controlled burns and
have it be--I do not know. That is not in Georgia's best
interest. I mean, do you want to make a response to that?
Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Absolutely, as a prescribed fire practitioner, we really
try to uphold that practice to the highest standard. We do not
want smoke in population centers; we do not want to take
advantage of any rules or loopholes. We really just want to
keep our citizens safe and our forests healthy.
All WEPA does from how I read it is ensure that we keep
that practice. I have heard today that it is already there and
it is approved. I go back to Georgia submitted 129 exceptional
events and are yet to hear back. Other than the one that was
in, I believe, Nevada County, California, nothing has ever been
approved. That was a single fire.
In Georgia, on a good prescribed burn day, so a good winter
day, good dormancies and burn, there is nothing to have
hundreds of fires going on around an area at any given time.
When we look at that, and all those practitioners are managing
their smoke, they are keeping it off of roadways ,they are
using firing techniques that do not impact communities or
homes, they stop their practice early enough to where the smoke
dissipates before nighttime settles in, so we do not have smoke
on the road issues, everything is like that.
Nobody wants to be a bad actor in the prescribed fire
community. To a degree, there is kind of a social license to do
it, right. We have a culture of fire in Georgia. Other States,
like Mr. Wood here alluded to it, is they start getting into
it, there will be a little bit of, how do we get into it, what
is accepted, what is not.
We do not even want to lose that social license, if you
will, to continue to practice prescribed fire.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
With no further questions, I would like to thank the
witnesses and all of my colleagues for your participation in
today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit written questions
for the record have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24th,
to do so. The witnesses' responses to those questions are due
back to the committee no later than close of business on
Wednesday, October 1st. Those will be submitted for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all again
very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]