[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26242-26243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BIOFUELS AND THE EPA

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, President Obama delivered a 
speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the environment 
and on clean energy. He made an appeal for congressional support for 
biofuels, wind, and solar energy, clean coal technology. Naturally, as 
father of the wind energy tax credit of about 18 years ago, I share 
President Obama's support for homegrown renewable energy. When the 
President was in the Senate, he and I worked together to promote the 
production and distribution of biodiesel and ethanol. It is because of 
our common interest and shared support that I make an appeal today to 
President Obama.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing a number 
of proposals that are incredibly important to our Nation's ability to 
reach its potential in terms of renewable fuel production. On September 
3, I was fortunate to host EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy 
and Margo Oge, Director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air 
Quality, on a family farm in my State of Iowa. I was happy they 
accepted my invitation. It was a very good visit.
  With the tremendous impact EPA decisions have on the family farmer, 
it seemed worthwhile for Administrator McCarthy and Director Oge to see 
American agriculture directly through the eyes of a family farmer. I 
also had the opportunity to share my concerns on many pending issues, 
and I believe these EPA officials were a welcome audience.
  The first issue I am speaking about relates to the EPA's proposal to 
penalize biofuels for greenhouse gas emissions from supposed changes in 
international--I emphasize international--land use. I know President 
Obama is aware of my concerns because I relayed them to him personally 
over lunch at the White House on May 6 of this year. Their new 
renewable fuels standard, enacted in the year 2007, requires various 
biofuels to meet specified life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction 
targets.
  The law specified that the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are to 
include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from 
indirect land-use changes. However, the proposed rule relies on 
incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels 
for so-called indirect land-use changes. Under the EPA's analysis, 
ethanol produced from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 16 
percent compared to gasoline. However, if you remove the murky science 
of emissions from indirect land-use changes, corn ethanol reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions by 61 percent compared to gasoline--
remembering that the other figure was just 16 percent compared to 
gasoline. So you can see what we know from science--sound science--is 
ethanol is very environmentally positive.
  The EPA's models conclude that changes in international land use--
again, emphasis upon international land use--contribute more in 
greenhouse gas emissions than the entire direct emissions of ethanol 
production and use. The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of 
greenhouse gases is far from a perfect science. There is a great deal 
of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue. That is why 
Senator Harkin and I, along with 10 other Senators, asked EPA earlier 
this year not to include calculations of indirect land-use changes. But 
the EPA ignored the request of Senator Harkin and myself.
  In its proposed rule, the EPA grossly underestimates future crop 
yields that will help meet the demand without requiring new crop acres. 
In addition, the EPA fails to adequately measure the land-use credits 
for the feed value of corn ethanol coproducts. Similar miscalculations 
exist for biodiesel as I have explained for ethanol. The EPA 
miscalculated the value of coproducts associated with biodiesel 
production and even included a nitrogen penalty.
  I wish to speak to the nitrogen penalty because it is a case of total 
ignorance on the part of the EPA. Farmers know that growing soybeans 
does not require nitrogen use. Soybeans, in fact, capture nitrogen and 
return that very valuable product to the soil naturally.
  During consideration of the Interior appropriations bill last month, 
Senator Harkin filed an amendment to block EPA from including the 
international component of the land-use change calculation. In 
response, EPA Administrator Jackson sent a letter to Congress claiming 
the amendment would prevent them from carrying out their statutory 
obligations.
  There are two points that need to be made with regard to 
Administrator Jackson's letter to us in the Congress. First, the 
statute does not require the inclusion of international land-use 
changes. Nowhere does the word ``international'' appear in the statute. 
Second, in measuring greenhouse gas emissions, the statute states 
clearly:

       Direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as 
     significant emissions from land use changes.

  If the EPA can't determine the impact of land-use changes with any 
degree of certainty, how can it be sure the impact is significant? 
Isn't there the same probability it is entirely insignificant?
  Importantly, the House of Representatives demonstrated its lack of 
confidence in the EPA's handling of this issue during consideration of 
the climate bill in June. In that bill, Agriculture Chairman Peterson, 
Speaker Pelosi, and Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman agreed to an 
amendment that recognized there is no scientific agreement or no 
consensus that links U.S. biofuels production to international land-use 
changes. The amendment blocked EPA's consideration of international 
land-use changes for 5 years, until it can be measured using what we 
ought to expect them to

[[Page 26243]]

use--sound science. There is strong bipartisanship on the record in 
opposition to EPA's finding in this area. So I hope EPA gets the 
message.
  The second issue pertains to the volume mandates required for 
biodiesel under the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard. The RFS-2 
requires the use of 500 million gallons of biodiesel in 2009 and 650 
million gallons in 2010. However, EPA's rulemaking to implement these 
volume requirements has not yet been finalized and may not be until 
well into next year.
  The U.S. biodiesel producers are in a tough financial situation. They 
need this mandate--which Congress did enact--to ensure a domestic 
marketplace for their renewable fuels. While the EPA took action to 
increase the overall volume mandate to comply with the law, it has 
failed to implement the specific biodiesel mandate.
  In early August, Senator Conrad and I were joined by 22 other 
Senators in writing President Obama to ask for his help.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a copy of the letter to President Obama.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 2009.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States, The White House, Pennsylvania 
         Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to ask your assistance 
     to ensure that America maintains a viable domestic biodiesel 
     industry that is capable of producing renewable diesel 
     replacement fuel.
       The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 
     provides for renewable content in U.S. diesel fuel as part of 
     the program's Advanced Biofuels schedule. Specifically, the 
     Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS-2) requires the use of 500 
     million gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2009; 650 million 
     gallons in 2010; 800 million gallons in 2011; and 1 billion 
     gallons in 2012 and thereafter. This policy, if implemented 
     in a timely and workable fashion, will promote the 
     significant economic, environmental and energy security 
     benefits associated with the domestic production and use of 
     biodiesel.
       The RFS-2 program was to begin on January 1, 2009, and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to revise 
     the current regulations to ensure the mandated volumes are 
     met, including the volumes for biomass-based diesel. 
     Recently, the EPA announced a two-month extension to the 
     comment period for the new regulations. This extension will 
     likely delay the implementation of RFS-2 well into 2010, 
     causing further uncertainty and creating additional harm to 
     biodiesel plants that have, as Congress intended, made 
     substantial investments based on the volume goals provided 
     for in the statute. The U.S. biodiesel industry desperately 
     needs the market provided by the RFS-2 and cannot afford a 
     significant delay in the implementation of the volume 
     requirements mandated by EISA.
       Domestic biodiesel producers face a practically non-
     existent domestic marketplace. Currently, 70% of U.S. 
     biodiesel production capacity is idle. Domestic production is 
     expected to be less than 50% of last year's levels and 
     numerous bankruptcies loom for the industry. If this 
     situation is not addressed immediately, the domestic 
     biodiesel industry expects to lose 29,000 jobs in 2009 alone, 
     and the nation's ability to meet the common-sense volume 
     targets for biomass-based diesel provided for in RFS-2 will 
     be compromised. A viable biodiesel industry is key to 
     reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and meeting our 
     nation's renewable energy goals.
       Given the significant delays associated with RFS-2 
     implementation, the precarious state of the U.S. biodiesel 
     industry, and the volume goals established by statute for 
     biomass-based diesel, we believe this matter must be 
     addressed immediately. While EPA appropriately increased the 
     overall volume mandate to comply with EISA, it has, to date, 
     failed to implement the specific biomass-based diesel 
     mandate. Therefore, we request that the Administration 
     exercise its authority immediately, either by Executive Order 
     or through Agency action or guidance, to provide greater 
     certainty for the 2009 and 2010 RFS-2 volume mandates for 
     biomass-based diesel. Prompt attention is critical to the 
     survival of the biodiesel industry, will provide greater 
     certainty in the marketplace, and is needed to further the 
     energy security, environmental and economic interests of the 
     country.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration on this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
         Kent Conrad; Chuck Grassley; Tom Harkin; Byron L. Dorgan; 
           Jon Tester; Amy Klobuchar; Sam Brownback; Max Baucus; 
           Pat Roberts; Christopher S. Bond; Roland W. Burris; 
           Blanche L. Lincoln; Tom Udall; John Thune; Richard 
           Durbin; Debbie Stabenow; Maria Cantwell; Ben Nelson; 
           Patty Murray; Mike Johanns; George V. Voinovich; Tim 
           Johnson; Richard G. Lugar; Al Franken.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the domestic biofuels producers are in a 
precarious state, so we asked President Obama to take immediate action 
to implement the volume mandates for biodiesel. It is in our Nation's 
economic and environmental interest to maintain a robust biodiesel 
industry. Unfortunately, no action has been taken to immediately 
implement the volume mandates.
  Finally, the EPA continues to delay in approving higher blends of 
ethanol in our transportation fuels. Earlier this year, a number of 
ethanol producers submitted a request to EPA to allow higher blends of 
ethanol. Currently, ethanol blends are limited to 10 percent in 
nonflex-fuel vehicles. The waiver request is simply requesting that EPA 
allow ethanol to be blended at 15 percent levels instead of 10 percent.
  While the waiver request was submitted back in March, the EPA has not 
made a decision. The EPA's delay in considering this request is having 
a negative impact on U.S. ethanol producers and is harming consumers 
who would otherwise benefit from lower prices at the pump. The delay is 
also putting off our efforts to use more homegrown renewable fuels in 
place of imports.
  The delay is also putting off our efforts to use more homegrown 
renewable fuels in place of imported fossil fuels.
  I recognize that prior to approval of higher ethanol blends, the 
requisite studies and testing must be concluded.
  A number of scientific studies conducted in recent years confirm that 
higher ethanol blends do not cause significant changes in tailpipe 
emissions, vehicle drivability, materials compatibility or durability.
  It is time to end the delays and take action to further reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  I am speaking today to ask President Obama and his staff at the White 
House to pay close attention to these three issues.
  Our Nation currently has a strong, renewable fuels infrastructure 
that is working every day to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Those involved are also working diligently to increase efficiencies 
and strive toward the second generation of advanced biofuels. But, we 
can't get there by undermining today's industry.
  The President can take action within his administration to ensure 
that no harm is done to the renewable fuels that are displacing dirty 
fossil fuels today.
  He can ensure that EPA uses only sound science and avoids speculative 
assumptions when determining the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels.
  He can take action to see that America uses even more homegrown, 
green energy by ensuring that even more renewable fuel is blended in 
our Nation's transportation mix.
  And, he can take action to immediately provide the certainty for 
biodiesel producers that Congress intended in the energy bill of 2007.
  That is what I am asking him to do.
  By zeroing in on these three pivotal issues facing the renewable 
energy effort today, President Obama and his staff can make a major 
positive difference for the production of even more clean, renewable, 
domestic biofuels.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, may I inquire, is the procedure that we 
are going back and forth? If it is, I will defer to the junior Senator 
from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not part of the order.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________