Ranking Member Miller Calls E15 Hearing a Missed Opportunity
(Washington, DC) – Yesterday the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing titled, “Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall: Examining the Science on E15.” The stated purpose of the hearing was to examine the scientific and technical issues related to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent regulatory decision to allow the sale of E15 into commerce. Ethanol is a renewable fuel that can be converted from a variety of biomass resources, primarily corn in the United States. E15 is gasoline blended with up to 15 volume percent (vol%) ethanol.
In response to a waiver application by Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers, the EPA recently granted two partial waivers that allow, but do not mandate the introduction of gasoline that contains greater than 10 vol% ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol into commerce. EPA is statutorily obligated by the Clean Air Act to respond to a waiver request made by any fuel producer. The partial waivers were granted based on engine testing conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE) as well as a variety of outside studies and data.
Some members of the Subcommittee expressed concerns that E15 would increase emissions, cause possible engine damage, and be used in non-approved engines. Ms. Margo Oge from the EPA testified that during vehicle testing of light duty vehicles manufactured after 2001 emissions remain within EPA emission standards. She also emphasized that the waiver was only for light duty vehicles manufactured after 2001and that the waiver was denied for E15 in older vehicles, engines and equipment. To combat misfueling, EPA issued a final rule establishing national requirements for E15 pump labeling, product transfer documents and retail station surveys. The agency worked closely with labeling experts and stakeholders to design a label which communicates the necessary information consumers need to avoid misfueling.
Subcommittee Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) said, “It was my understanding that this hearing was supposed to examine the science and testing EPA used in its decision to allow introduction of E15 in the market. We may not all agree with the EPA’s decision, but we should be interested in learning more about the underlying science as well as the range of positive and negative impacts this decision may have on our constituents and our country. Unfortunately, given the lopsided panel and sprawling focus of this hearing, I am concerned that we will leave here only slightly more informed about the science around E15, and no closer to agreement on what steps, if any, the Congress should take.”
Testifying before the Subcommittee were seven witnesses: Ms. Margo Oge, EPA; Mr. Bob Greco, American Petroleum Institute; Ms. Heather White, Environmental Working Group; Mr. Jeff Wasil, Evinrude Outboard Motors; Mr. Mike Brown, National Chicken Council; Mr. W. Steven Burke, Biofuels Center of North Carolina; and Dr. Ron Sahu, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. Despite the wide range of witnesses on the panel, the Majority did not invite a representative from DOE or a representative from the ethanol industry.
Mr. Miller said, “Much of the science EPA used in making its waiver decision was conducted by the Department of Energy. In fact, DOE’s role is the only piece of this issue firmly within this Committee’s jurisdiction. But unfortunately the Majority did not invite DOE to the Subcommittee today to testify. I do not see how we get a clear picture of the science if we do not have DOE here to discuss the extensive testing they conducted… Furthermore, despite the size of this panel, we are still missing some critical stakeholders. The motives for not inviting the ethanol industry are clear, and made even clearer by instead inviting the oil industry to testify. I find it hard to accept that we will get a balanced view on the E15 waiver controversy without testimony from either the ethanol industry or the Department of Energy.
Mr. Burke testified that he supports renewable fuels in part because the production of those fuels will lead to, “economic and societal gains across the state, largely in rural and agricultural counties most in need of economic advantage.” He said, “Realistic opportunities for sustained rural gain are few and merit committed support.”
He also said, “If we in North Carolina, New York, and beyond will successfully game our expected new biofuels in coming years, the drawdown from our natural resources will be extraordinary, unprecedented and greater than we can anticipate. As such, we must merge technology, economic thinking and environmental responsibility to effectively determine not just what we can harvest or grow, but what we can sustainably grow and keep on the ground in the future.”
Ms. White testified that, “We’d like to see more research into switch grass, miscanthus and algae. We also need to constantly reassess the amount of money we are putting into advanced biofuels to make sure we get where we want to go.”
“Opposition and support of ethanol certainly crosses party lines, but I cannot help but see this hearing as part of the coordinated partisan attack on clean energy,” said Mr. Miller. Clean and sustainable renewable fuels are already a part of our economy, and we need to work towards realizing a future of producing home grown renewable fuels.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article