585 Pine Street

Burlington, VT 05401-4891
802-658-0300 * 802-865-7386 (TTY /Voice)
Fax: 802-865-7400

July 12, 2013

VIA E-MAIL

Air and Radiation Docket
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401
Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 6406J
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.NW.
Washington, DC 20460.

Re:

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 36042
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and Technical Amendments to
the RFS2 Standards

Dear Madams and Sirs:
Burlington Electric Department (BED) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed rule published June 14,
2013, entitled "Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and Technical
Amendments to the RFS2 Standards." BED writes in furtherance of the attached letter to
EPA Acting Administrator Perciasepe from Vermont's delegation to the United States
Congress, dated June 27, 2013.
As with the Vermont Congressional delegation, BED applauds the proposed approval of
a RIN generation pathway for renewable electricity from landfill biogas as a first step in
bringing the Renewable Fuel Standard's ("RFS") goals in line with new technology
developments and recognizing the substantial benefits of electrified transportation. BED,
however, encourages EPA to also include woody biomass and biogas from waste
digesters as feedstocks for renewable electricity in generating Advanced (D5) RINs and
compressed/liquefied natural gas in generating Cellulosic (D3) RINs. EPA already
recognizes the equivalency of biogas from landfills and waste digesters in its existing
pathway for Advanced RIN generation for compressed/liquefied natural gas. As
described below, restricting the renewable electricity pathway to only biogas from
landfills is unnecessarily limiting as woody biomass used to produce renewable
electricity and biogas from waste digesters and liquefied/compressed natural gas used to

produce renewable electricity also can achieve the necessary greenhouse gas ("GHG")
reductions to qualify for Advanced and Cellulosic RIN generation.
Along with the growth in vehicles sales, electric charging infrastructure is expanding as
well. Enabling renewable electricity from sources EPA has already recognized in other
contexts to generate RINs when used by electric vehicles will reinforce the private
sector's investment in charging infrastructure and accelerate the adoption of electric
transportation, which is essential to meeting national goals for reducing oil dependence
and cutting GHG emissions.
Business models that create a favorable return on investment are critical to the
deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Public and workplace charging
are needed to expand electric vehicle deployment. By enabling renewable electricity to
generate RINs when used by electric vehicles, a new business model for electric vehicle
charging infrastructure providers can be established. This will lower the cost of electric
vehicle charging and enable a larger scale deployment of electric vehicle charging
infrastructure powered by renewable electricity. Facilitating widespread availability of
electric vehicle charging infrastructure supports the President's goal of 1 million electric
vehicles on the road by 2015.
Developing these pathways and enabling the generation of RIN s from these sources
enable wider deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and promote
integration of renewable power into transportation and into the larger grid. When these
sources of electricity are used to power our vehicles, the result is reduced reliance on
imported fossil fuel, stronger local and national economies and a cleaner environment.

Specifically, BED offers the following comments below.
I.

Description of BED's Renewable Electricity and Biomass Activities and its Potential
Role in Powering Vermont's Transportation Network

Burlington Electric Department
is the municipal electric
utility for the City of Burlington and the Energy Efficiency Utility, providing energy
efficiency services within Burlington. BED serves 16,000 residential and 3,600
commercial customers and has a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable
energy. The City of Burlington, which has strong carbon reduction goals in its Climate
Action Plan, is very interested in promoting electric vehicles. Transportation accounts for
close to 50 percent of the GHG emissions within Burlington. In 2012 Burlington used 5.3
percent less electricity than in 1989, the year before the Energy Efficiency Bond was
passed, and has a goal of being 100 percent renewable within a few years. BED is a 50
percent owner of the 50 MW McNeil Wood Chip-Generating Station, which opened in
1984 and is located about a mile from the downtown. The wood is all sustainably
harvested and abides by strict state harvesting standards. Because of our renewable
energy goal and goals for electric vehicles, we have the hopes of greatly reducing GHG
emissions from the transportation sector within Burlington over the short term.
In addition to its woody biomass resources, Vermont currently has 15 farm-based waste
digesters that process and collect the biogas emanating from waste generated on the
farms. Presently, all of these facilities combust the biogas that is collected on farm to

produce approximately 18,000 MWh of electricity. The electricity is primarily used to
power homes and businesses in Vermont. This electricity could be used to renewably
power 5,000 electric vehicles in the State of Vermont annually. Furthermore, the
potential RIN generation revenue could be used to help finance other biogas collection
projects. Vermont has a potential of generating more electricity from waste digester
biogas with the addition of a new revenue source generated from RINs.
Vermont is home to the 50 MW McNeil Wood-Chip Station and the 25 MW Ryegate
Station. These facilities produced over 325,000 MWh of electricity in 2012. This
electricity could be used to renewably power approximately 95,000 electric vehicles in
the State of Vermont annually.

II.

Inclusion of a Pathway for Renewable Electricity from Waste Digester Biogas

In a memorandum drafted by EPA in support of the pathway for renewable electricity
from landfill biogas, EPA stated:
The proposed lifecycle analysis of renewable electricity produced from
landfill biogas focused on emissions associated with production of the
fuel. We did not consider any emissions from production of the feedstock
because the biogas originates from municipal solid waste. Similarly, there
are no emissions associated with transportation of the renewable
electricity (although losses are accounted for), and no tailpipe emissions,
so the only significant GHG emissions are derived from fuel production. 1
As with the renewable electricity from landfill biogas, waste digester biogas has no
emissions from: ( 1) the production of the feedstock (because the biogas originates from
farm and food waste); (2) the transportation of the renewable electricity; and (3) tailpipe
em1ss10ns. EPA implicitly recognized the equivalency of the two sources when it
provided a pathway for RIN generation for renewable compressed/liquefied natural gas
from both landfill gas and waste digester gas. As a result, the only potential difference in
GHG emissions between renewable electricity from digester biogas and landfill biogas
should be the emissions derived from production of the "fuel" ( i.e., combustion of the
biogas and conversion into electricity). Any such differences should be very minor due
to the comparable processes used to
convert landfill and waste digester biogas into
electricity.
While BED recognizes that there are some minor differences between the lifecycle
emissions of converting waste digester biogas and landfill biogas into electricity as well
as the GHG baseline treatment between the two sources, BED urges EPA to conduct the
very minor additional analysis that would be required to determine that renewable
electricity from digester biogas also meets the 50 percent and 60 percent GHG reductions
necessary to qualify for Advanced Biofuel and Cellulosic Biofuel RIN generation,
respectively. BED believes that this should not be a difficult determination to reach as
1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum to Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-20120401, Support for Classification ofBiofuel Produced from Landfill Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and
Summary ofLifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Landfill Biogas
(May 20, 2013).

EPA determined that the real GHG reductions resulting from using renewable electricity
from landfill biogas as a transportation fuel ranged between 96 percent (landfills that
flared biogas) to 765 percent (landfills that vented biogas). 2 Such GHG reductions are far
in excess of the reductions necessary to qualify for RIN generation.
With respect to renewable electricity from waste digester biogas, as with landfill biogas,
the "feedstock" used to produce the biogas is primarily cellulosic in nature. Waste
digesters typically use manure from cows and other livestock as a primary feedstock,
which is the result of diet of primarily cellulosic material ( e.g., hay and alfalfa). As a
result, electricity from waste digester biogas should also qualify as Cellulosic Biofuel.
BED recognizes that EPA may need additional time and resources to conduct an analysis
of whether waste digester biogas meets the definition of a cellulosic biomass. Therefore,
if an analysis of the cellulosic content of waste digester biogas will take longer than it
will take to finalize the renewable electricity pathway generally, BED encourages EPA to
move forward with finalizing a pathway for renewable electricity from waste digester
biogas as an Advanced Biofuel alongside its finalization of renewable electricity from
landfill biogas as a Cellulosic Biofuel.

III.

Inclusion of a Pathway for Renewable Electricity from Woody Biomass

Additionally, BED strongly encourages broadening the definition of renewable electricity
and the development of pathways for all renewable sources, including responsibly
generated woody biomass. Woody biomass is undoubtedly cellulosic in nature, and the
question as to whether renewable electricity resulting from the combustion of woody
biomass qualifies as a Cellulosic, Advanced or Total Renewable Fuel is only dependent
on the associated GHG reductions.
As with the pathway for renewable electricity from waste digester biogas, BED
encourages EPA to utilize the data available and models of the Argonne National
Laboratory GREET model (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation) and the CA-GREET model, used for the California Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, updated in 2012 with new vehicle models, as a template for quantifying the
GHG reductions associated with using renewable electricity generated from woody
biomass. Furthermore, BED is available to meet with EPA to discuss potentially
available data that may aid in this determination.
BED recognizes that making such a pathway determination will take longer than it will
take to finalize a pathway for renewable electricity from landfill and waste digester
biogas. Therefore, BED encourages EPA to move forward with finalizing a pathway for
renewable electricity from waste digester gas alongside its finalization of a pathway for
renewable electricity from landfill biogas in the event that the woody biomass pathway
requires significant analysis.

*

*

*

BED believes that inclusion of RIN generation pathways for renewable electricity woody
biomass and biogas from waste digesters alongside EPA' s finalization of a pathway for
renewable electricity from landfill biogas would significantly further the deployment of
electric vehicles in Vermont and nationally, and help the United States meet the mandates
of the RFS.

Respectfully submitted,

Tan Buckley
Tom Buckley
Manager, Customer & Energy Services
Burlington Electric Department
585 Pine Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-865-7339
www.burlingtonelectric.com

July 12, 2013

VIA E-MAIL

Air and Radiation Docket
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401
Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 6406J
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.NW.
Washington, DC 20460.

Re:

Docket ID No. EP A-HQ-OAR-2012-0401
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 36042
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and Technical Amendments to the RFS2
Standards

Dear Madams and Sirs:
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation ("the Company") appreciates this opportunity to comment on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed rule published June 14, 2013, entitled "Regulation of Fuels
and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and Technical Amendments to the RFS2 Standards." The Company writes in
furtherance of the attached letter to EPA Acting Administrator Perciasepe from Vermont's delegation to the United
States Congress, dated June 27, 2013.
As with the Vennont Congressional delegation, the Company applauds the proposed approval of a RIN generation
pathway for renewable electricity from landfill biogas as a first step in bringing the Renewable Fuel Standard's
("RFS") goals in line with new technology developments and recognizing the substantial benefits of electrified
transportation. The Company, however, encourages EPA to also include woody biomass and biogas from waste
digesters as feedstocks for renewable electricity in generating Advanced (D5) RINs and compressed/liquefied
natural gas in generating Cellulosic (D3) RINs. EPA already recognizes the equivalency of biogas from landfills
and waste digesters in its existing pathway for Advanced RIN generation for compressed/liquefied natural gas. As
described below, restricting the renewable electricity pathway to only biogas from landfills is unnecessarily limiting
as biogas from waste digesters used to produce renewable electricity and liquefied/compressed natural gas and
woody biomass used to produce renewable electricity also can achieve the necessary greenhouse gas ("GHG")
reductions to qualify for Advanced and Cellulosic RIN generation.
Along with the growth in vehicles sales, electric charging infrastructure is expanding as well. Enabling renewable
electricity from sources EPA has already recognized in other contexts to generate RINs when used by electric
vehicles will reinforce the private sector's investment in charging infrastructure and accelerate the adoption of
electric transportation, which is essential to meeting national goals for reducing oil dependence and cutting GHG
emissions.
Business models that create a favorable return on investment are critical to the deployment of electric vehicle
charging infrastructure. Public and workplace charging are needed to expand electric vehicle deployment. By
enabling renewable electricity to generate RINs when used by electric vehicles, a new business model for electric
vehicle charging infrastructure providers can be established. This will lower the cost of electric vehicle charging and
enable a larger scale deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure powered by renewable electricity.

Facilitating widespread availability of electric vehicle charging infrastructure supports the President's goal of l
million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
Developing these pathways and enabling the generation of RINs from these sources enable wider deployment of
electric vehicle charging infrastructure and promote integration of renewable power into transportation and into the
larger grid. When these sources of electricity are used to power our vehicles, the result is reduced reliance on
imported fossil fuel, stronger local and national economies and a cleaner enviromnent.
Specifically, the Company offers the following comments below.

I.

Description of the Company's Renewable Electricity and Biogas Activities and its Potential
Role in Powering Vermont's Transportation Network

The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC, www.veic.org) is dedicated to reducing the economic and
enviromnental costs of energy use, and to finding cost-effective ways to offset greenhouse gas emissions.
Founded in 1986, VEIC employs more than 300 professionals, with an annual budget of $85 million. It is
internationally recognized for advancing energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy plans and projects
in 35 states, 6 Canadian provinces, and 6 countries in Europe and Asia.
VEIC provides analysis, planning, evaluation, policy development, program design, management, and technical
support for projects in energy efficiency and renewable energy; transportation efficiency and mobility research; and
community energy initiatives, cost-effectiveness screening, and building codes and standards.
Currently, Vermont has 15 farm based waste digesters that process and collect the biogas emanating from waste
generated on the farms. Presently, all of these facilities combust the biogas that is collected on farm to produce
approximately 18,000 MWh of electricity. The electricity is primarily used to power homes and businesses in
Vermont. This electricity could be used to renewably power 5,000 electric vehicles in the State of Vermont
annually. Furthermore, the potential RIN generation revenue could be used to help finance other biogas collection
projects. Vermont has a potential of generating more electricity from waste digester biogas with the addition of a
new revenue source generated from RINs.
The State also has four facilities that process and combust woody biomass to produce nearly 340,000 MWh of
electricity. This electricity could be used to renewably power approximately 95,000 electric vehicles in the State of
Vermont annually.

II.

Inclusion of a Pathway for Renewable Electricity from Waste Digester Biogas

In the proposed rnlemaking, EPA states that "We do not at this point have sufficient information to evaluate the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for production of renewable electricity ... from biogas from ... waste digesters.
Accordingly, we invite cmrunents providing information about these potential pathways." To this end, the Company
would like to assist EPA in gathering this data so that EPA may include electricity derived from waste digester
biogas in its finalized pathway for renewable electricity.
In a memorandum drafted by EPA in support of the pathway for renewable electricity from landfill biogas, EPA
stated:
The proposed lifecycle analysis of renewable electricity produced from landfill biogas focused on
emissions associated with production of the fuel. We did not consider any emissions from
production of the feedstock because the biogas originates from municipal solid waste. Similarly,
there are no emissions associated with transportation of the renewable electricity (although losses
are accounted for), and no tailpipe emissions, so the only significant GHG emissions are derived
from fuel production. 1

1

U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Memorandum to Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401,
Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Landfill Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of
Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Landfill Biogas (May 20, 2013).
VT

As with the renewable electricity from landfill biogas, waste digester biogas has no emissions from: (1) the
production of the feedstock (because the biogas originates from farm and food waste); (2) the transportation of the
renewable electricity; and (3) tailpipe emissions. EPA implicitly recognized the equivalency of the two sources
when it provided a pathway for RIN generation for renewable compressed/liquefied natural gas from both landfill
gas and waste digester gas. As a result, the only potential difference in GHG emissions between renewable
electricity from digester biogas and landfill biogas should be the emissions derived from production of the "fuel"
(i.e., combustion of the biogas and conversion into electricity). Any such differences should be very minor due to
the comparable processes used to convert landfill and waste digester biogas into electricity.
While the Company recognizes that there are some minor differences between the lifecycle emissions of converting
waste digester biogas and landfill biogas into electricity as well as the GHG baseline treatment between the two
sources, the Company urges EPA to conduct the very minor additional analysis that would be required to determine
that renewable electricity from digester biogas also meets the 50 percent and 60 percent GHG reductions necessary
to qualify for Advanced Biofuel and Cellulosic Biofuel RIN generation, respectively. The Company believes that
this should not be a difficult detennination to reach as EPA determined that the real GHG reductions resulting from
using renewable electricity from landfill biogas as a transportation fuel ranged between 96 percent (landfills that
flared biogas) to 765 percent (landfills that vented biogas). 2 Such GHG reductions are far in excess of the
reductions necessary to qualify for RIN generation.
For the minor additional analysis that is required to make such a determination, the Company is available to meet
with EPA to help resolve any outstanding questions EPA may have so that it can finalize a pathway for renewable
electricity from waste digester biogas alongside its finalization of a pathway for renewable electricity from landfill
biogas. To that end, the Company suggests that the EPA utilize the data available and models of the Argonne
National Laboratory GREET model (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation)
and the CA-GREET model, used for the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, updated in 2012 with new vehicle
models, as a template for recognizing the multiple sources ofrenewable electricity.
As a final point with respect to renewable electricity from waste digester biogas, as with landfill biogas, the
"feedstock" used to produce the biogas is primarily cellulosic in nature. Waste digesters typically use manure from
cows and other livestock as a primary feedstock, which is the result of diet of primarily cellulosic material (e.g., hay
and alfalfa). As a result, electricity from waste digester biogas should also qualify as Cellulosic Biofuel. The
Company is available to meet with EPA to discuss data that may aid EPA in reaching this determination.
Nonetheless, the Company recognizes that EPA may need additional time and resources to conduct an analysis of
whether waste digester biogas meets the definition of a cellulosic biomass. Therefore, if an analysis of the cellulosic
content of waste digester biogas will take longer than it will take to finalize the renewable electricity pathway
generally, the Company encourages EPA to move forward with finalizing a pathway for renewable electricity from
waste digester biogas as an Advanced Biofuel alongside its finalization of renewable electricity from landfill biogas
as a Cellulosic Biofuel.

III.

Inclusion of a Pathway for Renewable Electricity from Woody Biomass

Additionally, the Company strongly encourages broadening the definition of renewable electricity and the
development of pathways for all renewable sources, including responsibly generated woody biomass. Woody
biomass is undoubtedly cellulosic in nature, and the question as to whether renewable electricity resulting from the
combustion of woody biomass qualifies as a Cellulosic, Advanced or Total Renewable Fuel is only dependent on the
associated GHG reductions.
As with the pathway for renewable electricity from waste digester biogas, the Company encourages EPA to utilize
the data available and models of the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) and the CA-GREET model, used for the California Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, updated in 2012 with new vehicle models, as a template for quantifying the GHG reductions associated
with using renewable electricity generated from woody biomass. Furthermore, the Company is available to meet
with EPA to discuss potentially available data that may aid in this determination.

The Company recognizes that making such a pathway determination will take longer than it will take to finalize a
pathway for renewable electricity from landfill and waste digester biogas. Therefore, the Company encourages EPA
to move forward with finalizing a pathway for renewable electricity from waste digester gas alongside its
finalization of a pathway for renewable electricity from landfill biogas in the event that the woody biomass pathway
requires significant analysis.

*

*

*

As mentioned above, the Company is available to meet and discuss this issue in detail with EPA as the Company
believes that inclusion of RIN generation pathways for renewable electricity woody biomass and biogas from waste
digesters alongside EPA's finalization of a pathway for renewable electricity from landfill biogas would
significantly further the deployment of electric vehicles in Vermont and nationally, and help the United States meet
the mandates of the RFS.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Glitman
Director of Transportation Efficiency
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Meadows, Carrie
Fri 3/7/2014 4:40:59 PM
Re: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Vaught, Laura [mailto:Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 11 :37 AM
To: Meadows, Carrie
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Meadows, Carrie [mailto:Carrie.Meadows@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 11:37 AM
To: Vaught, Laura
Subject: Re: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Vaught, Laura L~~~~~~~~~~~J
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 06:48 PM
To: Meadows, Carrie
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Meadows, Carrie L'-'-"="'"-"=c:.=====~===='-'-'
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:03 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Meadows, Carrie
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 8:04 PM
To: 'Vaught, Laura'
Cc: Pritschau, Mary; Herckis, Arian; Kukla, Alison
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Vaught, Laura L'-'-"==-'-===='-'==~~,
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:02 PM
To: Meadows, Carrie
Cc: Pritschau, Mary; Herckis, Arian; Kukla, Alison
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Meadows, Carrie L'-'-'=~=-'-====~~=~==~J
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:46 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Cc: Pritschau, Mary
Subject: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

Hi Laura- Happy Belated New Year! I can't believe we are already in February!

I wanted to see if you could help us. Congressmen Good latte, Costa, Womack, and Welch would like to
request a meeting with Administrator McCarthy about the RFS. I have cced our scheduler, Mary. Do you
know who would be the most appropriate person for us to work with to setup the meeting?

Thanks!
Carrie

To:
Cc:
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Haman, Patricia[Haman.Patricia@epa.gov]; Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Lewis, Josh[Lewis.Josh@epa.gov]
Forsythe, Liam (Heitkamp)
Wed 2/12/2014 5:58:35 PM
RE: Request from Theraldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota

From: Haman, Patricia [mailto:Haman.Patricia@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11 :38 AM
To: Forsythe, Liam (Heitkamp); Vaught, Laura
Cc: Lewis, Josh
Subject: RE: Request from Theraldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota

Hi Liam: Here is a general update. It seems part of the application is
protected, so I can't be specific about that.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Pat
202-564-2806

From: Forsythe, Liam (Heitkamp) ~="'-=~-'-'=~="-'==~=~=~J
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:54 AM
To: Vaught, Laura
Cc: Haman, Patricia
Subject: RE: Request from Theraldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota

From: Vaught, Laura L~=~=~====~J
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Forsythe, Liam (Heitkamp)
Cc: Haman, Patricia
Subject: RE: Request from Theraldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota

From: Forsythe, Liam (Heitkamp) L'-===~.:-=~~~==-'-'====-:c,
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 12:42 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Subject: Request from Theraldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota

Laura -

I spoke to Pat Hammond over at EPA back in November regarding this issue and had
yet to hear back. We have an ethanol plant in North Dakota, the Theraldson Ethanol
Plant, that has a long-standing request pending with EPA re: an RFS2 Petition for Fuel
Ethanol Eligible for 06 RINS, Corn Feedstock, Using the Agrebon Process Technology
for all Gallons. At the end of the day, the plant wants to use a process that it currently
uses for a portion of its ethanol, and apply that process to all of the ethanol it is
producing at the plant.

Is it possible to speak to someone at EPA so that I can follow up on this issue.

Liam

Liam Taggatt Forsythe
Senior Counsel
U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hart 502

202.224.2043

To:
Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Cc:
Pritschau, Mary[Mary.Pritschau@mail.house.gov]; Herckis, Arian[Herckis.Arian@epa.gov];
Kukla, Alison[Kukla.Alison@epa.gov]
From:
Meadows, Carrie
Sent:
Thur 2/6/2014 1:04:01 AM
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Vaught, Laura [mailto:Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:02 PM
To: Meadows, Carrie
Cc: Pritschau, Mary; Herckis, Arian; Kukla, Alison
Subject: RE: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

From: Meadows, Carrie ·~==..::::='--'~====~='-'==~'""""'
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:46 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Cc: Pritschau, Mary

Subject: Meeting with Administrator McCarthy

Hi Laura- Happy Belated New Year! I can't believe we are already in February!

I wanted to see if you could help us. Congressmen Good latte, Costa, Womack, and Welch would like to
request a meeting with Administrator McCarthy about the RFS. I have cced our scheduler, Mary. Do you
know who would be the most appropriate person for us to work with to setup the meeting?

Thanks!
Carrie

Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Repko, Mary Frances[Mary.Frances.Repko@mail.house.gov]; Slayton,
Cherie[Cherie .Slayton@mail .house .gov]
From:
Simmons, Anne
Sent:
Sat 1/11/2014 2:49:53 AM
Subject: Re: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week
To:
Cc:

From: Simmons, Anne
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 05:02 PM
To: 'Vaught.Laura@epa.gov' <Vaught.Laura@epa.gov>
Cc: Repko, Mary Frances; Slayton, Cherie
Subject: Re: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week

From: Vaught, Laura [mailto:Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 04:59 PM
To: Simmons, Anne
Cc: Repko, Mary Frances; Slayton, Cherie
Subject: Re: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week

From: Simmons, Anne <Anne.Simmons@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:59:25 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Cc: Repko, Mary Frances; Slayton, Cherie
Subject: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week

Laura,
Sorry for the late notice, but Mr. Peterson's office is wondering if there is time on the Administrator's
calendar next week early, possibly late Monday afternoon or Tuesday for a meeting with a group of

House Democrats.
The topic would be the 2014 RFS proposed rulemaking.
I'm about to head into a farm bill meeting, but you can either try me at 302-9194 or give Cherie a call at

225-2165.
The potential attendees would be:
Collin Peterson
Tim Walz
Rick Nolan
Dave Loebsack
Bruce Braley
Cheri Bustos
Bill Enyart
Dan Kildee
Thank you! And again, sorry for the late notice on the request.
Anne

Anne Simmons
House Committee on Agriculture
1305 Longworth
Washington DC 20515
202-225-1494
202-225-8510 FAX

Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Repko, Mary Frances[Mary.Frances.Repko@mail.house.gov]; Slayton,
Cherie[Cherie .Slayton@mail .house .gov]
From:
Simmons, Anne
Sent:
Fri 1/10/2014 10:02:40 PM
Subject: Re: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week
To:
Cc:

From: Vaught, Laura [mailto:Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 04:59 PM
To: Simmons, Anne
Cc: Repko, Mary Frances; Slayton, Cherie
Subject: Re: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week

From: Simmons, Anne <Anne.Simmons@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:59:25 PM
To: Vaught, Laura
Cc: Repko, Mary Frances; Slayton, Cherie
Subject: Left you a VM on possibility for House Dem meeting on RFS next week

Laura,
Sorry for the late notice, but Mr. Peterson's office is wondering if there is time on the Administrator's
calendar next week early, possibly late Monday afternoon or Tuesday for a meeting with a group of
House Democrats.
The topic would be the 2014 RFS proposed rulemaking.
I'm about to head into a farm bill meeting, but you can either try me at 302-9194 or give Cherie a call at
225-2165.
The potential attendees would be:
Collin Peterson
Tim Walz
Rick Nolan
Dave Loebsack
Bruce Braley
Cheri Bustos
Bill Enyart

Dan Kildee
Thank you! And again, sorry for the late notice on the request.
Anne

Anne Simmons
House Committee on Agriculture
1305 Longworth
Washington DC 20515
202-225-1494
202-225-8510 FAX

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]; Bittleman, Sarah[Bittleman.Sarah@epa.gov]
Siddall, Katy
Wed 10/23/2013 9:21 :29 PM
RE: ROV questions - Rep Braley

From: Vaught, Laura [mailto:Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:04 PM
To: Bittleman, Sarah; Siddall, Katy
Subject: Re: ROV questions - Rep Braley

From: Bittleman, Sarah
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:46:57 PM
To: Siddall, Katy; Vaught, Laura
Subject: Re: ROY questions - Rep Braley

From: Siddall, Katy
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:30:10 PM

To: Bittleman, Sarah
Subject: ROV questions - Rep Braley

Hi Sarah,

I hope you're doing well. A mutual contact, Beth Elliott, gave me your information. I
wanted to reach out and express Congressman Braley's concerns with the leaked draft.
For one that there is a leaked draft, and also that what we're hearing says that that the
draft numbers will have a devastating impact on Iowa's economy and many who are
expanding their business to reach the levels expressed in statute.

I'd love to talk over the phone and get general sense of what's happening with the rule
proposal process. (My direct is 226-8235) I'm hoping to get an update for my boss on
the plan to release final numbers on the 2014 RVO numbers and find out if EPA has any
position you can share on how closely the final numbers will be to the leaked draft?
The copy of the draft I have only contains the summary and not the full proposal, but it
seems to rely heavily on the "blendwall." I know this is a fairly common term in the
industry, but for evaluation sake does EPA have a set definition of the factors they are
including in the use of the term "blendwall?"

I understand you may be under some constraints in what you can share, but I'd
appreciate any insight you can pass along. Thank you!
Katy

Katy Siddall
Senior Legislative Assistant
Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01)
2263 Rayburn House Office Building
(p) 202-225-2911 (f) 202-225-6666

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Vaught, Laura[Vaught. Laura@epa.gov]; Distefano, Nichole[DiStefano.Nichole@epa.gov]
Nouri, Ali (Franken)
Mon 10/14/2013 1:41 :07 PM
Fw: McCarthy: no final decision on RFS

Good morning. Laura, Nichole, what can you tell us about the leaked report? Lots of
folks are asking so anything you tell me would be appreciated. Thanks, Ali
Ali Nouri
Energy and Agriculture Policy Advisor
Office of Senator Al Franken

202.224.5641

10/11/13 2:43 PM EDT
EPA is still deciding on its 2014 renewable fuels standards, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
said in a statement today.
"At this point, EPA is only developing a draft proposal. The agency has made no final decision
on the proposed renewable fuel standards for 2014. And no decisions will be made on the final
standards without a full opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on the EPA's proposed
2014 renewable fuel standards and be heard on how to best foster a growing biofuels industry
that takes into account infrastructure- and market-related factors,'' McCarthy said.
McCarthy's comments follow press reports detailing plans to lower volume requirements for
renewable fuels that are added to the nation's gasoline supply, shown in a leaked draft of the
proposed
EPA sent for White House review.
"The Obama Administration remains firmly committed to furthering the development of all
biofuels - including com-based ethanol, cellulosic biofuel, and advanced biofuel - as part of
the President's commitment to developing a clean energy economy. Biofuels are a critical part of
the President's all of the above energy strategy that is reducing America's dependence on oil and
creating jobs across the country,'' the administrator said.
- Erica Martinson

You've received this POLITICO Pro content because your customized settings include:
Energy Whiteboards. To change your alert settings, please go to

This email alert has been sent for the exclusive use of POLITICO Pro subscriber Ali Nouri.

Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of
POLITICO Pro is a violation of federal law and the POLITICO Pro subscription
agreement. Copyright© 2013 by POLITICO LLC. To subscribe to Pro, please go to

To:

Cc:
From:
Sent:
Subject:

Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Bailey, KevinJ[Bailey.KevinJ@epa.gov]
Stark-Alcala, Mara (EPW)
Wed 3/5/2014 6:22:38 PM
Follow Up Questions from Senate EPW Committee

Attached please find correspondence addressed to you from the US Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee.

We look forward to receiving your response.

Thanks,

Mara Stark-Alcala
Majority Press Assistant
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-8832 I 202-224-1273 (fax)

at

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
January 16, 2014
Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission
Questions for McCarthy
Questions from:
Senator Barbara Boxer
1. On December 7, 2009, the EPA made the finding (Endangerment Finding) that current and
projected levels of greenhouse gases including, carbon dioxide (C02) and methane threaten the
public health and welfare of the nation's current and future generations. Could you please
summarize the findings as it relates to the extreme weather, floods, drought and wildfires?
2. Could you please summarize the peer-reviewed science that served as the basis for the
Endangerment Finding?
3.

Was the EPA use of peer-reviewed climate change science in the Endangerment Finding upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case Coalition for Responsible
Regulation v. EPA (June 26, 2012)?

4. EPA has sought public comments on its proposed rules for new power plants. Is it correct that
the agency received over 2.5 million public comments on the proposal?
5. Is it correct that the vast majority of these comments supported EPA action to limit carbon
pollution from power plants?
6. The Climate Action Plan calls for using the Clean Air Act to set limits on carbon pollution from
cars, trucks, and power plants. Are these actions supported by the Supreme Court decisions in
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) and American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011 ), as well as
more recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit?
7. The Climate Action Plan calls for using the Clean Air Act to set limits on carbon pollution from
cars, trucks, and power plants. Over the Clean Air Act's forty-plus year history what benefits has
it provided to the nation's health and economy?
8. The Administration has already taken several steps to reduce carbon pollution. One of the biggest
steps has been new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. Could you please describe the
consumer and climate change benefits of those rules?
9. Do other countries have standards requiring that new coal-fired power plants to capture carbon
dioxide?
I 0. If so, do any of these standards require greater capture of carbon dioxide than the levels proposed
by the EPA in its "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (Jan. 8, 2014)?
11. In October 2013, the Global CCS Institute, whose membership includes American Electric
Power, Arch Coal and Duke Energy, stated that "CCS technology is well understood and a
reality." It also identified, as of September 2012, 75 large-scale integrated CCS projects with 16

of these projects currently operating or in construction and 59 in planning stages of development.
Do these findings support a determination that that carbon capture and sequestration technology
is a best system of emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated?

Senator Thomas R. Carper
l. Administrator McCarthy, I was quite happy with what was in the President's Climate Action
Plan. However, I was surprised to see what was not included- support for domestic efforts to
reduce black carbon. Recent studies have shown black carbon to be the second most damaging
greenhouse agent behind carbon dioxide. These same studies have shown the most effective way
to reduce black carbon is by cleaning up diesel emissions. Do you believe DERA and domestic
clean diesel programs like Clean Construction should be part of our strategy to address climate
here at home? If so, do you think we can expect more support from the Administration in future
budgets?
2. The EPA is scheduled to finalize standards for cooling water intake structures under section
316(b) of the Clean Water Act by January 28, 2014. What steps have been taken to ensure the
best science available has been used to determine both the costs and benefits to justify the new
standards?
3. In 2013, 4 of our nation's 104 nuclear power reactors permanently shutdown and one more is
scheduled to retire by the end of 2014. We may see more closures this year. What are the
assumptions in the President's Climate Action Plan about the base load generation of electricity
through nuclear power in order to meet climate and carbon emission goals? What will the impact
of these 5 plant closures be on the President's climate and carbon emission goals? What will the
impact of more nuclear power reactor closures, if any, be on those goals?

Senator David Vitter
I.

How much has your agency spent on climate change-related activities, including those in
furtherance of the Climate Action Plan, since 2008?

2. According to EPA, an apparent benefit of the proposed rule is that the new source rule will serve
as a "necessary predicate" for a power plant existing source rule under section 111 (d). As EPA
notes, under section 111, Congress prohibited EPA from issuing an existing source rule for a
pollutant under section 11 l(d) unless it had first issued a new source rule under section 11 l(b) for
that pollutant. Do you think issuing a "pro forma " new source rule that does nothing except pave
the way for an existing source rule circumvents Congressional intent, and renders the new source
rule predicate added to the statute meaningless?
3. The Office of Management and Budget, during its review ofEPA's re-proposed New Source
Performance Standards for Power Plants, questioned EPNs assertion of the technical feasibility
of carbon capture because EPA's determination that carbon capture and storage is adequately
demonstrated as the best system of emissions reduction "relies heavily on literature reviews, pilot
projects, and commercial facilities yet to operate." OMB also asserted that they believed "this
cannot form the basis of a finding that CCS on commercial-scale power plants is 'adequately
demonstrated." OMB also requested details of the specific CCS operations already in service that
process the rate of C02 necessary for a typical IGCC power plant to be in compliance.
a.

What examples did EPA explicitly provide?

4. You've said that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely and have agreed with former EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson that there have been no confirmed cases of hydraulic fracturing
impacting drinking water. Given that the President's Climate Action Plan relies heavily on the
use of natural gas, what is your vision for getting the American public to understand that
hydraulic fracturing is safe and that fracking has unlocked an American energy revolution that is
lowering all Americans' energy prices, creating jobs, helping to lower GHG emissions, and
revitalizing such industries as the manufacturing, steel, and chemical sectors?
5.

EPA has addressed GHG emissions from the refining industry through fuel economy standards
and through the GHG Tailoring Rule for larger projects. The refining industry accounts for only
3% to 6% of the total U.S. GHG emissions from industry. The refining industry already has the
incentive to control energy: energy accounts for up to 50% of a refinery's controllable costs.
Because the refining industry is already highly efficient, EPA analysis indicates that there is no
opportunity for any significant reductions in this sector. Why is EPA putting efforts into
regulating already highly efficient industries?

6.

What is the status ofEPA's response to Industry's Freedom of Information request filed on
August 20, 2013, with respect to the Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866?

7. The second proposal of the GHG NSPS for new power plants does not address the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPAct) or the potential limitations it imposes on EPA' s "Best System of Emission
Reduction" analysis. What is EPA's position on the fact that EPAct prohibits EPA from
considering technology used at a facility receiving assistance under the Department of Energy's
Clean Coal Power Initiative, or at a facility that is receiving an advanced coal project tax credit,
as being "adequately demonstrated" for purposes of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act?

8. Under the language of Section 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA establishes a procedure under
which states submit to the EPA a plan that contains standards of performance for existing
stationary sources.
a.

Does EPA agree that the states, not EPA, have the authority to establish "standards of
performance" for existing stationary sources?

b. Does EPA agree that any carbon dioxide emissions standards for existing power plants should
be achievable at existing power plants?
9. In a document entitled "Questions for State Partners" issued by EPA in September 2013, EPA
surveyed States about their experiences with " ... emissions budget trading programs, resource
planning requirements, end-use energy, efficiency resource standards, renewable energy portfolio
standards, and appliance and building code energy standards ... " This document suggests that
EPA plans to decide what is achievable at existing electricity generating units by looking "outside
the fence" to these types of activities. Can you confirm that EPA will not go "outside the fence"
when deciding what is "achievable" by exiting power plants? Yes or no?
10. Last fall, 17 State Attorneys General and one Senior Environmental Regulator sent you a white
paper. The AGs raised concerns that EPA will not properly defer to States in establishing and
implementing standards for existing power plants, and that under the guise of"flexibility," EPA
will require existing power plants to operate less or shut down. Can you provide any assurances
that, in its GHG regulation of existing plants, EPA will not force the retirement or reduced
operation of still-viable coal-fired power plants?
11. EPA is running point on the 316(b) proposal. This rule, as it was proposed, would affect a
staggering 600 facilities across the country. I'm concerned about the cross-agency coordination,
considering all of the agencies that are now involved. Are you concerned at all that these ESA
negotiations could actually result in a de facto mandate to install cooling towers on power plants
and manufacturers who use waters to cool their facilities?
12. Several provisions in EPA's proposed 316(b) cooling water intake rule could lead to a
requirement to install cooling towers. These include ( 1) a requirement for modified units,
including nuclear uprates or replacements of turbines and condensers, to install cooling towers
similar to EPA's New Source Review program under the Clean Air Act, (2) a requirement to use
"willingness-to-pay" surveys to measure benefits that would significantly overstate benefits and
possibly justify a decision to install towers; (3) a change in the status of cooling ponds and
impoundments long considered to be closed-cycle cooling; and (4) overly broad Endangered
Species Act provisions that could require facilities to cease operation or install cooling towers if a
threatened or endangered species is located in a water body from which a facility draws water
even without evidence of impact to that species. Facilities faced with a requirement to install
cooling towers would likely retire rather than retrofit. This is especially true for nuclear units,
many of which are unprofitable today as a result of low demand, low natural gas prices and
subsidized renewable generation. Have you considered the effect of retirements of nuclear units
on grid reliability and climate change goals as a result of the 316(b) rulemaking?
13. We believe the Services should conclude the rule is "not likely to adversely affect" T&E species.
We agree with EPA's original finding that the rule does not authorize any actions that could
potentially harm T &E species because the rule provides additional protections for species from
impingement and entrainment at cooling water intake structures. What steps are EPA taking to

ensure that its original finding will prevail in the final rule? What organizations within the
Administration are contesting that finding and on what basis?
14. Any ESA monitoring and study requirements must be focused on T&E species directly affected
by the intake through entrainment or impingement. We understand that the proposed ESA
provisions in 3 l 6(b) will require permittees to identify listed species that may be in the
waterbodies from which a facility draws water and might be indirectly affected by intake
structures. How does such an approach comport with the Endangered Species Act or the Clean
Water or 40 years of precedent?
15. The approach proposed to be used to incorporate proposed ESA provisions into the state 3 l 6(b)
permitting process represents a dramatic departure from the current NRC-initiated Section 7
consultations procedure used for nuclear facilities that involves multiple federal
agencies. Having the ESA consultation take place prior to submittal of a state permit application
would shift the decision-making to a single federal agency. Rather, any ESA study or
consultation should occur as an integral part of the current permitting process and not
separately. What are your thoughts on this?
16. On June 25, 2012, the San Miguel Electric Cooperative submitted comments on the original
proposed Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards. 1 Those comments explicitly
warned that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("EPAct") prohibits EPA from considering
technology funded by the Clean Coal Power Initiative in analysis under§ 111 of the Clean Air
Act. Three months later, when introducing Re-proposed GHG NSPS on September 20, 2012, you
referred to comments submitted to the original proposal saying, "We did what democracy
demands. We paid attention. We read those comments. We thought about them. And we
decided that we needed to update the proposal." However, you recently testified to the
Committee that you were unaware of the EPAct prohibitions noted in the San Miguel comments
at the time you made that statement.
a.

Were any Agency employees involved in drafting the Re-Proposed GHG NSPS aware of the
EPAct prohibitions when the rule was issued on September 20, 2012?

b. When was the first time Agency employees involved in drafting the Re-Proposed GHG NSPS
discussed the EPAct prohibitions?
17. According to the Re-proposed GHG NSPS, "DOE/NETL has prepared other reports-in
particular their 'Cost and Performance Baseline' reports, including one on partial capture - that
further support our proposed determination of the technical feasibility of partial capture."
However, the DOE/NETL cost and performance baseline for partial capture includes a 20%
"process contingency" to account for the fact that pre-combustion and post-combustion carbon
capture is "unproven technology at commercial scale" for power plant applications. Please
explain how modeling that assumes that CCS is unproven technology for commercial-scale power
plants supports finding CCS to be proven technology for commercial-scale power plants.
1 Euitizi,

Joseph, Comments on the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed Reg. 22392, SAN MIGUEL ELEC. COOP., Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660-9964, Jun. 25, 2012 (citing EPAct §402(i) and saying "The Clean Coal Power
Initiative ... was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ... to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of federal
funding to clean coal projects. However, understanding that technologies developed under this act would not be
commercially available. Congress included limitations on using these technologies as part ofNSPS or other CAA
reviews ....") (emphasis in original)).

18. On December 19, EPA issued a draft guidance on EOR operations, "Draft Underground
Injection Control Program Guidance on Transitioning Class II Wells to Class VI Wells," that
suggests if the business model for a well or group of wells changes from enhanced recovery
to permanent carbon storage, the wells may need to be re-permitted as Class VI wells.
a. Did EPA consider the cost of re-permitting and converting these wells in the proposed
GHGrule?
b. Isn't it true the C02 injection in EOR applications is the only possible scenario that is at all
economical?
19. Stringent regulations in the U.S. will also increase the likelihood that energy intensive
industries will build in other countries with fewer environmental controls. How are you
addressing the problem of carbon leakage to make sure these regulations do not in fact
increase global GHG emissions?
20. I, along with others, sent three letters to EPA regarding the Agency's involvement in the
development of the SCC estimates, including the Agency's participation in the Interagency
Working Group. Your Director Atmospheric Programs testified that staff from that office
participated in the IWG, assisting particularly in respect to the technical work and the modeling.
a.

Did you participate in any meetings of the IWG?

b. Did any of your direct reports participate in or attend any of the meetings?
c. Did you sign off on or approve any materials, technical analysis, or assistance that was
provided by the Agency to the IWG?
d. Are the models relied upon in developing the Social Cost of Carbon estimates published and
available on EPA's website?
e.

Is the technical work and modeling conducted by EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs for
the IWG in the development of the SCC estimates publicly available including on EPA's
website?

f.

Which of your Agency's offices participated, including the number of staff, hours, and other
resources dedicated to such work, as well as any outside experts or consultants that provided
input or comments?

21. The interagency working group decided to focus on the global social cost of carbon even
though OMB Circular A-4 requires the regulatory impact analyses to include an analysis of
domestic costs and benefits, leaving international analysis optional.
a. What is the difference between the global and U.S.-only [domestic] social cost of carbon?
b. How will you balance domestic versus global estimates of the social cost of carbon in
making decisions?
c.

Why doesn't the SCC only address the domestic cost as required by OMB?

Senator James Inhofe
I . Ms. McCarthy, during your tenure at the EPA, has the Agency ever produced an estimate of the
job losses that would be sustained across the entire economy as a result of a new regulation?
2.

With respect to the EPA's New Source Performance Standards for electric generation units, did
OMB, the Department of Energy, or any other agency in the federal government raise any
concern or question that the rule's requirement to use Carbon Capture Sequestration technology
may not yet be commercially demonstrated?

Senator John Barrasso
1. A Bloomberg News story ran entitled "EPA Assertions on Carbon Capture Viability Sparked
Concerns by White House Officials." The article, which ran on January 10, 2014, quotes from
interagency comments prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The
article quotes the White House OMB as saying about your new rule that"EPA's assertion of the technical feasibility of carbon capture relies heavily on literature
reviews, pilot projects, and commercial facilities yet to operate. We believe this cannot
form the basis of a finding that CCS on commercial-scale power plants is 'adequately
demonstrated.'"
As stated before, the law requires that emission control performance standards must be
"adequately demonstrated." The White House is clearly saying that CCS is not adequately
demonstrated.
What does the White House know that you haven't acknowledged and is the agency going to
speak more definitively on this topic? If so, when?

Senator Jeff Sessions
I . I have received many letters from constituents who are deeply troubled by the unwarranted,
burdensome aspects of the President's climate agenda. A few examples are provided below, along
with questions for you to answer specifically.

a.

Jerry in Birmingham, Alabama wrote: "I would like to know how [President] Obama and
the EPA can pass laws that are closing the coal industry. There is no consideration about the
impact on the middle class and our energy program. I thought Congress passed laws because
each person in Congress represents the people in his district/state. We can't have one person
setting regulations ... "
Please explain how, in your view, Congress has expressly authorized the Environmental
Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide released from the combustion of coal and
natural gas in electric generating units.

b. Leslie in Gardendale, Alabama wrote: "The President is talking about helping the middle
class yet his policies and laws are hurting the middle class by destroying middle class jobs
related to the coal industry ... The company I work for had 50 employees when the President
took office and today we have 28." Similarly, Steve in Winfield, Alabama wrote: "If we
really want to grow the economy and create good paying jobs, then why would we do
anything to make coal more costly to mine and use? The main areas where coal mines are
operating are areas that would be economically devastated if coal mining were non-existent.
These areas have a blue collar work force ... "
Please explain your best estimate of the number of coal sector jobs that would be impacted by
the portions of the President's climate plan that EPA intends to implement.
c.

Keith in Fayette, Alabama wrote: "With the Obama Administration's all-out war on coal, he
is killing hundreds of thousands of jobs both directly and indirectly nationwide ... This is a
rare issue that touches every single person living in our state."
Please list every regulation proposed and/or finalized by EPA since January 21, 2009 that is
likely to have an adverse impact on coal sector jobs in the United States.

2.

Has EPA fully analyzed the economic impact of the President's Climate Action Plan, taking into
account the "whole economy"? If so, can you give me a copy of that report? Has EPA fully
analyzed the specific impact of the President's plan on blue collar, middle class jobs?

3. I am informed that, according to a recent study, Alabama families spend an estimated average of
13% of their after-tax incomes on energy, and that of the 489,000 Alabama families with annual
incomes of$ I 0,000 to $30,000, one quarter of the state's population, spend an estimated average
of25% of their after-tax family budgets on energy. In light of these facts, can you assure me that
the President's Climate Action Plan will not increase energy costs for low- and fixed income
families in my state? Can you assure any other Senators that the Plan will NOT increase energy
costs for low- and fixed-income families in their states?
4. Can you assure me that the President's Climate Action Plan will NOT increase energy costs for
Alabama manufacturers?

5.

Even the mere threat of expensive new regulations can hinder job creation and economic growth.
President Obama conceded this fact when, in 2011, he directed EPA to not move forward with
reconsideration of the ozone standard "particularly as our economy continues to recover" (Pres.
Obama, 9/2/2011 ). At the time, EPA' s reconsideration of the ozone standard was considered to be
one of the most expensive rules ever proposed by EPA, and it threatened thousands of jobs. It is
also true that the ozone reconsideration imposed a tremendous burden on state and local
governments, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. On December 17111, I wrote you a letter,
joined by all Republicans on this Committee, outlining these concerns and renewing a
longstanding, unanswered request for an accounting by EPA of the costs it incurred as part of the
ozone reconsideration process. EPA has had more than 2 years to answer our request, and during
your confirmation process, you committed that you would answer. One day before our hearing,
on January 15, 2014, EPA responded with a brief letter to my attention, declining to provide the
requested information. Troublingly, EPA conceded that " ... it is difficult for us to estimate, with
any meaningful precision, the expenses and full-time equivalent employees used for the
reconsideration of the 2008 standard specifically." This sounds like an admission by EPA that it
can't provide Congress with an explanation about how much taxpayer funds were used in the
ozone reconsideration process. Why can't an agency with thousands of employees produce a
simple accounting of dollars and time spent on a major rulemaking effort? Would EPA be able to
provide an accounting of all taxpayer funds expended as part of EPA's implementation of the
President's climate action plan?

6.

We have received official satellite temperature data for 2013, and those measurements show that
global temperatures did not increase last year-continuing a trend going back to 1998. Do you
dispute this fact-that global atmospheric temperatures, as measured in the lower troposphere,
have not increased in over 15 years?

7. Your testimony seems to acknowledge that U.S. actions, alone, will not result in meaningful
changes in global temperatures. Your written testimony provides: "The President's Plan
recognizes that the United States must couple action at home with leadership abroad." Is it correct
that, even if the President's entire climate agenda is implemented and his emissions reductions
goals are achieved in full, there would be no significant difference in global temperatures 20, 50,
or even 100 years from now (relative to current projections), unless China, India, and other large
nations take similar steps to reduce their emissions by comparable amounts? While U.S. and
European C02 emissions have declined or remained fairly stable since 2000, C02 emissions
from China have increased by almost 170% since 2000. India is also increasing emissions
dramatically. What firm commitments has the Administration obtained from China or India to
reduce C02 emissions?
8. According to the IEA, there are over 2,300 coal-fired power plants worldwide. In its proposed
C02 standard for new power plants, EPA proposed that U.S. coal-fired power plants be required
to install carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. Of the 2,300 coal-fired power plants in the
world today, how many full scale CCS projects are operating presently?
9. In a letter to me dated December 24, 2013, the State Department acknowledged a "recent
slowdown in atmospheric warming," but the President seems to deny that there is a slowdown in
warming. Do you agree that we have currently experienced a period of at least 15 years without
significant increases in global temperatures as measured in the lower troposphere? Have you
discussed these facts concerning global temperatures with the President? Will you do so in the
future to ensure his comments on the status of climate, as the nation's Chief Executive, are
accurate?

Senator Mike Crapo
I. In your testimony, you mentioned "the President asked the EPA to work with states, utilities and
other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power
plants." Additionally, you mentioned the eleven public listening sessions your agency held
around the country as proposed regulations were developed. However, these listening sessions
avoided many of the areas where the President's Climate Action plan will likely have the most
severe negative economic consequences.
a.

Does the EPA not view our country's top coal producing and utilizing states as "key
stakeholders" in this policy debate?

2. You mentioned a threat to national security as a potential consequence of not vigorously
implementing policies to combat climate change. A greater concern to me in the arena of national
security, which history has shown, is the reliance on foreign energy resources from volatile
regions of the world.
a.

With the abundant energy resources in the U.S., including natural gas, coal and petroleum,
and the subsequent threat posed by the President's Climate Action Plan in utilizing these
resources, how do you propose to promote our national security while undennining our
energy security?

b. Nuclear, a zero emissions energy resource, was not mentioned in your opening testimony,
however, it is mentioned in the President's Climate Action Plan.
c.

As Administrator of the EPA, what is your personal assessment of the role nuclear energy can
play in accomplishing the Administration's climate objectives?

d. What assumptions does the Administration's climate action plan make regarding new nuclear
plants?
e.

What assumptions does the Administration's climate action plan make regarding existing
nuclear plants?

f.

The President's Climate Action Plan discusses supporting new nuclear plants (primarily in
the context of international activities). What activities does the Administration envision
undertaking to ensure the continued operation of existing nuclear plants?

g. Have you looked at the effect that closing nuclear power plants would have on the President's
climate goals?
3. Dr. Judith Curry, PhD, Professor and Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia
Institute of Technology, mentioned in her testimony that reducing carbon emissions is not simply
a "control knob" in reducing the threat of global climate change, as evidenced by the
inconsistency between emissions and temperature forecasts over the past approximately fifteen
years. Reducing carbon emissions is a central pillar of the President's Climate Action Plan.
a.

If fully implemented, what would you anticipate the measurable gain, if any, the
Administration's proposal would be on the issue of climate change?

Senator Deb Fischer
I. Administrator McCarthy, last September, seventeen state attorneys general and one state
environmental commissioner wrote to you to express their concerns regarding what they called "a
serious, ongoing problem in environmental regulation: the tendency of EPA to seek to expand the
scope of its jurisdiction at the cost of relegating the role of the States to merely implementing
whatever Washington prescribes, regardless of its wisdom, cost, or efficiency in light of local
circumstances." Specifically the states highlight the limits of EPA's authority under the Clean Air
Act for regulating existing sources.
a.

Do you agree with these state officials that under the law, EPA's authority is limited to
establishing a procedure by which the states submit plans for regulating existing sources?

b.

Do you agree that while EPA is authorized to require states to submit plans containing
performance standards, EPA may not dictate what those performance standards shall be, nor
may EPA require states to adopt greenhouse gas performance standards that are not based on
adequately demonstrated technology?

2. Charles McConnell, former Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy,
recently stated before Congress and to the press that carbon capture and storage technologies are
not adequately demonstrated and commercially available and viable. His message is clear, that
that carbon capture is not ready for a mandate, as has been done in EP A's NSPS proposal.
Multiple Administration officials have refused to address Mr. McConnell's comments. What is
your response to his claims? Is he right or wrong?
3. Media reports recently revealed that EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) raised multiple
concerns with EPA about how it went about formulating its New Source Performance Standards.
The reports say that the SAB wanted to undertake a formal review of how EPA went about the
process, but EPA staff pressured the SAB not to do so. What is the purpose of having an SAB if
EPA does not want it to do its job?
4. A new study by Life Cycle Associates (a firm that has done work under contract for EPA) found
that average corn ethanol was reducing GHG emissions by 21 % in 2005; yet, EPA's analysis
suggests this level won't be achieved until 2022. The final rule for the RFS2 clearly indicated
that EPA would update its GHG analysis as new information became available. A number of
recent papers by academia, government, and industry show that com ethanol's GHG performance
is significantly better than assumed by EPA. But the Agency has not made a single change to its
original GHG analysis to reflect advanced in the science. Why?

Obama Administration Launches Next Steps on Fuel
Efficiency Improvements
EPA, DOT Target 2016 to Complete Next Phase of Clean Truck and Bus Standards
Fallowing through on President Obama' s 2013 Climate Action Plan and 2014 State of the Union
Address, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are moving forward to develop the next phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse
gas standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses. The standards, which will build on successful
first-term efforts to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, are
slated for completion in 2016 after extensive engagement with manufacturers, the trucking
industry, health and environmental advocates, and the public. This next phase provides the
opportunity to continue progress in cutting carbon pollution and increasing fuel efficiency, while
saving businesses money, strengthening the economy, safeguarding Americans' health and
protecting the environment.
"EPA Administrator Quote"

"Today's announcement is the latest effort by the Obama Administration to produce cleaner,
more fuel-efficient vehicles that benefit businesses, consumers and the environment alike,'' said
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "More fuel-efficient trucks means lower costs for
businesses, which can be passed on to consumers, while enhancing American competitiveness
and job creation through manufacturing at the same time.
The new phase of standards will build on the successes of the first ever fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty vehicles, which will reduce C02 emissions by about
270 million metric tons and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built
for the 2014 to 2018 model years, providing $49 billion in net program benefits. The reduced
fuel use alone will enable $50 billion in savings.
Developing standards beyond 2018 will continue to enhance American competitiveness and job
creation, improve energy security, benefit consumers and businesses by reducing costs for
transporting goods, and spur growth in the clean energy sector.
The heavy-duty vehicles covered by these standards, from the largest pickup trucks to 18wheelers, emit almost 20 percent of U.S. transportation carbon emissions and collectively
represent the nation's second largest and fastest growing source of oil use in transportation.
The President's Climate Action Plan directs EPA and NHTSA to set standards to improve fuel
efficiency and reduce carbon emissions for trucks for model years beyond 2018. As part of this
effort, the agencies will seek input from an array of stakeholders, including engine and vehicle
manufacturers, truckers, and environmental organizations. The agencies will also work closely
with partners in California and other states.

Deliberative Draft

The second phase truck standards are expected to be finalized in 2016, and go into effect after
2018. The planned regulations will be issued jointly and harmonized nationally. The EPA
establishes green house gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, while NHTSA
establishes fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
Today's announcement also builds on the standards for passenger vehicles that the Obama
Administration put in place for passenger vehicles during the first term. These standards are on
track to nearly double fuel economy, requiring average performance equivalent of 54.5 miles per
gallon by 2025, which will save the average driver more than $8,000 in fuel costs over the
lifetime of the vehicle and eliminate six billion metric tons of carbon pollution - more than the
United States emits in an entire year.
Click here for more on the next phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavyduty trucks and buses.

##

Deliberative Draft

8,

supra note 2,
no consideration

discount rate in this context would sug:gesc
em1ss1ons on future "'""'"r"t""""'

5.

8.

11

1

3.

to

1

3

1

were

area:

Env't & Public
John Boozman to Gina

To:

From:
Sent:
Subject:

Allen, Kara[Kara.Allen@mail.house.gov]
Allen, Kara
Wed 12/4/2013 2:53:40 PM
SEEC Daily Clips 12.4.13

Sustainable Energy & Environment
Coalition

Top news stories:

White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley will step down in February,
marking the almost complete turnover of President Obama's top environment and energy officials.
Sutley, appointed at the outset of Obama's presidency, has kept a lower political profile than some
other top officials. But she played a crucial role in several major administration policies, the White
House said.

In a report released Tuesday, the panel appointed by the National Research Council called for the
creation of an early warning system to alert society well in advance to changes capable of producing
chaos. Nasty climate surprises have occurred already, and more seem inevitable, perhaps within
decades, panel members warned. But, they said, little has been done to prepare.

SEEC Vice-Chair Reps. Rush Holt (N.J.), SEEC Member Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.) and SEEC Member Rep.
David Price (N.C.) spearheaded a letter signed by 59 lawmakers that calls for Jewell to stop new
exploration and revamp Interior's plans for drilling and permitting.

Led by SEEC Member Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), House members asked the administration to set a goal
of $1 billion a year for the federal government to use performance contracts in achieving energy savings.
The extension announced on Tuesday however, falls short of that goal.

SEEC Member Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on Tuesday re-introduced legislation that would require

the government to study the most practical ways of taxing drivers based on how far they drive, in order
to help fund federal highway programs.

Energy news:

Solar power may be well on its way to near-global cost competitiveness with natural gas by 2025,
according to new numbers from Lux Research. And rather than acting purely as market competitors, the
two energy sources could form a symbiosis with the construction of hybrid plants that make use of both.

China doubled the pace of adding renewable energy capacity in the first 10 months of the year as the
government worked to cut pollution in its largest cities.

A new study (PDF) examining the economics of Western Canada's oil sands finds that even if the
Keystone XL pipeline gets built, it's unlikely that extracting the heavy, tar-like oil around Alberta will
remain commercially viable over the next decade.

In a sprawling complex of laboratories and futuristic gadgets in Golden, Colo., a supercomputer named
Peregrine does a quadrillion calculations per second to help scientists figure out how to keep the lights
on.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries meets Wednesday to weigh how best to
maintain stable - but very high - crude oil prices in the face of rising U.S. shale oil production and
jostling among the members of the cartel that hope to expand production in 2014.

Gov. Terry Branstad said today that he will be testifying Thursday at a public hearing in Virginia
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a proposed rule to weaken the federal
government's Renewable Fuel Standard.

Japanese automaker Honda has announced new plans concerning solar energy. The company has no
intention of becoming an energy developer, at least not yet, but it does have an interest in breaking
away from fossil-fuels. Like other large companies, Honda spends a small fortune on electrical power.

The U.K. government said it expects 40 billion pounds ($65 billion) of investment in renewables by 2020
after shifting incentives toward offshore wind power and away from projects on land in areas where
residents object.

Climate news:

The acting head of the Department of Energy's (DOE) fossil-fuel energy office, Christopher Smith, told
lawmakers the technology is ready in comments submitted to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.

The Green Climate Fund, designed as the United Nations' most important funding body in the battle on
climate change in developing nations, launched its headquarters on Wednesday in South Korea, but
uncertainty over finances clouded the event.

The globally agreed upon political goal of limiting global warming to 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial
levels would bring "potentially disastrous impacts," and a far more ambitious plan to slash emissions of
global warming gases is needed, according to a new study by an interdisciplinary group of scientists and
economists.

Just before Thanksgiving, many conservatives seized on a new study examining the climate views of
members of the American Meteorological Society. It's no secret that there's a schism between climate
scientists and weather forecasters over climate change, and the study captured this, to skeptics' delight.

Now, those same donors who contributed so much to Cuccinelli's climate denier campaign are setting
their sights on McAuliffe. According to recent campaign finance reports posted on the Virginia Board of
Elections site, McAuliffe's Inaugural Committee has received $25,000 from Alpha Natural Resources, an
$8 billion coal company that gave $92,500 to Cuccinelli's campaign.

Environment & Health news:

Environmental organizations are telling the Obama administration how it should write guidance for
some hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations.

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association sued the cities of Fort Collins and Lafayette claiming their voterenacted bans on the extraction of oil and gas are preempted by state laws regulating those resources.

America's largest business lobby group warned the Obama administration on Tuesday against snuffing
out the country's energy boom with regulations on new oil and natural gas drilling technologies.

In comments filed with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management before a Tuesday evening deadline,

environmentalists insisted that it is too risky to allow any oil drilling in the "pristine" Chukchi Sea - even
if especially sensitive areas are taken off the table.

Business and oil-industry groups are urging a federal court to overturn BP's suspension from receiving
new government contracts, calling it a "disturbing" overreach that threatens other companies doing
business with federal agencies.

A pod of short-finned pilot whales is stranded in Everglades National Park in Florida. CBSMiami reports
that four of the whales have already died after 10 of them beached themselves on sand Tuesday,
according to park spokesperson Linda Friar.

A government panel proposed additional measures to lessen the contaminated water crisis at Japan's
crippled nuclear power plant, saying Tuesday that current plans are not enough to prevent the risk of a
disaster.

At each of Electricite de France SA's 58 nuclear reactors, there's a water tank that stores spent atomic
fuel rods, keeping them cool and trapping deadly radiation. The country's atomic watchdog is concerned
they aren't safe enough.

To:

From:
Sent:
Subject:

Allen, Kara[Kara.Allen@mail.house.gov]
Allen, Kara
Fri 11/22/2013 3:00:51 PM
SEEC Daily Clips 11.22.13

Sustainable Energy & Environment
Coalition

Top news stories:

The House passed legislation on Thursday that would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to approve applications for natural gas pipelines within 12 months. Members passed the Natural
Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, H.R. 1900, in a 252-165 vote that saw 26 Democrats support the
GOP bill.

The death toll from one of the strongest typhoons on record has risen above 5,000 and is likely to climb
further, although recovery efforts are beginning to take hold, Philippine officials said Friday.

The top four farm bill conferees failed Thursday to reach their hoped-for deal before the Thanksgiving
holidays. That would all but eliminate any real chance that Congress can enact a new bill before the end
of the year. Lawmakers will return to work after the recess with just two weeks left before the House is
scheduled to shut down Dec. 13 for the Christmas holidays.

Envoys from 190 nations are close to agreeing upon the first building blocks for the next treaty aimed at
fighting global warming, sketching the way to worldwide cuts in fossil-fuel emissions.

Fracking industry contributions to congressional campaigns spiked 231 percent between 2004 and 2012
in districts and states with fracking activity, according to a report released Wednesday.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman (FERC) Jon Wellinghoff announced his resignation
Thursday at a commission meeting. Wellinghoff, the longest-serving FERC chairman, announced he will
leave his post on Sunday.

Energy news:

The League of Conservation Voters launched a $1 million national television campaign touting the work
of five members of Congress who promote clean energy. The ads, which began running on Thursday in
the lawmakers' states, applaud them on issues including clean energy, economy, pollution and clean
water.

SolarCity Corp. (SCTY), the first U.S. company to offer bonds backed by rooftop solar panels, plans to sell
as much as $200 million of additional notes as soon as the second quarter, its chief financial officer said.

The head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers is "very confident" that congressional
lawmakers will change the federal renewable fuel mandate. It won't happen this year, Charles Drevna
said, but sooner or later Congress will make changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Republicans and the White House are battling over whether President Obama deserves credit for oil and
natural gas production that has surged on his watch. Many Republicans claim that Obama, a president
facing political headwinds over the botched ObamaCare rollout, is touting a U.S. success story he did
nothing to enable.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) unveiled plans to pare back oil industry tax
breaks Thursday as part of a wider proposed overhaul of the corporate tax code.

Alta Devices Inc., a supplier of solar cells for military applications, is in talks to provide its products for
consumer electronics including mobile phones, smoke detectors and security systems.

A Maryland county has passed a precedent-setting clean energy bill - it could be the first in the US to
require all government buildings to run on renewable energy. That is, when a county building is
renovated (50% or more of gross floor area) or newly built, renewable energy must be integrated into
the design.

In great news for electric cars, Nissan says its electric Leaf is profitable now, and they are ramping up US
production. Cutting the price helped a lot - since the $6000 sticker price reduction, demand has been
growing.

Suncor Energy, Canada's top petroleum producer, announced on Thursday that it would expand its oil
production in 2014 by 10 percent in another sign that the Obama administration's delay in approving
the Keystone XL pipeline extension is not holding back growth in the western Canadian oil sands fields.

In the wake of the most powerful "super typhoon" ever recorded pummelling the Philippines, killing
thousands in a single province, and just weeks after the northern Chinese city of Harbin suffered a
devastating "airpocalypse," suffocating the city with coal-plant pollution, government leaders beware!

Climate news:

The idea of a finite "carbon budget" - a key part of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's recent assessment of climate change - have been ignored at the ongoing climate talks in
Warsaw, which end on Friday, in favor of what some scientists say are piecemeal emissions cuts that are
less likely to solve the problem.

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between
them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the
industrial age, new research suggests.

For many in the Philippines, the damage here exemplifies a broader paradox: A storm consistent with
some scientists' warnings about climate change has done tremendous damage to an island that is one of
the world's biggest success stories of renewable energy, and to a country that has contributed almost
nothing to the global accumulation of greenhouse gases.

About 75 protesters braved the rain at UC Berkeley on Tuesday to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline
extension, which would greatly expand the pipeline bringing crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of
Mexico.

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee identified what may be a more serious
challenge to the EPA proposal: A 2005 law prevents the agency from using plants subsidized by the
Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative to show that a given technology is "adequately
demonstrated." Republicans on the committee say the three plants cited by the EPA received funding
from that program.

Royal Dutch Shell includes a high price for carbon dioxide when evaluating new projects. The $40 a
metric ton price that Shell uses would - if widely adopted - reshape domestic and international
energy consumption and investment trends.

The outlook, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Thursday,
shows that the winter of 2013-14 is likely to feature an expansion and intensification of drought
conditions across the Southwest and Southeast. That includes California, which has had its driest year on
record so far in 2013, and which needs sufficient mountain snowfall this winter to prevent water supply
shortages during the summer months.

More than 4.5 million homes in the U.S. are at high or extreme risk from wildfires, and nearly half of
them are in California, according to data from an analytics company.

The spruce man with the trim mustache and the grim-faced bodyguard is dozing in his seat. A flight
attendant leaves him a hot towel, and then another. The bodyguard, who wears the uniform of the
Kiribati National Police-the shoulder patch depicts a yellow frigate bird flying clear of the rising
sun-folds the towels carefully and places them on an armrest.

Environment & Health news:

The U.S. military is looking for ways to expand operations in the vast waters of the Arctic as melting ice
caps open sea lanes and other nations such as Russia compete for the lucrative oil and gas deposits. But
the effort will take money and resources to fill the broad gaps in satellite and communications coverage,
add deep-water ports and buy more ships that can withstand the frigid waters or break through the ice.

By 2022 they will be producing so much of the stuff that a month's output of wastewater could turn an
area the size of New York's Central Park into a toxic reservoir 11 feet (3.4 meters) deep, according to the
Pembina Institute, a nonprofit in Calgary that promotes sustainable energy.

Formosa (6505) Plastics Group, Asia's largest chemical producer, is seeking U.S. permits for a $2 billion
expansion of its Texas operations as cheaper natural gas prices make U.S. production more competitive.

Documents show a Houston gas drilling company tied to state Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox is
authorized to do business in New York and is concerned about opposition here to the practice of
hydraulic fracturing, although the company said it has no plans to use the technique in New York.

This year alone, about 10 percent of the country's red wolves have died from confirmed or suspected
gunshot wounds. Although the animals are listed as critically endangered, nine of the 100 remaining red
wolves living in the wild have been killed in this manner, a recent release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service notes.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a gathering of 10,000 advocates for green construction
Thursday that sustainability must be one of the country's top priorities.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation late Wednesday that would allow states to keep national
parks open during another government shutdown by speeding up the agreement process between
states and the Interior Department.

The EPA has made available $2 million in funding for rebates to help public and private construction
equipment owners replace or retrofit older diesel construction engines.

The League of Conservation Voters argues that Terry McAuliffe's recent victory in Virginia's
gubernatorial race and Tim Kaine's Senate win last year demonstrate that Virginia's voters are turning
green. Democrats McAuliffe and Kaine both ran on pro-clean energy platforms, and their opponents
argued for more fossil fuel extraction. McAuliffe's opponent, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is
a climate change denier with his head so deep in the sand he has practically dug a hole to China.

In the Pacific Northwest, the municipal powers-that-be are catching on that it's no fun at all to ride a
bike through a slippery pile of wet leaves. Actually, it's kind of terrifying. But big, car-lane-sized street
sweepers can't do the delicate work of getting leaves out of protected bike lanes.

To:

From:
Sent:
Subject:

Allen, Kara[Kara.Allen@mail.house.gov]
Allen, Kara
Wed 11 /13/2013 3:04:02 PM
SEEC Daily Clips 11.13.13

Sustainable Energy & Environment
Coalition

Top news stories:
This year is the seventh warmest since records began in 1850, with a trend of extreme weather events
and the impact of storms such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines aggravated by rising sea levels, the
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday.

The Interior Department today announced its final approval of the nearly 1,000-mile-long Gateway West
Transmission Line Project that the Obama administration has made a top priority but that has been
dogged by concerns it would damage sensitive wildlife habitat and view sheds.

As the Environmental Protection Agency readies next year's renewable-fuel standard, both biofuels
producers and gasoline refiners are poised to pounce. No matter where EPA sets the volume
requirements for ethanol and other biofuel blends in 2014, the standard is going to face push-back.
The panel cleared Kathryn Sullivan to run NOAA, which has a major climate monitoring and research
role, and she will also be under secretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Commerce Department,
NOAA's parent agency. The committee also approved Robert Simon, a longtime Senate Democratic aide,
to be the associate director for environment and energy at the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy.

Inland states and some along the Southeast coast are doing less than most other states to prepare for
natural disasters influenced by human-caused climate change, a Columbia Law School report says.

Energy news:

Eighty-one percent of research universities say budget sequestration cuts are directly hampering their
scientific research activities, according to a new survey released Monday.

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are the latest to back the "Master Limited
Partnership Parity Act," S. 795, which would extend the ability to establish MLPs to clean energy firms.
MLPs allow companies to establish partnerships whose shares are traded similarly to traditional stock
but that are not taxed at the corporate level; the structure is popular in the oil and gas industry.

CarCharging has installed the high-voltage devices, some dressed up to mimic a gasoline pump, in
underground parking garages, where drivers plug in and pay for the electricity through a device that
resembles a credit card. But the price, 49 cents a kilowatt-hour - roughly four times what people pay
for electricity in their homes - often makes the electric car more expensive per mile than the gasoline
car it replaced.

The boom in oil from shale formations in recent years has generated a lot of discussion that the United
States could eventually return to energy self-sufficiency, but according to a report released Tuesday by
the International Energy Agency, production of such oil in the United States and worldwide will provide
only a temporary respite from reliance on the Middle East.

Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA.O) will not recall its Model Selectric car despite three vehicle fires that raised
safety questions and hurt the automaker's stock price, CEO Elon Musk said on Tuesday.

The U.S. Department of Energy is making good on the second phase of a plant fuel research project,
pumping another $3 million into the study led by Dr. Joshua Yuan, Texas A&M Agrilife Research plant
pathologist.

Maryland has asked for Denmark's help in developing offshore wind farms, officials said. Denmark is the
home of the world's biggest offshore wind farm developer, DONG Energy, and of the top two offshore
wind turbine manufacturers, Siemens Wind Power and Vestas Wind Systems, both of which also have
factories in the United States.

Japan's lawmakers approved a first step to weakening the monopolies of regional power utilities by
setting up an independent body to coordinate supply and demand across the nation's electricity grids.

Because you can now go into Home Depot, trade in [PDF] your old, incandescent Christmas lights, and
get energy-saving, LED replacements at a discount* - but only for the next few days.

Climate news:

A United Nations climate panel that was criticized after a 2007 study overstated the rate of glacial
melting backtracked on global carbon-emissions estimates.

There are all sorts of things that Typhoon Haiyan highlighted about the difficulties that poorer countries
such as the Philippines will face in dealing with natural disasters as the world warms. Here's a partial
rundown.

Typhoon Haiyan has left an estimated 10,000 dead and hundreds of thousands homeless in the
Philippines. And it has once again underscored for many development experts a cruel truth about
climate change: It will hit the world's poorest the hardest.

Heather Zichal admits her job is unfinished. The architect of President Barack Obama's climate-change
plan, Zichal left the White House last week after five years as a top adviser on energy and climate
change.

Twenty of the nation's top climate scientists have sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, telling him that his
plans supporting increased use of the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," will
increase pollution and run counter to his efforts to cut California's global warming emissions.

A few weeks after it finishes hosting United Nations talks on limiting fossil-fuel emissions, Poland may
decide to double the size of one of its biggest coal-burning power plants.

The world is not on track to limit global temperature increases to levels that the international
community says will stave off the worst impacts of climate change, a global energy policy organization
warned Tuesday.

The redistribution of rainfall predicted by climate change modeling is playing out in real life, a new study
by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has found.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz pushed the president's climate action plan Monday and admonished
Congress for failing to address global warming. "Today, more than any time in our history, the global
community is understanding the serious threat of climate change," Moniz said in remarks delivered at
the American Nuclear Society's 2013 winter meeting and technology expo in Washington.

Florida is a swing state in presidential elections - as anyone who didn't spend the year 2000 under a
rock knows all too well. It has frequently elected Democrats as well as Republicans, often moderates
from both parties, at the statewide level. And no state is more at risk from climate change.

Maria van der Hoeven, International Energy Agency Executive Director, comments on nations' efforts to
transform their energy industries to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. She commented yesterday in an
interview in London.

While this plan is not exactly on the lips of every American, it is controversial enough that the EPA
decided to hold "Listening Sessions" across the country. With these events, EPA aimed to check the
pulse of America - or at least say it had really tried to check the pulse of America - before writing the
new benchmarks.

Of all the fanciful folklore espoused by climate deniers, among the strangest is cosmoclimatology. It
posits that climate change is not the result of the blanket of carbon dioxide we've pumped into the
atmosphere. Rather, the theory goes, global warming is caused when changes in the 11-year cycle of the
sun cause the Earth to be bombarded by cosmic rays, which are high-energy particles, most of which
come from deep in Outer Space.

Environment & Health news:

The House Natural Resources Committee will likely approve GOP legislation Thursday that would block
the Interior Department from toughening regulation of so-called mountaintop removal coal mining
projects in Appalachia.

A group of environmental advocates and Texas landowners is urging federal regulators to block
TransCanada from starting the southern leg of its Keystone XL pipeline, while new inspections are
conducted and the company's construction and safety practices are investigated. The Oklahoma-toTexas oil pipeline is nearly completed.

Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and
he can finally make a profit, he's not about to apologize for ripping up prairieland to plant corn.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said Tuesday that she would continue to put pressure on the administration
to speed up its review of the Keystone XL pipeline.

A draft regulation currently under an interagency review at the White House would allow the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control virtually all man-made and natural bodies of water in
the country, according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

The new Interior Secretary has an impressive resume. Oil geologist, banker, president of REI. But today's
Washington is a landscape without maps, and in this age of climate change and keystone, the major
battles are taking place over at the EPA and State. Is greatness still possible at Interior?

Attorneys representing Jefferson and Plaquemines parishes have filed several lawsuits in state courts
demanding that dozens of oil, gas and pipeline companies repair damage caused by dredging and other
operations, and remove waste materials that were improperly disposed in wetlands, all in violation of
the terms of permits allowing them to operate in each parish's "coastal zone."

The Department of Energy contractor responsible for processing the hottest, nastiest wastes in Oak
Ridge is under pressure to improve its performance following a series of incidents and missteps in recent
months.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) wants the federal government to make it easier for agencies to have a
choice of woods to use to build new buildings.

DPC-ENVIRONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV[DPCENVI RONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV]
From:
Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Sent:
Wed 11/13/2013 2:28:14 PM
Subject: FW: Blend wall and RFS briefing, November 13
To:

From: Boes, Eldon (Harkin)
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Subject: Blend wall and RFS briefing, November 13

Pat, could you please send this to the Energy staff list?

Thank you,
Eldon

+++++++++++++++++++++
Greetings,

The Dear Colleague letter attached and pasted below has been sent to all Senate offices. You
are invited to attend this timely briefing on the blend wall and the RFS. Originally planned for
October 3, the briefing has been rescheduled for Wednesday, November 13. Please contact
Eldon Boes (4-0007) with any questions.

Dear Colleague,

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence

and Security Act to require steadily increasing contributions from biofuels in our highway
transportation fuels markets. Since then, contributions from biofuels have increased
from about 7 billion gallons in 2007 to more than 14 billion gallons in 2012. In its August
6, 2013 announcement of the mandated volume requirements for 2013, the
Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) stated that, because of biofuel supply
and market constraints, they anticipated making adjustments to the 2014 biofuel volume
mandates, including adjustments to the advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel
categories.

We invite you and your staff to a briefing focused on the factors behind EPA's
anticipated decision as well as other issues related to the RFS. The briefing, entitled
"Through the Blend Wall or Not: Policy Options and Impacts" will be held on
Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in the Senate Visitor Center (SVC) 215. Key
experts will lead presentations and discussions on biofuels' supply and demand, market
conditions and the E10 blend wall, higher ethanol blends, feedstock supplies, and the
status and outlook for advanced biofuels production. This briefing will present valuable
information on our nation's renewable fuels sector as we consider transportation and
fuels' sector strategies in the future.

The briefing is hosted by Iowa State University's Bioeconomy Institute in collaboration
with Iowa's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

Background information is provided at:_

For additional information, please contact Jill Euken at

DPC-ENVIRONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV[DPCENVI RONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV]
From:
Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Sent:
Fri 11/8/2013 9:32:31 PM
Subject: FW: Blend wall and RFS briefing, November 13
To:

From: Boes, Eldon (Harkin)
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Subject: Blend wall and RFS briefing, November 13

Pat, could you please send this to the Energy staff list?

Thank you,
Eldon

+++++++++++++++++++++
Greetings,

The Dear Colleague letter attached and pasted below has been sent to all Senate offices. You
are invited to attend this timely briefing on the blend wall and the RFS. Originally planned for
October 3, the briefing has been rescheduled for Wednesday, November 13. Please contact
Eldon Boes (4-0007) with any questions.

Dear Colleague,

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence
and Security Act to require steadily increasing contributions from biofuels in our highway
transportation fuels markets. Since then, contributions from biofuels have increased
from about 7 billion gallons in 2007 to more than 14 billion gallons in 2012. In its August
6, 2013 announcement of the mandated volume requirements for 2013, the
Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) stated that, because of biofuel supply
and market constraints, they anticipated making adjustments to the 2014 biofuel volume
mandates, including adjustments to the advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel
categories.

We invite you and your staff to a briefing focused on the factors behind EPA's
anticipated decision as well as other issues related to the RFS. The briefing, entitled
"Through the Blend Wall or Not: Policy Options and Impacts" will be held on
Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in the Senate Visitor Center (SVC) 215. Key
experts will lead presentations and discussions on biofuels' supply and demand, market
conditions and the E10 blend wall, higher ethanol blends, feedstock supplies, and the
status and outlook for advanced biofuels production. This briefing will present valuable
information on our nation's renewable fuels sector as we consider transportation and
fuels' sector strategies in the future.

The briefing is hosted by Iowa State University's Bioeconomy Institute in collaboration
with Iowa's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

Background information is provided at:_

For additional information, please contact Jill Euken at

citlnitrd ~tatrs ~rnatr
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

November 8, 2013
Dear Colleague,
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was enacted in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security
Act to require steadily increasing contributions from biofuels in our highway transportation fuels
markets. Since then, contributions from biofuels have increased from about 7 billion gallons in
2007 to more than 14 billion gallons in 2012. In its August 6, 2013 announcement of the
mandated volume requirements for 2013, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA)
stated that, because of biofuel supply and market constraints, they anticipated making
adjustments to the 2014 biofuel volume mandates, including adjustments to the advanced biofuel
and the total renewable fuel categories.
We invite you and your staff to a briefing focused on the factors behind EPA' s anticipated
decision as well as other issues related to the RFS. The briefing, entitled "Through the Blend
Wall or Not: Policy Options and Impacts" will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2013 at 2:00
p.m. in the Senate Visitor Center (SVC) 215. Key experts will lead presentations and
discussions on biofuels' supply and demand, market conditions and the El 0 blend wall, higher
ethanol blends, feedstock supplies, and the status and outlook for advanced biofuels production.
This briefing will present valuable information on our nation's renewable fuels sector as we
consider transportation and fuels' sector strategies in the future.
The briefing is hosted by Iowa State University's Bioeconomy Institute in collaboration with
Iowa's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
Background information is provided at:
http://www. i owaepscor.org/research/energy/policy/briefings.
For additional information, please contact Jill Euken at 712-249-0335 or jeuken@iastate.edu.
Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator

To:
DPC-ENVIRONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV[DPCENVI RONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV]
From:
Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Sent:
Thur 11/7/2013 4:30:26 PM
Subject: FW: Deadline Extended: Biodiesel RFS Volume Requirements Letter to Administration

From: Eckert, Josephine (Murray)
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Subject: Deadline Extended: Biodiesel RFS Volume Requirements Letter to Administration

Pat, can you please forward this email onto the energy/enviro list? Thanks, Josephine

The deadline to sign onto the Murray-Blunt-Franken-Grassley letter to the
Administration - EPA, USDA, and OMB - regarding the 2014 biodiesel volume
requirements has been extended to COB Wednesday, November 13. OMB is
currently evaluating a proposal from EPA to keep the biodiesel volume requirements
stagnant at 2013 levels. This could reduce biodiesel production by 25 percent and lead
to plant closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty in future investments in the biodiesel
industry.

The current list of signers includes: Murray, Blunt, Franken, Grassley, Pryor, Donnelly,
King, Reed, and Johnson (SD).

Please contact Josephine Eckert (x4-6935) in Sen. Murray's office with any questions.

Thanks!

November XX, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Administrator

Secretary

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Washington, D.C. 20250

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and Director Burwell:

We write to encourage the Administration to develop a 2014 regulatory proposal for the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that supports the current-year projected 1.7 billion
gallons of U.S. biodiesel production.

Biodiesel is a RFS success story. It has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is
clearly poised to do so again in 2013. The industry has had impressive growth, going

far beyond initial expectations just five years ago, and is supporting some 62, 160 jobs
and nearly $17 billion in total economic impact. Biodiesel is improving our energy
security by reducing our dependence on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel
supplies and creating competition in the fuels market.

Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe
impacts on the domestic biodiesel industry. Further, a continuation of 2013 levels
paired with any reduction in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact
the industry.

Biodiesel is the only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated advanced
biofuel to achieve commercial-scale production nationwide and the first to reach 1 billion
gallons of annual production. Keeping the targets stagnant, rather than gradually
allowing the biodiesel industry to grow, could leave 400 million gallons of biodiesel
potentially unused - roughly 25 percent. Such a cut could result in nearly every small
facility shutting down and permanently ceasing production of biodiesel, leading to the
loss of some 7,000 jobs. Additionally, investment and financing for the U.S. biodiesel
industry would be severely jeopardized, creating new and possibly insurmountable
hurdles for the remaining producers to grow and expand.

In setting 2014 targets for biodiesel, the EPA should avoid outcomes that could lead to
plant closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty over future investments in the biodiesel
industry. We urge you to continue to support this fragile and growing industry with a
reasonable increase in the RFS volume requirement for 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

November XX, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and Director Burwell:
We write to encourage the Administration to develop a 2014 regulatory proposal for the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that supports the current-year projected 1. 7 billion gallons of
U.S. biodiesel production.
Biodiesel is a RFS success story. It has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is clearly poised
to do so again in 2013. The industry has had impressive growth, going far beyond initial
expectations just five years ago, and is supporting some 62, 160 jobs and nearly $17 billion in
total economic impact. Biodiesel is improving our energy security by reducing our dependence
on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel supplies and creating competition in the fuels
market.
Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe impacts on
the domestic biodiesel industry. Further, a continuation of 2013 levels paired with any reduction
in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact the industry.
Biodiesel is the only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA )-designated advanced biofuel to
achieve commercial-scale production nationwide and the first to reach I billion gallons of annual
production. Keeping the targets stagnant, rather than gradually allowing the biodiesel industry to
grow, could leave 400 million gallons of biodiesel potentially unused- roughly 25 percent.
Such a cut could result in nearly every small facility shutting down and permanently ceasing
production ofbiodiesel, leading to the loss of some 7,000 jobs. Additionally, investment and
financing for the U.S. biodiesel industry would be severely jeopardized, creating new and
possibly insurmountable hurdles for the remaining producers to grow and expand.
In setting 2014 targets for biodiesel, the EPA should avoid outcomes that could lead to plant
closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty over future investments in the biodiesel industry. We
urge you to continue to support this fragile and growing industry with a reasonable increase in
the RFS volume requirement for 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senate

Roy Blunt
United States Senate

Al Franken
United States Senate

Chuck Grassley
United States Senate

cc: The Honorable Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office oflnformation and Regulatory
Affairs

To:

From:
Sent:
Subject:

Ganesan, Arvin[Ganesan.Arvin@epa.gov]; Vaught, Laura[Vaught.Laura@epa.gov]
Diluccia, Janelle (Johnson)
Wed 11 /6/2013 8:33:50 PM
Letter from Senator Johnson regarding the 2014 RFS

Attached please find a letter from Senator Johnson regarding the2014 volume obligations for the
Renewable Fuel Standard. A hard copy has also been mailed. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions.

Thanks,

Janelle
202-224-1633 (direct)

Janelle DiLuccia
Legislative Assistant
Office of Senator Tim Johnson (SD)
136 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5842

3

To:
DPC-ENVIRONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV[DPCENVI RONMENTENERGY@DEMOCRATIC-MESSAGE-CENTER.SENATE.GOV]
From:
Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Sent:
Tue 11 /5/2013 2:46:36 PM
Subject: FW: Biodiesel RFS Volume Requirements Letter to Administration

From: Eckert, Josephine (Murray)
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:03 PM
To: Collier, Pat (DPCC)
Subject: Biodiesel RFS Volume Requirements Letter to Administration

Pat, can you please forward to the energy/enviro list? Thanks, Josephine

Senators Murray, Blunt, Franken and Grassley are circulating the attached letter to the
Administration - EPA, USDA and OMB - in support of a 2014 regulatory proposal for
the Renewable Fuel Standard that recognizes the current-year projected 1.7 billion
gallons of U.S. biodiesel production. OMB is currently evaluating a proposal from EPA
to keep the biodiesel volume requirements stagnant at 2013 levels. This could reduce
biodiesel production by 25 percent and lead to plant closures, worker layoffs, and
uncertainty in future investments in the biodiesel industry.

The deadline to sign onto this letter is COB Thursday, November 7.

Please contact Josephine Eckert (x4-6935) in Sen. Murray's office with any questions.

Thanks!

November XX, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Administrator

Secretary

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

1400 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Washington, D.C. 20250

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and Director Burwell:

We write to encourage the Administration to develop a 2014 regulatory proposal for the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that supports the current-year projected 1.7 billion
gallons of U.S. biodiesel production.

Biodiesel is a RFS success story. It has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is
clearly poised to do so again in 2013. The industry has had impressive growth, going
far beyond initial expectations just five years ago, and is supporting some 62, 160 jobs

and nearly $17 billion in total economic impact. Biodiesel is improving our energy
security by reducing our dependence on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel
supplies and creating competition in the fuels market.

Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe
impacts on the domestic biodiesel industry. Further, a continuation of 2013 levels
paired with any reduction in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact
the industry.

Biodiesel is the only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-designated advanced
biofuel to achieve commercial-scale production nationwide and the first to reach 1 billion
gallons of annual production. Keeping the targets stagnant, rather than gradually
allowing the biodiesel industry to grow, could leave 400 million gallons of biodiesel
potentially unused - roughly 25 percent. Such a cut could result in nearly every small
facility shutting down and permanently ceasing production of biodiesel, leading to the
loss of some 7,000 jobs. Additionally, investment and financing for the U.S. biodiesel
industry would be severely jeopardized, creating new and possibly insurmountable
hurdles for the remaining producers to grow and expand.

In setting 2014 targets for biodiesel, the EPA should avoid outcomes that could lead to
plant closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty over future investments in the biodiesel
industry. We urge you to continue to support this fragile and growing industry with a
reasonable increase in the RFS volume requirement for 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

November XX, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Administrator McCarthy, Secretary Vilsack, and Director Burwell:
We write to encourage the Administration to develop a 2014 regulatory proposal for the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that supports the current-year projected 1. 7 billion gallons of
U.S. biodiesel production.
Biodiesel is a RFS success story. It has exceeded RFS targets in each year and is clearly poised
to do so again in 2013. The industry has had impressive growth, going far beyond initial
expectations just five years ago, and is supporting some 62, 160 jobs and nearly $17 billion in
total economic impact. Biodiesel is improving our energy security by reducing our dependence
on imported petroleum diesel, diversifying fuel supplies and creating competition in the fuels
market.
Setting the 2014 biodiesel volume requirement at reduced levels could have severe impacts on
the domestic biodiesel industry. Further, a continuation of 2013 levels paired with any reduction
in advanced biofuels targets could similarly negatively impact the industry.
Biodiesel is the only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA )-designated advanced biofuel to
achieve commercial-scale production nationwide and the first to reach I billion gallons of annual
production. Keeping the targets stagnant, rather than gradually allowing the biodiesel industry to
grow, could leave 400 million gallons of biodiesel potentially unused- roughly 25 percent.
Such a cut could result in nearly every small facility shutting down and permanently ceasing
production ofbiodiesel, leading to the loss of some 7,000 jobs. Additionally, investment and
financing for the U.S. biodiesel industry would be severely jeopardized, creating new and
possibly insurmountable hurdles for the remaining producers to grow and expand.
In setting 2014 targets for biodiesel, the EPA should avoid outcomes that could lead to plant
closures, worker layoffs, and uncertainty over future investments in the biodiesel industry. We
urge you to continue to support this fragile and growing industry with a reasonable increase in
the RFS volume requirement for 2014.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Patty Murray
United States Senate

Roy Blunt
United States Senate

Al Franken
United States Senate

Chuck Grassley
United States Senate

cc: The Honorable Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office oflnformation and Regulatory
Affairs

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful