<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:29387.wais]
GASOLINE: SUPPLY, PRICE, AND
SPECIFICATIONS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 10 AND MAY 11, 2006
Serial No. 109-94
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-387 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202)
512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. "CHIP" PICKERING, Mississippi ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. "BUTCH" OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director
DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel
REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
CONTENTS
Page
Hearings held:
May 10, 2006 1
May 11, 2006 127
Testimony of:
Gruenspecht, Howard K., Deputy Administrator, Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy 31
Wehrum, William, Acting-Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40
Sundstrom, Geoff, Director of Public Affairs, American Automobile
Association 87
Cooper, Dr. Mark, Research Director, Consumer Federation of
America 93
Wilkins, John R., Executive Vice President & CIO, Delaware Valley
Wholesale Florists, on behalf of Society of American Florists 99
Cavaney, Red, President, American Petroleum Institute 131
Dinneen, Bob, President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 146
Slaughter, Bob, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners
Association 153
Becker, S. William, Executive Director, State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials 169
Reid, Paul D., President, Reid Petroleum Corporation, on behalf of
National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America 174
Shea, William H., President & CEO, Buckeye Partners, LP, on behalf
of Association of Oil Pipelines 182
Conley, John, President, National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. 192
Additional material submitted for the record:
Cooper, Dr. Mark, Research Director, Consumer Federation of
America, response for the record 119
Sundstrom, Geoff, Director of Public Affairs, American Automobile
Association, response for the record 120
Wehrum, William, Acting-Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, response
for the record 121
Becker, S. William, Executive Director, State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials, response for the record 261
Cavaney, Red, President, American Petroleum Institute, response
for the record 264
Slaughter, Bob, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners
Association, response for the record 268
Reid, Paul D., President, Reid Petroleum Corporation, on behalf of
National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, response for the
record 271
Dinneen, Bob, President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association,
response for the record 275
GASOLINE: SUPPLY, PRICE, AND
SPECIFICATIONS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2123
of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton (chairman)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Barton, Hall, Gillmor, Norwood,
Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Shadegg, Buyer, Radanovich, Bass, Pitts,
Bono, Walden, Terry, Rogers, Otter, Myrick, Sullivan, Burgess,
Blackburn, Dingell, Waxman, Markey, Boucher, Brown, Eshoo, Stupak,
Wynn, Green, Capps, Schakowsky, Solis, Gonzalez, Inslee, Baldwin, and
Ross.
Staff present: David McCarthy, Chief Counsel for Energy and
Environment; Margaret Caravelli, Counsel; Maryam Sabbaghian,
Counsel; Sue Sheridan, Minority Senior Counsel; Bruce Harris, Minority
Professional Staff Member; Lorie Schmidt, Minority Counsel; and Peter
Kielty, Legislative Clerk.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The committee will come to order. The Chair
recognizes himself for an opening statement. Today the committee
begins two days of examining gasoline supply, price, and specifications.
Just last week we completed another painful seasonal transition from
winter gasoline to summer gasoline production at our Nation's refineries.
Early May is always a tough time for drivers, but this year has been
especially difficult. As storage tanks have gone down with the old
gasoline, prices have shot up, in some cases to all-time records. If that
wasn't enough, some people couldn't buy gasoline at any price in their
neighborhood. I know that because I was one of them up here in my
condo in Arlington, Virginia.
Gasoline markets are complicated. The price is driven by many
factors, but mostly it is the old standby of supply and demand. We
consume about 12 million barrels of fuel in the United States every day.
We have invited the experts today; the regulators, the producers, the
suppliers, the transporters, the retailers, and the consumers of gasoline to
explain what goes on from the time a barrel of oil is brought into a
refinery to the point where you and I put it in our cars and trucks at our
Nation's gas pumps. The world crude oil pricing hearing last week that
this committee held reminds everyone that the U.S. government cannot
dictate worldwide crude oil prices. Developments in other parts of the
world have brought the price of crude to $75 a barrel and when that
happens, there is an inevitable increase in the price of gasoline that we
pay at the pump.
When the price of one changes, i.e., crude oil in the world market,
the price of the other, i.e., retail price of gasoline follows. More than
half of the price of a gallon of gasoline is determined by the price of
crude oil. Domestically, our gasoline production supply and delivery
system is still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and is undergoing a major transition in gasoline
formulation as we have taken MTBE off the market and are trying to
replace it with either ethanol or reformulated gasoline. Coupled with this
is the annual transition that I have already talked about.
Most fuels move across the country inside pipelines, but ethanol and
the fuels blended with ethanol can't do that. They move in rail cars and
tanker trucks. Increasing our domestic ability to produce and deliver the
finished product of ethanol enhanced gasoline, America is trying to find
a new way to do something that it hasn't done, as a Nation, across the
continental United States. In the energy bill that we passed last year, we
did many things on, what I call, the non-mobile energy side to help our
Nation's energy future in areas like clean coal and nuclear power and
LNG siting facilities for new natural gas supplies.
We need to do things on the mobile supply side that will help the
drivers of our cars and trucks. These include, in my opinion, opening up
some of our domestic areas when we still have potential for large
amounts of oil and gas to be discovered, including ANWR and OCS, and
I believe we also need to streamline the requirements to permit new
refineries or to expand existing refineries in our country. So today we
are going to begin the process of determining exactly how to do that. We
are going to, while we try to integrate ethanol into our Nation's fuel
supply, as we move from MTBE to ethanol. So I am going to look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and today will be one
of many hearings we have in the next month to get the facts on the table
to the American people.
With that, I would be happy to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Boucher of Virginia, for an
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Good morning. Today the Committee begins two days of examining
gasoline supply, price and specifications. Just last week, we completed
another painful transition from winter gasoline to summer gasoline. Early
May is always a tough time for drivers, but it was downright painful this
year. As storage tanks were drained, prices shot up. If that weren't
enough, some people couldn't buy gasoline at any price in their
neighborhood stations. I know because was one of them.
Gasoline markets are complicated. The price is driven by many
factors, but mostly the old standby of supply and demand. We consume
about 10 million barrels of fuel in the United States every day. In the
course of this hearing, America will use about 20 million barrels. We
have invited the experts: the regulator, the producer, the supplier, the
transporter, the retailer and the consumer of gasoline to this hearing to
explain exactly what goes on from the time a barrel of oil is brought into
a refinery to the point where you and I pump fuel into our cars and
trucks.
The World Crude Oil Pricing hearing last week reminded everyone
that the U.S. government cannot dictate crude oil prices. With major
developments in other parts of the world bringing the price of crude to
$75 a barrel, there is an inevitable and corresponding increase in the
price of gasoline at the pump. When the price of one changes, the price
of the other follows. More than half of the price of a gallon of gasoline
is determined by the price of crude oil. Domestically, our gasoline
production, supply, and delivery system is still recovering from the
devastating effects of hurricane Katrina and undergoing a major
transition in gasoline formulation by moving from MTBE to ethanol.
Coupled with this is the annual transition from winter to summer grade
gasoline.
Most fuels move across the country inside pipelines. But ethanol and
fuels blended with ethanol move in railcars and tanker trucks. Increasing
our domestic ability to produce and deliver finished product, whether it
be gasoline or diesel fuel, is America taking control of its energy future.
The bipartisan Energy Policy Act passed last year was a critical step in
the right direction. However, many of us in the Republican Party
continue to pursue policies that would expand our energy supply and
capacity. Unfortunately some of the most important, including ANWR,
OCS, and the streamlined permitting of refineries, continue to be blocked
by those who believe families can fill their tanks with excuses instead of
affordable gasoline.
They say there a no easy fix, but while we integrate ethanol into the
nation's fuel supply, any transitional measure that may alleviate the
pressure on price should be welcomed and seriously considered.
Congressman Shadegg's bill, the Ethanol Tax Relief Act of 2006, which
I cosponsored, would suspend until January 1, 2007 the 2.5 percent tariff
and 54 cent per gallon duty on imported ethanol.
Another logistical hurdle to the delivery of the nation's fuel supply
is the existence of a number of specialty fuels, commonly known as
"boutique fuels." The passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
established the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) for areas with
severe air pollution. Areas not required to participate in the RFG
program saw the environmental value of using a cleaner fuel, but were
concerned with the higher cost associated with RFG. Another provision
included in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 permitted states to
seek EPA approval for boutique fuels that would bring benefits similar to
RFG, but for less cost. Twelve states have taken advantage of this
provision.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 we capped the number of boutique
fuels to those approved as of September 1, 2004 and required the EPA, in
consultation with DOE, to determine and publish a list of those boutique
fuels. I look forward to hearing from EPA today as to the status of that
list. However, we need to learn from this hearing what this balkanization
is doing to the delivery and price of fuel.
Understanding how fuel supply and specifications affect price may shed
light on steps Congress can take against price spikes while also
advancing the cause of clean air. I expect to hear more today on the
recent transitions our fuel supply chain has undertaken and a complete
description of boutique fuels.
We invited today's witnesses to help us understand gasoline price,
supply and specifications. Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for
coming.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
commend your decision to conduct a series of hearings, today and
tomorrow, on gasoline supply and pricing, a major concern of all
Americans. A thorough understanding of a variety of factors affecting
the gasoline market is the key to our ability to act thoughtfully, to
address the national concern over gasoline prices. These hearings can
lead to that understanding. Frequently mentioned among the factors
leading to high crude oil prices are the dramatic growth of the economies
of both China and India and political instability in certain oil producing
regions. The price of crude oil carries an Iran risk component and a
lesser Nigerian risk component; and I am interested this morning in
learning to what extent prices are affected by these and perhaps other
political risks.
But beyond crude oil pricing, another major contributor to high
prices at the pump is our restrained refining capacity. Globally, the
refinery utilization rate exceeds 90 percent of capacity and we have
constrained refining capacity domestically. We are currently importing
refined gasoline from other countries. We don't have enough capacity in
the U.S. to refine the gasoline that we consume in this country. Under
current global and domestic refining restraints, any disruption in refinery
operations drives up gasoline prices dramatically. We are operating on a
truly thin margin.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you would agree that there is a consensus in
this committee that more domestic refining capacity is needed and that
we should diversify refinery locations throughout the country so that
another major hurricane along the Gulf Coast does not dramatically
reduce the flow of refined product to market and dramatically escalate at-
the-pump prices. While we agree on the need for more refineries, I think
we do differ on the method needed to obtain them. The bill that was
debated on the floor last week would have overridden State
environmental permitting processes based upon the assumption that
environmental permitting obstacles have prevented new refinery
construction.
The record before this committee, however, is devoid of any
evidence that supports the assumption, that the reason that we don't have
more refinery construction is State permitting processes. In fact, the
CEOs of major refining companies have testified to the Congress that
State permitting is not a barrier to new refinery construction or to the
expansion of existing refineries. The bill which the House put aside last
week was not the answer. A more thoughtful approach is needed. This
week, Mr. Dingell and I are introducing legislation which will make a
genuine difference in relieving our restrained refinery capacity.
We seek to build upon the well-established and highly successful
strategic petroleum reserve by creating a strategic refinery reserve for use
in terms of times of emergency. Just as the strategic petroleum reserve
has been an excellent shock absorber in times of crude oil supply
disruption, we propose a national refinery reserve for use when a
hurricane or other extraordinary event disrupts the supply of gasoline to
markets in the United States. During normal times, the strategic
refineries would produce gasoline for governmental use; during times of
emergency, they would supply gasoline to the commercial market.
At a time when the public is looking to the Congress for answers,
Mr. Dingell and I are offering a measure based upon a proven model that
will make, I suggest, a genuine difference. I would welcome comments
from our witnesses today and tomorrow on this proposal. And Mr.
Chairman, I invite your careful review of it as we move forward. We
would welcome a bipartisan effort to employ the same means through
which we solved the problem of crude oil disruptions to solve the
problems which will arise from future disruptions in the flow of refined
gasoline.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your scheduling these hearings, and I
very much look forward to what our witnesses will say to enlighten us on
the problems relating to gasoline supply and pricing both today and
tomorrow. Thank you. I yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank the distinguished Member from
Virginia for that statement. Mr. Norwood.
MR. NORWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing on gas supply and how critically important that is. Gas
prices are critical to our constituents and they are paying amounts. But
just as important, gas and energy prices are critical to our economy and
job creation. We all know the stories and the statistics of record
increases and record prices. True also is that we know about record
profits and record severance packages, but that really isn't the reason we
are here today. Today we are here to examine probably the single most
important source of the problem and that is supply.
The debt-based U.S. economy has grown and demanded more fuel
for the jobs we all say we want to see created and sustained.
Increasingly, however, that demand was met by OPEC and other
international oil producers. Sixty percent of our energy is now imported.
Our energy future remains in the clutches of the OPEC cartel, at the
whims of an Iranian radical, at the mercy of political unrest and civil
wars in Africa, and at the beck and call of dictators in South America. It
is no wonder the American people are upset. Neither they nor I accept
the answer that oh, nothing can be done.
I think we all have a right to be frustrated, frustrated that some
folks oppose a reasonable and balanced energy bill and still find time to
decry energy prices. These same folks oppose any new domestic exploration
and development time and time again. They oppose the development of
nuclear and other sources of energy. They oppose the ability of
refineries to expand and eliminate a bottleneck in our fuel supply, and
they oppose even renewable energy off the coast. It seems to me having
a United States refinery run by FEMA is not the answer. Energy prices
skyrocketed because someone's favorite vacation or wind surfing site
might have a renewable wind energy project offshore.
But apparently, we can tax, which is a usual solution. Speaking of
taxes, the Congressional Research Service noted that opening ANWR to
just limited development would result in somewhere between $111 and
$178 billion in new taxes and royalties. So we can't drill, we can't
diversify, we can't expand, and we can't compete, and now we can't
afford the gas to go to the store or the baseball game or to the school.
These positions are simply unsustainable. We, as a Congress, simply
have to accept that every energy bill that comes out can't be written
individually by each of us. And you may not like exactly the energy bills
that have been coming out, but the majority do and they need to get
passed.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back my time.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank the gentleman. The Ranking
Member of the full committee, Mr. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
MR. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and I
thank you for holding this important hearing. Less than one year after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused some of the highest gasoline prices
the country has seen, we are still in the midst of a struggle to understand
the cause of high prices and determine what, if anything, the
Administration or the Congress can do to remedy the problem. The
Administration has been laggard in implementing the important
provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prices have now risen to a
nationwide level of $2.95 per gallon, our highest level since the
hurricanes struck, and Americans are feeling the pain.
The American Automobile Association estimates that current prices
will lead an average American family to spend an additional $1,260 more
for gasoline than they would have at January's price levels. For many
families, this is not an insignificant amount, especially following a winter
of high heating costs. For some families, the costs of energy puts them
in dire financial straits. I do believe it would have been far better if the
House had taken up Representative Stupak's price gouging bill last fall
instead of waiting until last week to tackle this issue. It would also have
been better if the Administration's 2007 fiscal year budget request had
been funded fully with regard to energy conservation, efficiency, and the
renewable provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. At this late date,
the ability of Congress to have an immediate impact upon gas prices is
extremely limited.
I think it is important to have hearings so that we can understand the
facts and fully decide whether and how to legislate, and for that reason I
commend you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, before we have a vote on refinery
legislation on the House floor again, I hope that this committee will hold
hearings and respond to the requests of State and local governments to
testify about their permitting processes because this is an extremely
important part of the questions before us with regard to price and supply.
We know that the cost of crude oil has a significant impact on the price
of gasoline and we have explored this aspect to pricing in last week's
hearings.
I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses today about
whether the reforms adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have been
implemented and whether they are working. I am particularly interested
in hearing about the boutique fuel provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, which I support, that limited the number of boutique fuels,
required the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the
Department of Energy to publish a list of current fuels, and required a
study as to whether further legislative action is necessary. The law
required the EPA to meet with interested parties to study this matter and
to report to the Congress by this August, but just last week, EPA
announced that it was taking a belated "first step" to engage the States in
a dialogue over the issue. I think they have to explain why they have
been so dilatory in this matter.
I want to know what EPA is doing and when it will do it to meet its
statutory obligations, and I hope that the witnesses today can help
illuminate this point. The Congress has wrestled with this difficult issue
once, and we need to know why the Administration has failed to meet its
statutory obligations. And I hope our witnesses will shed some light on
other pricing issues that have received attention from energy analysts in
the press and I would refer specifically to the phase-out of MTBE and
the effects of this transition on supply and price and ethanol from a
production and transportation standpoint; the role of refined products in
meeting our daily gasoline demand and the effect of market
concentration in the petroleum industry.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this hearing. I
appreciate your courtesy in recognizing me and I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses. I yield back the balance of my time.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan and recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, if he
wishes to make an opening statement? Does the gentlelady from New
Mexico wish to make an opening statement?
MRS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do. Everyone is being
affected by the high gas prices both in their daily lives and also in their
small businesses as they try to get their products to where they can sell
them. And the cost is always passed through to the consumer, so I am
glad that you are holding these hearings, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
for doing so, so that we can look at ways that we can make America
more energy independent.
I think we took some positive steps last August, but now we get a
clean sheet of paper to look at the problems, to understand the factors
driving prices, and mitigate those factors. That includes reducing
demand for refined product and that means alternative fuels, like E85 or
hydrogen fuels, getting America beyond its exclusive reliance on the
gasoline powered engine; hybrids that are more efficient and can reduce
the overall demand for gasoline, and conservation and fuel efficiency so
that we reduce the demand for imported oil.
The second thing we need to do is look at diversifying supply and
that means worldwide diversification of supply so that we are not as
dependent upon single points where, or single countries where there is a
great deal of volatility and political uncertainty and risk. And also
supply within the United States so that we can use the energy resources
that we have to get that marginal barrel of oil into the market.
And finally, I am glad that we are looking at the whole supply chain
and looking at the bottlenecks between getting a barrel of oil and turning
it into gasoline that can be used in someone's car. Whether that is
boutique fuels or the impact of regulations or expanding our refining
capacity, I am glad we are looking at understanding each of these factors
driving prices and mitigating them so that we make America more
energy independent. And over the summer I look forward to continuing
to work on these problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Waxman.
MR. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, every American knows that gasoline
prices are skyrocketing; at $3 a gallon, prices have doubled since 2000.
But not every American knows what has gone on in Washington in that
time. For the last 5 years we have lacked an effective energy policy.
Instead, the White House, with the support of the Republican leadership
in Congress, has showered the oil industry with subsidies, environmental
exemptions, loopholes, and tax breaks. This has vastly enriched the oil
companies and their CEOs, but it has not reduced America's dependence
on foreign oil and it has allowed prices to skyrocket.
This chart illustrates what has happened. It superimposes the
implementation of the Administration's energy policies on a graph of
gasoline prices. As you can see, on May 16, the White House energy
plan was announced. The Administration set out to implement their
energy policy using existing authority to the greatest extent possible. By
the end of the President's first term, the Administration had implemented
75 percent of its energy policy.
By March 2005, Energy Secretary Bodman announced that 95
percent of the energy plan had been implemented and throughout this
whole period of time, gasoline prices have increased. There is a direct
correlation between the Administration's policies and gasoline prices.
The more success the President and the Vice President have had in
implementing their energy policies, the higher gasoline prices go and the
richer the oil companies become.
Mr. Chairman, this committee has a dismal track record on energy
issues. In 2001, California and the West Coast were being gouged by
Enron, Reliant, and other energy producers who were manipulating
electricity prices and they were doing this to enrich themselves, yet our
committee never conducted a serious investigation. Instead, our
committee made up excuses. Now it appears we are about to repeat the
same mistakes. I am disappointed we haven't yet scheduled a hearing
with the oil company executives. Members have been seeking a hearing
with these witnesses since last fall, yet instead of investigating the oil
industry, there appears to be a concerted effort here in Congress to blame
gasoline prices on everyone but the oil companies.
Last week there was legislation on the floor designed to blame State
and local governments for high gasoline prices. Next week there may be
legislation brought up that seeks to blame environmental protection. Mr.
Chairman, this committee should call the executives to testify and if
necessary, subpoena them and their internal records so we can
understand why prices are so high, what has happened to the refining
capacity. We should stop defending the oil industry and start protecting
the consumers, the American people.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentleman. Let us see. Dr.
Burgess.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the record and save
for questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Burgess follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL BURGESS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing this morning.
And thanks to our panelists for coming before us today.
As we are hearing from our constituents on this topic, I think the
information provided by the panelists today will help this committee get
beyond the rhetoric to the facts.
There are a number of factors that contribute to high gasoline prices,
including: crude oil prices, refinery capacity, environmental regulations,
and consumer demand. As we learned during our hearing on World
Crude Supply last week, approximately 55 percent of the cost of a gallon
of gasoline is the crude oil.
The geography of oil and gas has led our country to place our energy
assurance in the hands of leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez and inflexible or unstable dictators of the Middle East. Last
week, several panelists, including Dr. Daniel Yergin, referenced the "risk
premium" associated with ongoing concerns about the stability of supply
from Russia and the Nigeria Delta Region, as well as the impact of Iran's
nuclear posturing and the recent nationalization of energy infrastructure
in Bolivia.
All of these geopolitical uncertainties make foreign oil unpredictable
and unaffordable. The best way to bring down prices is to increase
supply while decreasing this risk premium. That means we need to
increase not only production, but domestic production. Today, we
import nearly 60% of our oil, but we've prohibited exploration in the
OCS, in ANWR, and on other federal land.
I believe we should allow, and in fact, encourage exploration and
production here at home. A barrel of oil coming from the Gulf Coast or
the oil shale in Utah is significantly safer than a barrel of oil coming
from Iran. That is the surest way to bring down gasoline prices in the
short run.
However, there is another phenomenon affecting the price of
gasoline, especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, and that is the
transition from methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and ethanol. Areas,
such as the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, which use RFG to meet Clean
Air Act requirements during the summer driving season, have been more
heavily impacted by this fuel switching.
Not only has there been an inadequate supply of ethanol to meet the
demand, there have been logistical problems due to the different physical
characteristics of the two substances.
Unlike gasoline containing MTBE, gasoline containing ethanol is not
able to be transported via pipeline, which means that the ethanol must
travel via truck and rail and mixed once it arrives to the area in which it
will be used. All of these factors further push up the price at the pump.
Another factor, affecting the price of gasoline is the patchwork of
different "boutique" fuels in use across the country. Non-federal fuel
specification requirements reduce the fungibility of gasoline. That
means that gasoline that can be used in Lubbock cannot be used in Fort
Worth. Gasoline used in Utah cannot be used in Chicago. This limited
inability to move gasoline across the country in response to local demand
results in increased prices at the pump.
I am looking forward to hearing from our panelists today about how
gasoline prices are set in general, and specifically how they are impacted
by the transition from MTBE to ethanol and by the use of "boutique"
fuels.
I'd like to thank our panelists again for giving up their time to
testify before us this morning. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay, Mr. Pitts.
MR. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Few issues are of more
concern to Americans these days than gasoline prices and while we have
addressed the issue with a number of legislative proposals in recent days,
the truth is that there is no quick fix to this problem. Arriving at real
solutions will require us to take a long-term approach to the basic
principle at work here, supply and demand. Windfall taxes, price
controls, and new regulations are exactly the sorts of things we don't
need. You could eliminate all of the profit of the oil companies and you
would only reduce the price of gasoline by nine cents a gallon, I am told.
In fact, one of the best things Congress can do is just get out of the way.
In a free market economy, prices will always be high when demand rises,
and supply is tight and that is what we are seeing right now.
The fact is that America is not making full use of its own oil supply.
Allowing access to the billions of barrels of oil in ANWR and off our
coast is a common sense start. We should make that a reality this year.
Removing the red tape required to build new refineries in America is
another step in the right direction. Streamlining fuel regulations,
reducing the number of blends required would also help. No amount of
quick fix political posturing will help Americans at the pump. We need
real energy solutions and real energy solutions must include forward-
looking supply improvements like these. We need to be less dependent
on foreign sources of oil; that is a matter of national security.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. I
thank them for coming to share their expertise and I yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from
California, Ms. Eshoo.
MS. ESHOO. I will wait for the questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Mr. Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are
having committee hearings on the burden that high gas prices places on
American consumers. As Ranking Member of the Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have asked
for eight months for hearings on the cause of high gasoline and natural
gas prices. I am pleased that the chairman has finally realized that these
hearings are needed and I hope we will continue these discussions about
what Congress can do to ease energy prices.
At this time last year gasoline was selling at an average of $2.18 per
gallon. Currently, gas is at $2.90. This is a 72 cent increase. While
switching from winter to summer seasonal blends can have some affect
on prices, a 72 cent increase over last year, when we were also
undergoing summer blend changes, is not acceptable. This excuse is
getting old. Obviously, other factors need to be addressed. With regard
to MTBE, oil companies have known for years that MTBE is a bad
product. Oil companies knew they would be unable to continue to use
MTBE and should have planned accordingly.
As for boutique fuels, as part of the energy bill approved last
summer, Congress has already capped the number of boutique fuels and
has directed the EPA to study whether boutique fuels need additional
regulation. The EPA estimates that boutique fuels currently add only
three cents per gallon, sometimes less. While there is a potential for
shortages and increased costs should a production or a supply disruption
take place, Congress has already granted the EPA the authority to issue
boutique fuel waivers should such a situation arise. Unfortunately, this
committee seems to be searching and continuing to rely on the oil
companies for their excuses and scapegoats rather than investigating
problems and finding serious solutions.
Instead of focusing on things like transition to summer fuel blends, a
phase-out of MTBE, and the use of boutique fuels which either have a
minimal effect on gas prices or have already been addressed by
Congress, we should be holding hearings on factors that have so far been
unaddressed. This committee should be investigating whether the
substantial profits currently made by the oil and gas companies are
warranted, or whether these profits are the result of unfair predatory
pricing and market manipulation, and pass a real price gouging bill.
We should be holding hearings on my legislation the, Prevent Unfair
Manipulation of Prices, or PUMP Act, to bring oversight and
transparency to over-the-counter trading of energy commodities which
are currently unregulated by the Federal government. We should have
the foresight to investigate natural gas prices. High natural gas prices are
already affecting farmers, manufacturing and electrical utilities, along
with other industries. The EIA has projected that natural gas prices will
be significantly higher again this winter. Rather than wait until this
winter, we should address the issue now. As the EIA has told us since
before Hurricane Katrina, gasoline and natural gas prices are going to
stay high under the current climate.
Our constituents are waiting for Congress to take action to address
these high energy prices, like my PUMP legislation. I welcome the
witnesses and I look forward to their testimony and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank the gentleman. Mr. Gillmor.
MR. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you on
your swift action to address the recent rising energy prices. The matter
of rising energy prices is an issue that impacts real lives and has real
consequences and often we hear our gas prices affect urban commuters,
vacationers and the transportation industry, while little is said about the
growing hardship that rural Americans face on a daily basis. Farmers, in
particular, are faced with the prospects of a difficult future as a
continuing rise in energy prices makes it harder for them to gas up their
tractors and combines and purchase necessary fertilizer.
Additionally, in an already hyper-competitive rural economy, the
manufacturing community faces the realization that it will be necessary
to raise prices on their products as their structural costs continue to
skyrocket. Mr. Chairman, rural communities are already at an inherent
disadvantage due to the proximity to suppliers and to the limited choice
of suppliers. As the committee continues to address this matter of
national importance, I would urge all my colleagues to not forget the
challenges of rural areas like my district in northwest Ohio face as a
growing threat to our manufacturing preeminence posed by rising
gasoline prices. Thank you for yielding time and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul Gillmor follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GILLMOR, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
I first would like to commend the swift action you have taken to
address the growing problem of rising energy prices.
The matter of rising energy prices is not the latest public policy
trend, nor is it an issue to be politicized. Rather, this is an issue that
impacts real lives and has real consequences.
Often we hear about how gas prices affect urban commuters,
vacationers, and the transportation industry. However, little is said about
the growing hardships that rural Americans face on a daily basis.
Farmers, in particular, are faced with the prospects of a difficult future as
the continuing rise in energy prices makes it harder for them to gas-up
their tractors and combines and purchase necessary fertilizer.
Additionally, in an already hyper-competitive global economy, the
manufacturing community faces the realization that it will be necessary
to raise prices on their products as their structural costs continue to
skyrocket.
Mr. Chairman, rural communities are already at an inherent
disadvantage because of proximity to available supplies and limited
choice of suppliers. As this committee continues to address this matter
of national importance, I would urge all of my colleagues to not forget
the challenges that rural areas, like my district in Ohio, face as well as
the growing threat to our manufacturing preeminence posed by rising
gasoline prices.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for yielding me this time and I look
forward to the testimony from our invited witnesses and to working with
you to ensure that the needs of rural communities are properly addressed.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Green.
MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for holding this extensive hearing today and tomorrow on fuel
supplies. Americans are upset about the gasoline prices that are the
highest since the oil embargo in the 1970s. And then I come from Texas,
a border State, and we hear a lot about immigration in our office, but gas
prices are the biggest concern. Even though we produce and refine and
pipeline a lot of it, we still pay the same prices as everyone else. In fact,
it bothers me when stations in my own district where we produce and
refine are very much higher than some other parts of the country. I know
the reasons for it, though.
Unfortunately, we have been hit by a perfect storm on gas prices in
the last few years. One, major instability in producing countries in the
Middle East, Africa, Latin America; increasing consumption from new
drivers in China and India; powerful hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico;
longstanding Congressional bans on domestic drilling, and a difficult
switch from MTBE to ethanol. Some of these factors are beyond our
control, such as demand in China and India or even the hurricanes in the
Gulf, and some of the factors are the result of Congress, such as the bans
on drilling. And some of them are actually the fault of the
Administration when we see that our energy bill passed last year and just
in the last few days, as the EPA started to work on ways that they can
streamline it.
During the debate on the energy bill last year when we eliminated
MTBE, there were some of us who kept saying there is going to be a
problem and all of a sudden we do have the problem; when you add it to
the time of year and the other things that we have no control over, then it
becomes a big problem. I support faster permitting in expanding the
refineries and building new ones, but permits aren't the reason we have
high prices. It makes a good sound bite to say we haven't built a refinery
in 25 years, but what matters is the barrels per day. Refining capacity
has steadily increased for the last 10 years and it will increase further in
the new couple of years.
If we could streamline some of the red tape without altering our
environmental standards, I am for it. Boutique fuel legislation is much
complicated because the tradeoffs are with clean air and prices are
impossible to avoid. Some folks are trying to take advantage of the high
prices to push their favorite cause, whether it is CAFE standards,
investigating oil companies, ethanol, regulation, or so on. But I see we
have three options. The status quo is a variety of State and Federal fuels
that give us the best mix of price and quality when times are good.
However, the system is vulnerable to disruptions.
If we want flexibility during disruptions, we could go to fuel that is
still clean fuel, but prices will likely go up since clean gasoline is more
expensive to produce. We could also go to fuel but less clean fuels to
keep prices level, but then manufacturing industries will be required to
make up the difference to meet our clean air standards in our urban areas.
I know our constituents are calling for a quick fix, but I am afraid that we
are not going to see that silver bullet today or tomorrow, but there are a
lot of things we can do to help alleviate it over a period of months.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you. Ms. Bono.
MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding
this hearing today. I realize the entire Nation is suffering from this crisis.
I know that the people of the 45th Congressional District in California are
paying more for gas than the rest of the country. That, coupled with the
high summer cooling costs in the desert Southwest make for a very
difficult time ahead. But those of us in Congress and our constituents at
home are smart enough to realize that there is no single solution to this
problem we face today.
Last week we examined world oil prices and how a thirsty Chinese
economy, a brash Russian march on the energy market, and a very
unstable Iran impact the price we pay for oil. Today one aspect of the
problem that deserves our attention is how we can use the very oil which
lies under American soil. Currently, there seem to be some problems in
tapping this resource. For instance, if you talk to many domestic
producers, they might comment on how the prices they are getting for
their oil is too low and how that threatens to put them out of business.
We are not talking about $70 a barrel, but rather $22 to $35 a barrel for
domestic oil. Imagine creating incentives to encourage our small
independent producers to bring their oil to market.
While we have many dimensions to the supply side of the problem,
we also need to turn our focus and American ingenuity on the demand
side of the equation. Let us face it. We have an addiction to oil. It is
here, where not just government, but private business and even the
American consumer need to take action. Whether it be hydrogen or
some other form of green power, our country must make a concerted
effort to expand these clean, alternative fuels.
We need to eliminate redundancy in government programs,
encourage the private sector to invest in new technologies, and make it
affordable and simple for Americans to make the jump to another form
of fuel. Oil will always have a role in our economy, but like any good
financial plan, we need to diversify. I realize this is some time off yet,
but if we do not take this challenge head on, we risk oil not serving as a
bridge to the future, but rather the burden to stay in the past.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses and I thank them for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mary Bono follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. I know
the Gentleman from Massachusetts as well as Mr. Boehlert have done a
great deal of work on this matter and I thank them for it.
I think it is time that we challenge the auto industry to do better.
We should not underestimate America's ingenuity to get our cars to this
standard in a safe manner.
This is a country that put a man on the moon so to think the smartest
engineers in the world can't get us to this goal sorely undervalues the
intelligence and sheer "know how" our country is known for.
Henry Ford was a man before his time, so I think he would be the
first one to roll up his sleeves and go to work in solving this problem.
A challenge is a good thing. It gives us something to strive for.
So Congress must challenge the auto industry to rise above the
doubts associated with our ability to do this. Our country not only needs
it, but must demand it.
Thank you and I yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentlelady. Ms. Capps.
MS. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
today and welcome to our witnesses. The high price of energy is indeed
a serious problem facing our country today. My colleague, Mary Bono,
and I have gasoline prices in our districts that are probably some of the
highest in the Nation, with $3 per gallon prices now a distant site in the
rearview mirror. I hope this hearing today will explore some of the
reasons behind this problem. Having read through some of the
testimony, I find myself most in line with the emphasis on industry
consolidation that we will hear more of from Dr. Cooper with Consumers
Union.
The industry has consolidated to a remarkable degree and this has
affected competition, I believe, in a very negative way. One need only
look at the refinery situation with the closing of dozens of refineries over
the years, and virtually no attempt to build new ones. I know the
Majority will continue to push its refineries legislation, but I believe that
is completely missing the mark. The issue really isn't local and State
permitting, the issue is that the industry hasn't wanted to build more
refineries and that leads to a very tight supply. And almost any time
anything happens--a natural disaster, seasonal changeover--gas prices
spike and industry profits swell even more.
I don't think it is a big surprise that the continued record profits
of the industry are causing outrage among the consumers and stomach
churning among some of our Republican friends. Headlines like this
from the Wall Street Journal yesterday, "Exxon's Pile of Cash Keeps
Growing; Adding Fuel to the Ire Over Oil Prices," go straight to the
point. Finally, I would note that earlier this year there was a lot of talk
about how the high price of gasoline was being driven by MTBE issues. It is
my understanding that the Energy Information Administration, EIA, has
refuted this notion and reported that the transition away from MTBE to
ethanol might be adding a few cents a gallon at most, that this transition
period would be short term and by next year there would be ample
ethanol to meet demand.
Furthermore, it is important to note that it is the industry that is
choosing to stop using MTBE, just like it was the industry that chose to
start using MTBE in order to meet the oxygenate requirement. The
industry has been abandoning MTBE faster than big gas prices increase
at the pump because MTBE is a problem. The contamination MTBE has
caused to groundwater systems and the fact that the industry will be
forced to clean up that damage is what is driving the move away from
MTBE.
My hope is that the problems associated with MTBE use can be
worked out among the various parties in order that cleanup happens and
we don't just see endless litigation. I look forward to the testimony
today and yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.
MR. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation for you holding this hearing today. I will be brief. We will
hear many reasons for the high price of gas over the next few days in
these hearings; boutique fuels, transitioning to summertime gasoline,
refinery maintenance, lack of refining capacity, and though I would
associate my remarks to the comments of the gentlelady on the other
side, it appears that the problem there is a lack of a will to build
additional refining capacity.
The conversion from MTBE to ethanol and indeed, on that point, I
would disagree with the gentlelady from the other side; we knew that
MTBE was going to go away as a result of a litigation brought by the
trial bar if we were not willing to extend any kind of protection to that
industry. Now that has come to pass; MTBE is being withdrawn from
the market. MTBE made up about 1.4 percent of our entire fuel supply
prior to now and that now has to be fully replaced by ethanol. The list is
long, but we shouldn't forget that the main reason we have high gasoline
prices is that the world price for crude oil has skyrocketed.
There are a variety of reasons for that, no doubt. In part, political
and economic uncertainties in oil producing countries have squeezed the
world market. But in part, speculators, I believe, are also running up the
cost. We need to be doing everything we can to increase domestic
production of our own energy supply, including oil, so that we can
alleviate these shortages on the oil market. For one thing, we need to be
pursuing alternatives to oil, but in addition to that, there are many places,
as was referred to just a moment ago on the other side of the aisle, where
we have locked up known supplies in the United States, on the outer
continental shelf, in ANWR, in the interior west, where indeed there is
ample fuel and oil that we could be going after and natural gas that we
could be going after, but for political reasons we are not doing that.
I want to focus my remarks today on at least one possible short-term
solution. The withdrawal of MTBE from the market as a result of the
litigation brought against MTBE producers makes the current MTBE to
be a defective product, has resulted, as I indicated, in a drop in the
market of MTBE, which accounted for 1.4 percent of our gasoline
supply. The only acceptable alternative is ethanol, yet today's domestic
market cannot produce sufficient ethanol to supply the demand. We
have, over time, as a Congress, chosen to tax imports of ethanol in order
to encourage domestic production of ethanol. We impose a tax of 2.5
percent on the cost of the ethanol and then we impose an additional tax
of 54 cents per gallon.
I would suggest that it is time to suspend, at least temporarily,
those taxes. The reality is we cannot produce sufficient quantities of
ethanol in the next 12 to 18 months to satisfy our demand. The EIA and others
have confirmed this. We will be at least 130 thousand barrels per day
short of the necessary supply of ethanol to replace the MTBE that has
been withdrawn from the market. There is no reason to continue to
require American consumers to pay the tax of 2.5 percent plus 54 cents
per gallon on imported ethanol. If we were to lift those tariffs, at least
temporarily, we would be able to bring in additional ethanol from outside
of the country; we would deal both with the lack of supply, but also with
the distribution problems that ethanol is currently experiencing.
There are many coastal areas where if we could import ethanol at an
economic price, the cost of gasoline would go down and we would not
suffer shortages as we have recently in Pennsylvania and in Texas as a
result of the shortage of ethanol. This is an idea that is quickly catching
on and gaining supporters. I have introduced legislation which now has
over 30 sponsors; President Bush expressed his support for the idea last
week on CNBC. Yesterday Majority Leader Boehner expressed his
support for the idea and this morning's paper reveals that Speaker
Hastert has also suggested a temporary suspension of the ethanol tariff
would be a good idea.
This would give immediate relief to American fuel purchasers of at
least a portion of the cost of gasoline, and I would urge that it would be
in the interest of the ethanol industry because it will allow them time to
build out the ethanol infrastructure that we need. Mr. Chairman, again I
thank you for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony of
the witnesses.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank the gentleman from Arizona. Ms.
Schakowsky of Illinois.
MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing on gasoline prices. Seven in 10 American families believe that
gas prices will cause them financial hardship this year. I hope that we
can use this hearing to develop immediate plans to bring prices down as
the summer driving season begins. Talk is cheap and gasoline isn't. In
Chicago we are paying $3 plus for a gallon of gasoline. Secretary
Bodman has called this an energy crisis, but let us be clear; this is not a
crisis for everyone. Not everyone in America is suffering. For oil
companies, friends of the two oil men in the White House, President
Bush and Vice President Cheney, this crisis is a bonanza and the
American people know it.
At over $25 billion, ExxonMobil reported the highest profit of any
company in any year in history in 2004, and then beat its own record in
2005 with a $36 billion profit, and this quarter ExxonMobil reported a 7
percent increase in profits over last quarter. It is certainly not a crisis
for ExxonMobil's CEO, who is retiring with a $400 million retirement
package. The overall U.S. economy, however, is suffering. A recent
Wall Street Journal headline declared fuel prices keep economic growth
in limbo, reducing our total GDP by 7 percent.
Last Friday I met with small business owners in Chicago to discuss
how a rise in gasoline prices was crippling their business. I spoke with a
restaurant owner who has been forced to charge more for delivery, cut
his distribution area at the same time as his food suppliers have added a
transportation cost for their services and he has had to hike menu prices,
he has lost business and upset some loyal customers. So those people are
feeling the pain, they are making the sacrifices. The only ones from
whom nothing has been asked at all are the oil companies. And instead,
the oil companies are being lavished with benefits and environmental
exemptions. In the last big energy bill we gave them about $11 billion in
tax breaks, a bill that even the Energy Information Administration at the
time said could raise gas prices and it has.
Talk about increasing refinery capacity, we know that between 2004
and 2005 refineries marked up their prices 255 percent while gasoline
retailers only marked theirs up about 5 percent. More refinery capacity?
In the 1990s the American Petroleum Industry sent letters, memos to the
oil companies saying if you want to increase your profit, you know what
you have to do? You have to decrease your refining capacity and that is
exactly what has happened.
We have legislation proposed by Mr. Boucher and Mr. Dingell that
would actually do something by creating a national refinery reserve.
That has been rejected. There are things we could do. Senator Durbin,
my Senator in the Senate, is the sponsor of the Windfall Profits Tax Act,
which would enact a 50 percent windfall profits tax on profits earned
above the base price of $40 a barrel of oil, adjusted for inflation. The
revenue collected would be rebated to consumers. We could do it now.
Invest it in energy efficient vehicles and in a low-income energy
assistance trust fund.
And so we need to perhaps have these hearings, but what we really
need to do is answer what consumers are asking for, some relief at the
pumps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you. Mrs. Blackburn.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will welcome our
witnesses and waive my statement and look forward to extra time for
questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Chairman Buyer.
MR. BUYER. I waive my time, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Ms. Baldwin.
MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every year around
Memorial Day, Wisconsinites start to notice a change in the price at the
pumps and this year is different only that we have felt that pinch well
before the holiday. We have urged the President and this Congress to act
on gas prices. Instead, Congress last year passed an energy bill that did
nothing to relieve the pain at the pump. Even the Department of Energy
acknowledged at the time that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 would do
next to nothing to lower gas prices or reduce America's demand for
foreign oil.
Now, a year later, we could continue down the road that encourages
reliance on finite natural resources and simply assumes that we can
reduce our dependence on foreign oil without any strategy to get there.
This, of course, means creating policies and incentives that inspire no
one except the CEOs at the big oil companies. Or we could change
course and encourage our Nation to think big and make important
decisions about where we want to see our Nation in the coming years.
Included among our options are lowering the number of boutique
fuels or establishing a regional gas reserve so that the next time there is a
massive hurricane or other disaster, our gasoline supply can reach the
stations without interruptions. Independently, these proposals will not
resolve the problem of high gas prices around Memorial Day or any time
of year, but through a collective and coordinated effort, we will be able
to lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our efforts must begin with more encouragement for the production
of renewable fuels. I am proud to report that Wisconsin is doing its part
in the production of alternative fuels. Ethanol production in Wisconsin is
up from 90 million gallons in 2004 to over 200 million gallons today and
as more plants become operational, Wisconsin will be producing an
estimated 500 million gallons annually. Wisconsin is clearly not fighting
this battle alone and I hope that our witnesses today and tomorrow will
bring big thoughts around real steps our Nation can take to improve our
energy policy, changes that bring relief to the pocketbooks of Americans
and not just the special interests.
I look forward to the testimony at this hearing today and tomorrow
and I yield back my remaining time, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank the gentlelady. Ms. Solis.
MS. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Dingell, for holding this very important hearing. We are here today to
discuss the relation between gas prices, supply, and distribution, and I
would like to point out, out of curiosity, why we don't have any oil
company executives here to testify. Oil companies are an integral part of
the supply and pricing and distribution chain for gasoline. These
companies raked in $110 billion in profits in 2005 and $16 billion in the
first three months of 2006. Mr. Chairman, I encourage you to bring the
oil company executives before this committee for a frank discussion
about their role in the supply, price, and distribution of gasoline.
I would also like to insert into the record a letter from the
Environmental Council of States which is relevant to the discussion.
According to the Environmental Council of States, "It is unaware of any
credible report that concludes that the time States take to review
environmental permits has been or is a significant impediment to the
issuance of refinery permits. We do not believe that such documentation
exists." The Los Angeles Business Journal reported that the average
price per gallon of gasoline at self service stations in Los Angeles rose
16 cents this week, to nearly $3.50 a gallon.
The price of gasoline in Los Angeles is 91 cents higher than it was a
year ago and statewide prices are 81 cents higher than a year ago, yet our
Nation's energy policy has missed the mark. The Bush Administration's
energy policy, which was developed in secrecy and more than 95 percent
has been implemented, yet has done nothing to reduce gas prices for
consumers. Despite President Bush's statement upon signing H.R. 6, and
I quote, "Americans will look back on the energy bill as a vital step
toward a more secure and more prosperous Nation."
The price of energy and the lack of reliability hurts all working
families. Transportation costs have increased by more than $1,400 per
family, an increase of 75 percent since 2001. School districts in my
district, for example, have to pay more costs for fueling of school buses
than they are for paying teachers and construction of vital services that
we need at schools. Yet President Bush's budget significantly under-
funds programs which would help working families and is failing to
implement provisions included in H.R. 6 which would be helpful.
I believe that energy security, jobs and health, workplace and family
can coexist, but the approaches traditionally taken by this committee try
to make us choose between these priorities. This is a choice I don't want
to make. I believe we need a plan to create American jobs, technology,
boost competitiveness and improve our national and economic security.
I hope soon we will be able to have a real discussion, real debate and
have witnesses that can actually answer some of our questions. Yield
back the balance of my time.
[The information follows:]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
Washington State, Mr. Inslee.
MR. INSLEE. I will reserve my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman from San Antonio, Texas, Mr.
Gonzalez. Is there any Member who has not given an opening statement
that wishes to make an opening statement? Mr. Ross of Arkansas.
MR. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for
holding this important hearing regarding rising gasoline prices and the
adverse impact they are having on all Americans; Americans who are
being forced to change their way of life, being forced to choose between
paying their rent or putting gasoline in their vehicles. Mr. Chairman, I
represent a very large and rural district in the State of Arkansas. My
district spans 21,000 square miles, 150 towns, 29 counties and most of
my constituents don't even live in those towns; they live down this
gravel road or that gravel road. They live in rural America.
And it is not uncommon for my constituents to drive 50 miles or
more each way to and from work and in most cases they commute these
distances for a job that pays well below the national average and in rural
America where mass transit is not an option. Hard working Arkansans
who are trying to do the right thing by working to put food on the table,
to keep the lights on, and to provide for their families are being
devastated by these record gas prices. In order to see true reductions in
prices, we will have to either increase supply or decrease demand;
ideally, both. I strongly support the continued development and use of
ethanol and biodiesel as a way to reduce the demand on costly fossil
fuels.
And as we continue working to increase the use of biofuels, we must
make the necessary investments to develop our Nation's infrastructure to
support an increased use of ethanol and biodiesel. I am committed to
working with my colleagues to make these investments to advance
alternative fuels which will provide Americans with a choice when they
go to the pump, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save working
Arkansans and working Americans money at the gas pump. The reality
is this: the energy bill authorizes $632 million for the next fiscal year for
renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application activities by the Department of Energy, $213
million of which is for bio energy purposes, including $100 million for
bio refinery demonstration projects.
This funding is authorized but not yet appropriated. My point is
this, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about investing in alternative
renewable energy sources and yet we send $1.9 billion to Iraq every
week. I want to make sure the American people understand that while
there is a lot of talk these days about alternative and renewable fuels,
over the next fiscal year we are going to spend less than half as much
money toward research and development of alternative and renewable
energy as we will spend this week alone in Iraq.
I recognize that as we develop alternative fuels and flex fuel
vehicles, our Nation will continue to rely on fossil fuels as a primary
source of energy, therefore I believe we must promote further
exploration and development of domestic oil and gas production. Mr.
Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our panel and working with
this committee to bring down the high cost of gas and diesel fuel and
with that, I yield back the--well, I guess I am out of time. But I yield
back the balance of my time, anyway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman yields back. We thank the
gentleman for that statement. All Members not present have the requisite
number of days to put their statement in the record, without objection, so
ordered.
[The statements follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROY BLUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this vitally important hearing
today. As we know, the high price of gasoline is one of the major issues
facing our constituents as they drive to work every day. According to the
Energy Information Agency, the average price of gasoline last week was
$2.92 per gallon - that is $0.68 more than it was just last year. Gas prices
in some cities, like here in Washington, are well above $3 per gallon.
It is my hope this hearing will provide us with an opportunity to
discuss not only what led to this present situation but also to develop
viable solutions. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a step in the right
direction and I appreciate the effort you and other colleagues on the
Committee have given this problem.
As you know, one of the issues I am very concerned about is the
proliferation of boutique fuels. The number of fuels has expanded over
the years, and we now have an uncoordinated and overly complex set of
fuel rules that I believe is leading to increased costs and price spikes.
We need to restore fungibility to the market. An editorial in Monday's
edition of USA Today equated boutique fuels to coffee at Starbucks -
unnecessarily complex and pricy.
Last year during debate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 we worked
very hard to secure a cap on existing boutique fuels to ensure this
problem could not worsen. This was a great first step toward solving the
problem. We also gave the EPA the authority to temporarily waive
certain fuel specifications during unforeseeable fuel supply emergencies.
As we saw, that was extremely important during the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Without that authority emergency responders would
not have even had the ability to bring needed supplies and buses would
not have been able to evacuate victims.
I believe we need to take the next step in simplifying our fuel
system. We need to also look at the ability of EPA to deal with
temporary waivers and even at enhancing that authority.
Mr. Chairman, once again thank you for opportunity to offer this
opening statement and I look forward to working with you and the
Committee on these complex issues.
I yield back.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHERROD BROWN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is something of an exercise in frustration for me.
Because it reminds me yet again that a White House and a congressional
leadership so intimately tied to Big Oil is more than happy to talk about
policies to protect consumers from gas price spikes. But steadfast in its
opposition to actually acting on common-sense ideas.
Dr. Mark Cooper, of the Consumer Federation of America, will
testify before us today.
And he will tell us that regional gasoline price spikes - like the
ones that hit the Midwest in 2000 and 2001 and the one that hit the Southwest
in 2003 - are symptomatic of Big Oil's historic business practice of
maintaining low reserves.
By maintaining low reserves, Big Oil can create a situation where
consumers have no cushion against price spikes - if a refinery fire, a
pipeline outage, or some other regional supply disruption occurs.
And Dr. Cooper will testify that one common-sense policy response
is for the government to provide that cushion for consumers - in the form
of a government-run gasoline reserves system.
That should be a familiar message to us in Congress. Dr. Cooper has
delivered that same message to us before - in this committee and in
others.
And I have offered legislation to implement that idea myself:
<bullet> I offered a gasoline reserves amendment in this committee in
2003 - it was opposed by the Chairman and defeated
<bullet> I offered that amendment on the House floor - it was opposed
by Republican leadership and defeated
<bullet> I offered it again as an amendment in 2005 - twice - and it
was opposed by the Chairman and defeated both times
Several other industrialized nations maintain gasoline reserves - and
they used them last year to ship us gasoline after Hurricane Katrina.
That embarrassed the Bush Administration into at least recognizing the
idea.
Last October, Energy Secretary Bodman testified before the U.S.
Senate that the gas reserves idea was being "looked at" by the White
House, "quite closely." Welcome news, I'm sure, to Senator Dick
Durbin - who's sponsored a bill similar to mine.
But that was 6 months ago - and though the price of a gallon of gas
has increased about 45> since then, the White House is still studying an
idea we've known about for years and that our allies have already used
successfully to bail us out.
The facts are clear and simple. American consumers are hurting at
the pump today, because Republican leadership rejected common-sense
reforms that could have protected consumers and strengthened our
economy - in favor of an energy policy written by - and for the benefit
of - Big Oil.
I am glad President Bush has at least begun to talk about reform.
And I am glad we are here talking about it again here today.
But talk is cheap, and gas is not. The American people need action.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My home state of Wyoming, like the rest of the country, has faced
record breaking prices at the gas pump for much of the last year. In our
state, where driving is a necessity due to an essentially nonexistent mass
transit system, these exorbitant fuel costs create a real problem
commuting to work or even planning a family vacation.
Pinpointing the reasons why gasoline prices are currently so high is
not the problem. Domestic production and refining capacity simply
haven't kept pace with our nation's ever-increasing demand for oil.
Other short term factors, such as the fact that refining capacity in the gulf
coast region is still not fully operational, has only added to the problem.
However, the biggest challenge I believe we face is the continuing
obstructionism here in Washington that prevents the enactment of
common-sense reforms to encourage increased domestic production.
It took almost five full years to get a comprehensive energy policy
signed into law. We are still fighting to get much needed legislation
enacted that would streamline the overly-bureaucratic process for citing
new refineries in our nation. Several other well-intentioned federal laws
that have unfortunately created regulatory roadblocks to increasing
domestic production - such as the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) - are in significant need of reform. If we would have enacted all
these reforms five years ago, we would not be in the situation we are in
today.
I believe Congress needs to act aggressively and creatively to lower
the cost of gas American consumers are being forced to stomach. From
increasing our nation's refining capacity to limiting the number of
"boutique fuels" that have propped up gasoline prices through artificially
supply limits, there are additional long-term solutions we can and must
pursue. In the short term, I have supported - and will continue to support
- temporarily suspending the federal gas tax and ensuring that price
gouging is not occurring at any level of the wholesale or retail gas
markets.
I am hopeful that this hearing will continue to shed additional light
on those steps Congress should be taking to help stabilize the price of
gas. However, until our colleagues in the minority agree to place policy
above politics, we will likely be unable to have the effect American
consumers deserve.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important and timely hearing
today and I yield back the balance of my time.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for turning this Committee's focus to
gasoline issues. While last week's look at crude oil markets was
illuminating, we now get back to more familiar issues on which we have
legislated in the past and which have a serious impact on the price of gas
at the pump. In particular, I expect that the use of reformulated gasoline
in the supply chain will dominate our discussions.
The physical properties of ethanol, for instance, make it somewhat
daunting to work with. We cannot ship gasoline mixed with ethanol via
pipeline, because there tends to be residual water in the pipes, and
ethanol is water-soluble. So, we must send the gasoline through the
pipes, and the ethanol separately on trucks or rails, to be blended at
terminals in what is called "splash blending." This adds to the burden on
the infrastructure for transportation and storage of gasoline, ethanol, and
their blends, as well as raising the overall price tag.
Of course, even with a sufficient supply of ethanol, sources are not
always located in close proximity to where we need the ethanol. That is
one reason why I have supported research into biofuels at the University
of Florida, in hopes of developing cost-efficient and environmentally-
suitable agricultural alternatives for creating ethanol.
Meanwhile, government mandates for specially reformulated
gasoline across the country have led to a proliferation of boutique fuel
requirements - each region or metro area demanding a different blend in
order to meet certain air pollution goals under the Clean Air Act's
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, particularly for ozone. The
USA Today, finding at least 15 different fuel blend categories, declared
yesterday that, "Gasoline is becoming like coffee at Starbucks -
unnecessarily complex and pricey." I look forward to hearing from
Acting Assistant Administrator Wehrum about the Environmental
Protection Agency's implementation of provisions we passed in last
year's Energy Policy Act, and their efforts to reduce the number of
boutique fuel requirements.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding these two days of
hearings.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We now want to hear from our first panel of
expert witnesses on our hearing on Gasoline: Supply, Price, and
Specifications. We are going to hear first from Dr. Howard Gruenspecht,
the Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, and
then after him, Mr. William Wehrum who is the Acting-Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection
Agency. Gentlemen, welcome. Dr. Gruenspecht, we will recognize you
for let us see here. Let us say about 8 minutes and if you need a little
more time, that is fine.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I will try to give back some time, if I can.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We are glad to have you before the committee.
You are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF HOWARD K. GRUENSPECHT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND WILLIAM WEHRUM,
ACTING-ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss gasoline supply, prices, and specifications. EIA is
the independent statistical and analytical agency within the DOE. We
don't promote, formulate, or take positions on policy issues and our
views should not be construed as representing those of the Department or
the Administration.
Retail gasoline prices more than doubled from the beginning of 2004
through early September 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Though gasoline prices declined last fall following the hurricanes, U.S.
average regular gasoline price is once again near $3 a gallon with many
areas above that mark, as we have heard, particularly California. Several
different factors have contributed to the sharp increase in the price of
gasoline seen in recent years. First and foremost, as many of the opening
statements recognize, the price of crude oil, from which gasoline and
other petroleum products are refined, has risen dramatically.
The price of West Texas intermediate crude rose from roughly $40 a
barrel at the end of 2003 to between $70 and $75 per barrel on the spot
market during the first week of May. Futures prices are also close to this
level and even the long-term futures contracts are pretty high, well above
$65. All else equal, each $1 increase in the price of crude adds about 2.4
cents per gallon to the price of gasoline. The increase in crude oil prices
accounts for roughly two-thirds of the increase in retail gasoline prices
since the end of 2003.
Second, gasoline prices are directly affected by the balance between
supply and demand for gasoline, itself. Both long-run forces and short-
term circumstances since last fall have contributed to a tight gasoline
market. This has led to an increased crack spread between the price of
gasoline at the refinery level and crude oil prices, reflecting changes in
both the cost and profitability of refining gasoline.
Starting with the longer run forces, U.S. gasoline demand has grown
1 to 3 percent per year since the late 1980s, driven by growth in
population, the number of vehicles, and the economy. Average fuel
economy of new light duty vehicles has been relatively flat. Gasoline
prices do have an impact on consumption, reflecting both travel and
vehicle purchase decisions, but some of those decisions take a long time
to take effect.
That influence is difficult to isolate from other influences. Rising
income causes demand to grow at the same time that rising prices would
tend to pull back demand, but the impact of prices on demand appears to
be growing in an era of sustained higher prices. Currently available data
suggest that the Nation's gasoline consumption was flat in 2005. On the
supply side, refinery capacity growth and refinery capacity has grown,
but it has lagged behind demand growth over the past 5 years. The
situation may be changing, however.
Significantly higher financial returns to refining over the past several
years provide a strong incentive for refinery expansion. With attractive
returns and available resources, we are now seeing significant capacity
expansion announcements totaling approximately 1.5 million barrels a
day of new distillation capacity planned over the next several years. And
there is probably some additional capacity creep beyond that that we
would expect.
The role of imports has grown in the past several years. About 10
percent of our gasoline supply comes from imports, most of which go to
the East Coast. Much of the recent growth has been from Europe, which
has excess gasoline supply capacity, in large part because of their major
move towards use of more diesel-fueled cars, and they produce gasoline
that is very similar to our own and meets our standards. At the same
time, imports from Latin America have been dropping a little bit as
supply from Brazil and other parts of Latin America have not moved as
rapidly to the low-sulfur, very clean fuels that we are moving toward.
We may see a further falloff over time.
In terms of the shorter run activities, since last fall, several
events have exacerbated the current tightness in the markets. Many of the
opening statements referred to the elimination of MTBE from
reformulated gasoline and the resulting increase in the use of ethanol.
Again, a lot of that transition has taken place by the first week of May.
This decision was driven both by State policy, due to water
contamination concerns, and potential for or a perceived potential for
increased liability exposure because of the elimination of the oxygen
content requirement for reformulated gasoline in the Energy Policy Act
of last year.
As discussed in my written testimony, the switch from MTBE to
ethanol has several supply impacts. The transition on the East Coast
resulted in some temporary terminal outages in the winter-grade to
summer-grade transition and also the MTBE-to-alcohol transition. The
outages definitely raised some concerns and EIA had talked about that in
some reports in February and earlier, but no major shortages have
occurred. The largest problems, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, have been
in Texas where rail bottlenecks are making ethanol delivery difficult.
The problem is not yet fully resolved, yet much of the initial transition is
behind us and we are going to continue to monitor the situation closely.
The other important short-term circumstance has been the lingering
effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which caused significant damage
to several refineries. In addition, while those refineries are coming back,
some refineries had delayed their maintenance schedules last fall when
much more refinery capacity was out and thus there has been a lot of
capacity in maintenance, really, for longer than usual this spring. We
estimate that about one million barrels per day of refinery capacity was
off line during April, which is about 6 percent of U.S. capacity. Again,
we expect these refineries to return. Hurricane-damaged refineries--the
last of those are still returning, so the situation should improve
somewhat.
On fuel specifications, cleaner-burning motor fuels generally require
more processing; they are harder to produce, and they use a narrower
range of fuel components, which all work to increase their production
cost. Some requirements are imposed at the Federal level, but in many
cases, the States and regions set them as part of their clean air strategies,
as I am sure Mr. Wehrum will discuss. As the number of distinct fuel
types has increased, there is an increase or a reduction in the fungibility
of fuels across locations.
But there is really no simple fix because actions to ease distribution
problems by reducing the number of gasoline formulations enhance
fungibility, but they could also impact the U.S. refiners' ability to
produce enough gasoline to meet overall demand. Considerable
investments that might otherwise be devoted to capacity expansion could
be diverted to building the systems needed for more intensive processing
and there would be more limited opportunity to divert some of the
components that are harder to use to make the clean gasoline.
So you have sort of a tough tradeoff between the potential for short-
term regional disruptions that cause price spikes and increasing
production challenges to make more clean gasoline. Let me end by
turning a little bit to the outlook. We think the world oil market is tight;
as we have been saying for some time, we think crude oil prices will
remain high. Our current projection for WTI crude prices averages $68
per barrel in both 2006 and 2007. We expect this year's summer
gasoline prices to average $2.71 per gallon, 34 cents higher than last
summer's average. We expect prices to fall over the summer. The key
uncertainties are, not surprisingly, the potential for hurricanes that could
impact refining and production in the Gulf region, and geopolitical
factors affecting crude oil prices. And with that, I am done and I guess I
didn't meet my goal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Howard Gruenspecht follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. The Energy
Information Administration (EIA) is the independent statistical and
analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We are charged with
providing objective, timely, and relevant data, analyses, and projections
for the use of the Congress, the Administration, and the public. While we
do not take positions on policy issues, our work can assist energy
policymakers in their deliberations. Because we have an element of
statutory independence with respect to our activities, our views are
strictly those of EIA and should not be construed as representing those of
the Department of Energy or the Administration.
Gasoline is an essential commodity to most Americans. Not only is
our country the world's biggest petroleum consumer, but to a far greater
extent than the world in general, we consume that petroleum in the form
of gasoline. Gasoline accounts for about 45 percent of U.S. petroleum
consumption, or about 18 percent of our total energy demand. Retail
gasoline prices more than doubled from the beginning of 2004 through
early September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Though
gasoline prices fell back sharply last fall following initial recovery from
the hurricanes, the U.S. average regular gasoline price is once again
around $3 per gallon, with many areas already over that mark.
Several different factors have contributed to the sharp increase in
the price of gasoline seen in recent years. First and foremost, the price of
crude oil, from which gasoline and other petroleum products are refined,
has risen dramatically. Second, the balance between the supply and
demand for gasoline has tightened. As discussed below, both long-run
forces, such as demand for gasoline growing faster over the past 5 years
than the capacity to supply it, and shorter-run circumstances, such as the
elimination of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from reformulated
gasoline (RFG) on a nationwide basis and the lingering effects of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita on refinery availability and maintenance
schedules, are contributing to this tightness. These factors combined to
increase the "spread" between the average spot gasoline price and the
spot price of crude oil from about 15 cents per gallon at the beginning of
March to a peak of about 60 cents per gallon in the middle of April. This
gasoline price spread has since fallen back somewhat, but through March
and April the spread averaged about 40 cents per gallon, about 20 cents
per gallon higher than seen during more typical market situations during
these months.
As requested in your invitation, my testimony discusses the factors
affecting gasoline supply and prices, including the effects of fuel
specifications and the increased use of ethanol on the market, and
reviews EIA's gasoline market outlook.
Factors Affecting Gasoline Supply and Prices
Crude Oil Prices
The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose from
roughly $40 per barrel at the end of 2003 to between $70 and $75 per
barrel on the spot market during the first week of May 2006. Futures
prices are also close to this level. All else being equal, each $1 increase
in the price of crude oil adds about 2.4 cents per gallon to the price of
gasoline. As shown in Figure 1, the increase in crude oil prices accounts
for roughly two-thirds of the increase in the average retail gasoline price
since the end of 2003.
Figure 1
CRUDE OIL, SPOT GASOLINE AND RETAIL GASOLINE
PRICES, 2003 to Present
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
At this Committee's hearing May 4th on crude oil markets, EIA
Administrator Caruso outlined our perspective on the forces driving
crude oil prices in today's marketplace. To summarize briefly, crude oil
prices are set in the global marketplace and largely reflect the
fundamentals that determine supply and demand. In recent years,
increases in global oil production capacity have struggled to keep pace
with rapidly growing demand, particularly in China, the other emerging
economies in Asia, and the United States. This slower growth in
productive capacity relative to growth in demand has resulted in a
decline in global surplus capacity to produce crude oil. At the same
time, perceived risks to supply posed by geopolitical instability and other
uncertainties have grown. In the present environment, with a minimal
cushion of surplus upstream and downstream capacity to meet
disruptions in supply and with futures markets in contango (i.e., a market
in which prices for commodities delivered in future months are higher
than for those delivered in months closer to the present), market
participants have a strong demand for inventories, so the traditional
inverse relationship between inventory and price levels does not apply.
Absent an unexpected downturn in global economic activity, neither
demand-side nor supply-side corrections will come quickly; thus, crude
oil prices are expected to remain at relatively high levels, supporting high
gasoline prices for the foreseeable future.
The Supply-Demand Balance in Gasoline Markets
Beyond the cost of crude oil to refiners, gasoline prices are directly
affected by the balance between supply and demand for gasoline itself.
The difference between gasoline prices at the refinery level and crude oil
prices, often referred to as the "crack spread," reflects both the cost and
profitability of refining gasoline and depends directly on market
conditions. Historically, the price differential between crude oil and
gasoline has varied significantly over time due both to seasonality and
factors affecting market tightness. As with any commodity, when
available production capacity is strained relative to demand, the price
rises to keep the market in balance by attracting additional supply and/or
discouraging consumption. As discussed below, both long-run forces
and short-run circumstances have contributed to a tighter gasoline
market, which has led to increased gasoline crack spreads.
Long-run forces affecting the gasoline market balance
U.S. gasoline demand has generally grown at the rate of about 1 to 3
percent per year since the late 1980s, driven by growth in population, the
number of vehicles, and the economy. Gasoline demand growth can also
be affected by changes in vehicle fuel economy and changes in gasoline
prices. After rising from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, the average
fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles has been relatively flat over the
past decade, in part due the growing share of light trucks (including
pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and minivans) in total sales of light-
duty vehicles. The impact of gasoline prices on consumption, which
reflects both travel decisions and, over time, vehicle purchase decisions,
is difficult to isolate from other influences, but appears to be growing in
an era of sustained higher prices. Based on available data, U.S. motor
gasoline consumption exhibited almost no growth in 2005.
U.S. gasoline supply comes mainly from domestic refineries, though
with a significant contribution from imports. In the late 1970s, the
United States had significant excess refining capacity, but a combination
of growing demand and the closure of some refineries significantly
raised average U.S. refinery utilization rates by the early 1990s. Since
the mid-1990s, both demand and refinery capacity have grown, but
demand has grown more than capacity over the past 5 years. This
situation may be changing. Significantly higher financial returns to
refining over the past several years have provided a strong incentive for
refinery expansion. The refining industry is also completing a set of
major process investments needed to meet low-sulfur fuel specifications
that absorbed significant resources. With attractive returns and available
resources, we are now seeing major capacity expansion announcements,
totaling approximately 1.5 million barrels per day of new distillation
capacity by 2010. However, much of this capacity will not be ready for
several years, which leaves the U.S. market quite tight in the very near
term.
In recent years, product imports have met about half of U.S. growth
in gasoline demand. Product imports will remain important to the United
States. About 10 percent of our gasoline supply comes from imports,
most of which go to the East Coast where they supply about 25 percent
of that region's demand. Much of the growth in U.S. gasoline imports
during the past few years has come from European sources. An excess
of gasoline supply in Europe, which derives from that region's move to
diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles, has found a market on the U.S. East
Coast. Furthermore, European gasoline quality is similar to U.S.
quality, so European refiners can produce gasoline that meets U.S.
standards. Since 2003, European gasoline import volumes increased by
over 200 thousand barrels per day (almost 80 percent), notwithstanding
implementation of reduced sulfur content standards in the United States.
At the same time, the United States saw a drop in gasoline import
volumes of 27 thousand barrels per day from Brazil, as that country and
other areas have not moved as rapidly to low-sulfur fuels. In 2006, we
may see further falloff from areas in Latin America and other regions as
the United States has moved to the final phase of the Tier 2 gasoline
program and the industry moves away from MTBE. In general, fewer
sources of supply will be able to provide U.S.-quality imports. However,
those remaining appear to have the potential to send increased volumes
to the United States.
Short-run circumstances affecting the gasoline market balance
Since last fall, several events have exacerbated tightness in gasoline
markets. One of these is the elimination of MTBE from RFG and the
resulting increase in the use of RFG made with ethanol. The petroleum
industry has moved to eliminate MTBE in gasoline by the first week in
May 2006. Companies' decisions have been driven by State bans due to
water contamination concerns, continuing liability exposure from adding
MTBE to gasoline, and perceived potential for increased liability
exposure due to the elimination of the oxygen content requirement for
RFG as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Until recently, the largest use of MTBE was in RFG consumed on
the East Coast, excluding New York and Connecticut, and in Texas. The
other RFG areas in the Midwest, California, New York, and Connecticut
had already moved from MTBE to ethanol. Most companies eliminating
MTBE in the short run are blending ethanol into the gasoline to help
replace the octane and clean-burning properties of MTBE. The switch
from MTBE to ethanol in these RFG areas has several supply impacts:
<bullet> Net loss of gasoline production capacity. During the summer
months, replacing MTBE with ethanol in reformulated gasoline
results in about a 5-to-6-percent loss of production capability in
order to accommodate ethanol's emission properties.
<bullet> Shift in East Coast supply sources. Without the use of MTBE,
East Coast refiners are expected to produce less RFG, which
will result in more RFG supply for this region coming from the
Gulf Coast and from imports.
<bullet> Loss of import supply sources that cannot deliver MTBE-free
product or that cannot produce the high-quality blendstock
needed to combine with ethanol.
<bullet> Installation of blending equipment at terminals. Ethanol
must be delivered separately to terminals near the retail market,
where it is blended with base gasoline blending components
before delivery to retail stations.
<bullet> A very tight ethanol market, limited in the short-run by
ethanol-production capacity. Until ethanol capacity catches up, ethanol
is being repositioned from discretionary blending into
conventional gasoline in the Midwest to the RFG areas, and
EIA expects some increase in imports.
Refiners, blenders, pipelines and ethanol suppliers have been
working hard to accomplish the changeover. As shown in Figure 2,
recent EIA weekly data show a steady decline in stocks of RFG with
MTBE and a steady increase in stocks of summer-grade reformulated
blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB with alcohol), the base
gasoline into which ethanol is blended. The transition on the East Coast
resulted in some temporary terminal outages as terminal tanks were
emptied of winter-grade reformulated gasoline in preparation to receive
the first batches of RBOB with alcohol. While the outages raised some
concerns, no major shortage occurred. The largest problems have been
in Texas, where rail bottlenecks are making ethanol delivery difficult.
This problem is not yet resolved. Still, much of the initial transition is
behind us, and EIA will continue to monitor the situation this summer.
Figure 2
RECENT GASOLINE STOCK LEVELS:
FINISHED RFG (w/MTBE) and RBOB (for Blending with Ethanol)
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The other short-run circumstance affecting the current market is the
lingering effect of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hurricanes resulted
in significant damage to several refineries, and one large refinery
suffered an explosion that has kept it off line through April. In addition
major refinery maintenance has occurred this year as a result of, among
other things, delayed maintenance during the fall following the
hurricanes, and final preparations for the ultra-low-sulfur diesel program
that begins this June. EIA estimated that about 1 million barrels per day
of capacity was offline during April, which is almost 6 percent of U.S.
capacity. These refineries represent about 500,000 barrels per day of
gasoline production. Maintenance outages are expected to extend only
into the middle of May, and the hurricane-damaged refineries are
continuing to come back online, which should help to ease prices.
Impacts of Fuel Specifications
Apart from the current move away from MTBE as a blending
component in RFG, the longer-term trend towards requirements for
cleaner-burning gasoline and diesel fuel, while contributing to air quality
improvement, has had several fuel supply consequences. In general,
cleaner-burning motor fuels require more processing, are harder to
produce, and restrict flexibility in using fuel components, which all work
to increase their production cost. Some clean fuel requirements are
imposed at the Federal level, but in many cases States and regions that
are charged with developing plans to reduce emissions of air pollutants
and pollution precursors in areas that do not meet ambient air quality
standards adopt changes in fuel specification as one of their strategies.
Such States and regions typically work with refiners to tailor gasoline
specifications to meet their specific needs at minimum production cost.
For example, some regions that are not required to use RFG have been
able to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a smog
precursor, by lowering the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline used
in their area to reduce evaporation. Such low-RVP fuel is cheaper to
produce than gasoline that meets the complete RFG specification.
As the number of fuel types has increased, the pipeline distribution
and storage system, which has a limited number of pipelines and storage
tanks, is facing growing challenges to deliver many distinct fuel types in
smaller batches. The reduction in the fungibility of fuels across locations
has tended to slow the ability of the supply system to respond to
unexpected shortfalls. If a region runs out of its specific fuel
unexpectedly, it can take some time for new supply to be sent to the area.
Different fuels available in the nearby surrounding areas could not be
used. Delays in responding to such unexpected shortfalls add to price
volatility. So far, this problem has not resulted in major problems in
most regions. The two notable exceptions are California, which requires
the cleanest-burning gasoline in the world, and the Chicago/Milwaukee
area, which was the only region using ethanol-blended RFG during the
change from Phase I to Phase II of the RFG program in 2000.
Looking ahead, unchecked fuel-type proliferation has the potential to
make the distribution system even more complex and further reduce fuel
fungibility, causing more regional supply and price volatility than we
have experienced historically. Yet, there is no simple solution. In
addition to the difficulty of balancing of environmental and fuel supply
concerns, actions to ease distribution problems by reducing the number
of gasoline formulations could increase average gasoline production
costs and reduce overall gasoline supply capacity. For example, moving
the entire country to a single very clean gasoline standard would
certainly enhance fungibility, but it would also impact U.S. refineries'
ability to produce enough gasoline to meet overall demand.
Considerable investment in what might otherwise be devoted to capacity
expansion would be diverted to building the systems needed for more
intensive processing. A single product standard for gasoline, if set at
very stringent levels, could also choke off imports of gasoline from some
sources. Even though greater fungibility would reduce the potential for
short-term regional supply shortages and price spikes, consumers could
end up facing a higher national average price for gasoline than they
would under the present regime. Timing, balance between supply and
distribution, and potential future fuel specification and vehicle changes
all need to be considered when trying to address this issue.
Ethanol
The United States is moving towards using more renewable fuels, in
particular ethanol. Most renewable fuel use historically and over the
next decade is expected to be as additives to traditional petroleum fuels,
rather than as stand-alone fuels. Use of ethanol has been increasing in
recent years as States have banned the use of MTBE, and gasoline
suppliers have replaced that MTBE with ethanol, which helps to replace
the octane and clean-burning properties lost with MTBE. In 2005,
ethanol use in gasoline (263 thousand barrels per day) represented almost
3 percent of gasoline consumption by volume. The recent Energy Policy
Act of 2005 added a renewable fuel standard (RFS) that requires the
increased use of renewable fuels over time and includes provisions to
encourage biodiesel and cellulose ethanol.
Given EIA's short-term outlook for crude oil prices and the reference
case oil price projections included in our Annual Energy Outlook 2006
(AEO2006), we believe that there are strong prospects for growing
ethanol use. Our reference case projection for renewable fuel use
significantly exceeds the requirements of the RFS program, reaching
roughly 10 billion gallons annually in 2012, assuming the extension of
the existing ethanol tax credit beyond its currently scheduled expiration
at the end of 2010. Even without extension of the tax credit, projected
ethanol use exceeds the RFS-mandated level through 2012 in our
reference case. We are projecting that nearly all of the ethanol will be
derived from corn, with cellulose ethanol limited to the penetration levels
mandated in the recent legislation. While cellulose ethanol has potential
feedstock cost advantages compared to corn ethanol and tremendous
progress has been made in the performance and cost of enzymes used in
the conversion of cellulose material to ethanol, the high capital cost of
cellulose ethanol plants remains a significant barrier to their economic
competitiveness.
The Near-Term Outlook
Looking ahead, the prospects for significant near-term improvement
in the world petroleum supply and demand balance appear to be fading.
While U.S. crude oil production will grow with recovery from the
hurricanes, only small increases in Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) and other non-OPEC production and capacity are
expected in the near future. Expected steady world oil demand growth,
combined with only modest increases in world surplus oil production
capacity and the continuing risks of geopolitical instability, are expected
to keep crude oil prices high through 2007. The WTI crude oil price in
EIA's most recent short-term forecast is projected to average $68 per
barrel in both 2006 and 2007. Retail regular gasoline prices are
projected to average about $2.57 per gallon in 2006 and 2007. Gasoline
demand is projected to grow 0.9 percent in 2006 and 1.5 percent in 2007.
The projected growth in demand reflects continued economic growth and
the leveling off of motor gasoline prices.
During this year's summer driving season (April 1 to September 30)
the national average retail price of regular gasoline is expected to be
$2.71 per gallon, 34 cents per gallon higher than last summer's average
of $2.37 per gallon. By September 2006, fuel prices are expected to be
lower than last year. With another active hurricane season possible this
year, news of any developing hurricanes and tropical storms with a
potential to cause significant new outages could add to volatility in near-
term prices. The projections outlined above do not reflect a scenario
with significant new production or refinery outages.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We knew you wouldn't. Anyway, good effort.
Thank you for your testimony. We now want to hear from Mr. William
Wehrum with the EPA.
MR. WEHRUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about
fuel quality specifications and supply concerns. I am pleased to be here
on behalf of my colleagues at EPA, some of whom are here right behind
me, who have been instrumental in developing our Nation's strategy to
reduce air pollution from motor vehicles and the fuels that run them.
Today our focus is on existing Federal clean fuel programs and to
provide EPA's perspective on State clean fuel programs, often called
boutique fuels. Reports of fuel supply shortages have led to increased
attention to the use of boutique fuels.
Just two weeks ago, President Bush called on EPA to confront the
problem of too many localized fuel blends, yet there is much confusion
over what a boutique fuel is. Quite simply, a boutique fuel is any unique
fuel specification developed by a State or local air pollution agency and
approved by EPA as part of a State plan to meet our national air quality
standards. Currently, 12 States have approved boutique fuel programs;
eight States limit the volatility of gasoline during the summertime. Four
other States control other parameters of fuels, such as aromatics and
sulfur in gasoline or diesel.
These controls reduce evaporation of gasoline, which helps reduce
smog in urban areas. We prepared a map showing the areas where these
boutique fuels currently are required to be used. For some time there has
been concern about potential adverse effects of boutique fuels on fuel
pricing, supply, and distribution. Importantly, the cost of producing
boutique fuels does not translate into retail consumer prices at the pump.
As part of the President's 2001 National Energy Policy Report, EPA was
directed to conduct a study to determine whether boutique fuels were
contributing to fuel pricing and supply problems.
EPA worked with DOE to issue a report to the President, concluding
that under normal conditions, the fuel production and distribution system
works well and is able to provide adequate supplies of boutique fuels.
However, because boutique fuels vary from conventional fuel, if
production or distribution disruptions occur, such as hurricanes, pipeline
breaks, or refinery fires, boutique fuel requirements can limit the
availability of supply and therefore contribute to potential supply
problems and short-term price spikes.
In response to the report's findings, EPA took several steps to ease
the regulations governing the transition from winter to summer gasoline.
For example, EPA revised its regulations to allow refiners to upgrade
conventional gasoline to RFG, if it meets the RFG performance
standards, thereby allowing for greater flexibility and providing RFG
when supply is tight. Last year's Energy Policy Act also addressed the
issue of boutique fuels. First, the Act established a fixed limit on the
number of boutique fuels that EPA can approve. The list will limit
further expansion of State clean fuel programs.
Second, the Act instructed EPA and DOE to perform a study on the
effects of State boutique fuel programs on air quality, fuel blends, fuel
availability, fungibility, and costs. EPA and DOE are currently
coordinating efforts and will work closely in preparing this report for
Congress. Third, the Act requires the agency to prepare another report
by June 1st, 2008, concerning variations in regional, State, and local
motor vehicle fuel requirements. The Act also required removal of the
Federal oxygen content requirement for RFG. Removal of the RFG
oxygen standard will allow refiners additional flexibility in how they
make reformulated gasoline and when and where they blend oxygenates.
EPA completed a rulemaking, as directed by Congress, on May 3rd, 2006,
which took effect on May 8th.
Finally, the Act requires EPA to develop and implement a renewable
fuel standard or RFS. This program will require increasing amounts of
renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel to be blended into the
Nation's fuel supply. While EPA's regulatory improvements in the new
Energy Policy Act provisions have significantly improved key aspects of
the boutique fuels issue, concerns about potential adverse effects of
boutique fuels have persisted. Hurricane Katrina provided a stark
demonstration that when the Nation's fuel supply is drastically reduced,
multiple fuel regulations can complicate the recovery effort.
Moreover, persistently high crude oil prices and the resulting high
gas prices have led to renewed effort to look for innovative ways to
simplify the fuel distribution system. As a result, President Bush has
directed Administrator Johnson to convene a Governors Boutique Fuels
Task Force. All 50 Governors have been invited to participate. The task
force will assess various State and local clean fuel requirements and the
effect the requirements have on supply, quality, price and air quality.
Last Thursday, Administrator Johnson held a conference call
initiating this process. Over the coming weeks we are inviting the input
of outside experts from industry, public health organizations, and other
interested parties. We also expect to hold a number of technical staff
meetings to help EPA prepare a draft report for the task force's review in
mid-June. The options in the report will be designed to help the
President meet his overall goal of simplifying and unifying the fuel
regulatory system and increasing cooperation among States on gasoline
supply decisions.
The current fuel situation has had some unique influencing factors
beyond the normal winter to summer gasoline transition practices. For
example, the market underwent withdrawal of MTBE from RFG market
areas. This MTBE-to-ethanol transition led to some additional tank
management practices to prepare for the new products. Crude oil prices
also hit historic highs. These factors, among others, provided for unusual
market conditions. Despite these conditions, the market has managed the
transition effectively and maintained the integrity of important
environmental programs.
It is also important to note that although a number of States have
banned the use of MTBE, there is no Federal ban. Refiners of RFG who
have phased out the use of MTBE have done so through their own
decisions. Of course, now that the RFG oxygenate requirement has been
eliminated, refiners are free to produce RFG with or without an
oxygenate.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
the opportunity to testify before the committee on these important issues.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of William Wehrum follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING-ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to come before you today to testify on gasoline fuel quality
specifications and supply. As the Acting Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation, my responsibilities include overseeing all
air-related activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
Agency). I am pleased to be here on behalf of my colleagues at EPA
who have developed and worked closely with states to implement the
highly successful programs that reduce harmful emissions from highway
and off-road vehicles, engines and fuels.
My testimony will first provide an overview of existing federal
regulatory clean fuel programs, followed by more discussion of state
clean fuel quality programs, often referred to as "Boutique" Fuels.
Overview of Clean Fuel Programs
Fuel controls for emission reductions is often one of the most cost-
effective methods to help reduce emissions. In the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, Congress directed EPA to develop and implement
several important new clean fuel programs to improve air quality to
reduce emissions that cause or contribute to the formation of ozone and
air toxics. Many of these programs are national in scope, such as
summertime controls on gasoline volatility and year round controls on
gasoline sulfur. Congress set specific cities, performance standards and
an oxygenate requirement for the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program
which began in 1995. Provisions such as banking, averaging and credit
trading have also been built into many of these regulatory programs and
are designed to provide greater flexibility and reduce production costs.
Clean fuel programs have been an integral part of the nation's
strategy to reduce air pollution and they have been successful. They
provide significant, cost-effective and timely reductions in motor vehicle
emissions.
State Boutique Fuel Programs
There is much confusion over what a boutique fuel is. The Clean Air
Act (CAA) allows states to implement their own clean fuel programs.
Quite simply, a boutique fuel is a unique fuel specification that is
developed by a state or local air pollution agency and approved by EPA
as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the affected area.
Most states that do not use RFG to address their air quality issues have
elected to use gasoline with lower volatility than federal conventional
gasoline standards. Sometimes states adopt these low Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) fuels because the CAA does not allow them to join the
federal RFG program. In other cases where states could have opted-in to
the federal RFG program, local fuel providers worked with states to
develop an alternative fuel specification that can be produced at a lower
cost and still support their air quality needs. What this has typically
meant in practice is the avoidance of the oxygen mandate in the RFG
program because it is more expensive in some areas. It is worth noting
that boutique fuels do not include other clean fuel requirements, such as
Federal fuel controls (e.g., reformulated gas, winter oxygenated fuels),
California clean fuel requirements, and area-specific fuels required by
state law for purposes other than air quality (e.g., Minnesota's ethanol
mandate).
Currently 12 states have approved boutique fuel programs. Eight
states limit the volatility of gasoline and are in effect only during the
summer months. Four other states control other parameters of fuels,
such as aromatics and sulfur in gasoline or diesel fuel, or allow
California's cleaner burning gasoline to be sold within their boundaries.
[See attached map.] This reduces evaporation of gasoline which helps
reduce smog in urban areas. [See attached chart of boutique fuel
programs.] The state plans are required to estimate the additional cost.
Those state estimates range from 0.3 to 3 cents per gallon above the cost
of conventional gasoline. It is important to note that the cost of
producing boutique fuels does not translate into retail consumer prices at
the pump. Since many economic factors influence the retail price of
gasoline, I will defer to experts from the Energy Information Agency to
describe the difficulty of translating fuel production costs to impacts on
retail prices.
The Clean Air Act imposes strict limitations on EPA's approval of
boutique fuels. Specifically, a State may prescribe and enforce a fuel
quality control if, after review and approval of the SIP, the Administrator
finds that the State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard and no other
measures are available to bring about timely attainment. Where
implemented, these fuels are an important and powerful tool for
combating local air pollution problems.
EPA's 2001 Evaluation of Boutique Fuels
For sometime there has been concern about potential adverse effects
of boutique fuels on fuel pricing, supply and distribution. As part of the
President's 2001 National Energy Policy Report, EPA was directed to
conduct a study to determine whether boutique fuels were contributing to
such problems and if so to recommend solutions. EPA conducted an
extensive review that included close cooperation with the Department of
Energy (DOE) and extensive outreach to the fuels industry and other
interested stakeholders. EPA issued a report to the President in October
2001. EPA's report focused on two primary issues. First, we assessed
the possible need for greater flexibility in the process that fuel marketers
used to make the transition from winter to summer grade gasoline.
Second, we investigated the growing number of state and local boutique
fuel programs and the challenges this growth presented to the gasoline
distribution system.
The report concluded that during times of normal conditions, the fuel
production and distribution system works well and is able to provide
adequate supplies of boutique fuels to the required areas. However,
because the specification of the fuel varies from the conventional fuel
used in surrounding areas, if production or distribution disruptions occur,
such as hurricanes, pipeline breaks or refinery fires, boutique fuel
requirements can limit the availability of supply to the area and therefore
contribute to potential supply problems and short term price spikes.
The Agency also evaluated the costs and benefits of several different
approaches to limit the number of fuels available for adoption by states.
In response to the report's findings, EPA took several steps to ease
the regulations governing the transition from winter to summer gasoline.
For example, EPA increased the compliance testing tolerance from 1% to
2% for a limited transition time to allow for a smoother switch to
summer-controlled gasoline. The Agency also revised the regulations to
allow refiners to upgrade conventional gasoline to RFG, if it meets the
RFG performance standards, thereby allowing for greater flexibility in
providing additional RFG when supply is tight.
Boutique Fuel Provisions of the Energy Policy Act
First, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) established a fixed
limit on the number of boutique fuels that EPA can approve. The list
will limit further expansion of the state clean fuel programs. EPA is
preparing to publish this list for comment in a Federal Register notice
which is expected before the end of this month.
EPA and DOE are also instructed by EPAct to perform a joint study
on the effects of state boutique fuel programs on air quality, fuel blends,
fuel availability, fungibility and costs, with a focus on making
recommendations to Congress for legislative changes supporting
developing a federal fuels system that maximizes fungibility and supply
and addresses air quality requirements and reduces price volatility. The
Agency and DOE are currently coordinating efforts and will work
closely in preparing this report.
Further, EPAct requires the Agency to prepare another report by
June 1, 2008, concerning variations in regional, state and local motor
vehicle fuel requirements. Both reports will build off the EPA 2001
Boutique Fuels Report, accounting for recent and upcoming changes in
the U.S. gasoline and diesel markets.
EPAct also authorized removal of the federal oxygen content
requirement for RFG. Removal of the RFG oxygenate standard will
allow refiners additional flexibility in how they make reformulated
gasoline and when and where they blend oxygenates. EPA completed a
rulemaking, as directed by Congress, on May 3, 2006 which took effect
on May 8, 2006. California is treated differently under the Clean Air
Act, this as directed by Congress. EPA removed the oxygen content
requirement in California RFG in April, prior to its removal in other
states.
Perhaps of greater importance, EPAct also requires EPA to develop
and implement a renewable fuels standard, or RFS. This program will
require increasing amounts of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and
biodiesel, to be blended into the nation's gasoline supply. We currently
are developing the program. A comprehensive proposal will be issued
later this year.
Governors Task Force on Boutique Fuels
While EPA's regulatory improvements and the new EPAct
provisions have significantly improved key aspects of the boutique fuels
issue, concerns about potential adverse effect of boutique fuels have
persisted. Hurricane Katrina provided a stark demonstration that when
the nation's fuel supply is drastically reduced as it was last year, multiple
and differing fuel regulations can complicate the recovery effort.
Moreover, persistently high crude oil prices and the resulting high gas
prices have caused a renewed effort to look for innovative ways to
simplify the fuel distribution system.
Consequently, on April 25th, President Bush directed Administrator
Johnson to convene a Governors Boutique Fuels Task Force. All 50
Governors have been invited to participate. The task force will look to
assess various state and local clean fuel requirements and the effect the
requirements have on supply, quality, price, and air quality.
Last Thursday, Administrator Johnson held a conference call
initiating this process. Weekly meetings will be held, with our next
meeting scheduled with the task force May 12, where EPA staff will
present background information on fuel regulations, the different
boutique fuels in use in this country, the results of a 2001 review which
the Agency conducted on boutique fuels and other related information.
Over the coming weeks we are inviting the input of outside experts from
industry, public health organizations, and other interested parties. We
also expect to hold a number of technical staff meetings to help EPA
prepare a draft report for the task force's review in mid-June.
This ambitious schedule will put us on track to provide the President
with our final report within 8 weeks. The key elements of the report
should include, a summary of the process we utilized to review boutique
fuels; information on actions that have already been undertaken,
including EPA's 2001 boutique fuel report and provisions required by
the Energy Act; our current understanding of the use and utility of
boutique fuels; stakeholder opinion and feedback; and options,
recommendations and additional information needs.
The options in the report will be designed to help the President meet
his overall goal of simplifying and unifying the fuel regulation system
and increasing cooperation among states on gasoline supply decisions.
Conclusion
In closing, this year's gasoline situation has had some unique
influencing factors beyond the normal winter-to-summer gasoline
transition practices. For example, the market underwent withdrawal of
MTBE from RFG market areas, and the addition of ethanol into those
RFG areas that had previously used MTBE. This MTBE-to-ethanol
transition lead to some additional tank management practices to prepare
for the new products. Crude oil prices also hit historic highs. These
factors, among others, provided for unusual market conditions. Despite
these conditions, the market has managed the transition effectively and
maintained the integrity and benefits of important environmental
programs.
It is important to note that although a number of states have banned
the use of MTBE, there is no federal ban. Refiners of RFG who have
phased out the use of MTBE have done so through their own decisions.
Of course, now that the RFG oxygenate requirement has been eliminated,
refiners are free to produce RFG with or without an oxygenate.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
Committee for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on these
important issues. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes himself
for the first 5 minutes of questions. The first question to you, Dr.
Gruenspecht. I have seen different numbers about what U.S. domestic
refinery capacity actually is. I have seen a number as low as 15 million
barrels per day and I have seen a number as high as about 17-1/2 million
barrels per day. According to the EIA, what is U.S. domestic refinery
capacity right now?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Our current number is about 17.3 million
barrels.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Push that button there.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Our number is 17.3 million barrels of
distillation capacity. As you well know, there are all different types of
units at refineries, but typically, you measure at the distillation level.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So the official number is 17.3?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That is our current number.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. All right. What is the demand for refined
products per day in the United States? We have got capacity for 17.3.
What is our demand for the products that the refineries produce?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That is a good one. I am trying to think
through that because our total petroleum demand is, you know, about 20-
1/2 million barrels a day, but that includes some of the liquid petroleum
gasses and other things that don't come through the refinery. My
colleague here tells me 18.5 would be a good number, 18.5 million
barrels.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Why wouldn't it be 20 or 21?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Because again, petroleum includes things like
some propane and other liquid petroleum gasses, some of which come
out of natural gas production facilities and never go into a refinery.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, what I am trying to get at, one of your
statements was the crack spread, which I am going to give you an
opportunity to define, because that is not what most Americans think it
is.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Okay.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. But before we get there, I want to determine
what the refinery production demand spread is and according to you or
EIA, it would seem to be about a million and a half barrels per day, as
opposed to three or four million barrels per day.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. We import some products, if that is what you
are trying to say, what we have to import in the way of petroleum
products. We import, I think, about 10 percent of our gasoline, which is
close to a million barrels a day of gasoline. I think we are also maybe
importing some small amounts of distillate heating fuel and diesel.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And would it be fair to say if we could
increase domestic refinery capacity by two million barrels per day, we
would be self-sufficient in refined product capacity in this country?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Two million barrels per day of capacity, again,
assuming the utilization maintained at the current level, I think would
allow us to refine the products that we consume. But again, we would
not then be taking advantage of some of the things, like in Europe, the
shift over to diesel cars, which has given them more gasoline.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Than it is as a--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, if you wanted to do that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. If you were me and you were setting a goal to
be self-sufficient in refinery capacity for our domestic demand in this
country, the goal would be an increase of around two million barrels per
day?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That sounds about right to me.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Now, let us go to the crack spread.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Okay.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would you explain in layman's terms what
that is when you relate it to refinery?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. If you take the value of a barrel of gasoline on
the wholesale market and compare that to the value of a barrel of crude
oil on the wholesale market, the spread between those two prices is the
crack spread.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And what has it been historically? What
would be considered an adequate spread to make a reasonable profit? I
know the answer, at least I think I do.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, it varies by time of year, first of all, but I
think for this time of year, a 20 cent per gallon gasoline crack spread
would be considered right.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Convert that to barrels.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Times 42 would be $9.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. $8 or $9.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. $8 or $9.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What is it now?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Significantly higher than that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. How much significantly higher?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is probably a good $8 or $9 higher than that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. All right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I mean, $10 higher than that, perhaps.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Wouldn't it be even higher than that?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, I haven't looked today, but--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, look. Have your staff look today. If I
were to tell you that it was around $30 a barrel, what would you say?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. $30 a barrel, I think, would be a little high.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, find out.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Probably $18; 45 times 42 is $20, maybe $21 a
barrel.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. There is no question then.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is a lot higher than--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. If you have a refinery that is operating today,
you are doing okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. You are making good money. Doing very
well.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. You are paying the rent with a little extra for
contingencies.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And indeed, you know, as I indicated in my
testimony, the financial incentives for expanding--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. My time has expired, but my last question, is
there any other part of the distribution chain today, in the American
domestic market, that has a spread as large as the crack spread at the
refinery output level?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Not at the crude oil.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. No.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Not at the retail.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. You are talking about the distribution margin.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So when we look at the--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. The people who own gas stations are not
making that kind of margin. If you are looking at the distribution
margin, no, they are not.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. My time has expired. I recognize Mr.
Boucher.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you in particular for that interesting set of questions. I intend to
pursue some of the answers to those questions, as well. Before I do that,
though, Mr. Gruenspecht, let me direct your attention to another matter
and one that also might serve our country usefully in order to reduce the
price at the pump for gasoline, and that is the potential to have coal to
liquid fuels. Mr. Shimkus and I both have a very strong interest in
utilizing to a far greater extent our Nation's plentiful reserves of coal.
We are beginning to see ways that that is happening already in the
generation of electricity with new technologies for coal gasification. But
my understanding is that a great opportunity also exists to utilize coal to
manufacture a liquid fuel that can displace petroleum and be used
directly to power transportation. Can you tell us, is such a technology,
given the price of oil in the United States today, would it be economic?
Can such a technology be employed in an economically feasible way
given today's petroleum prices?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, I can. We do a long-term outlook, as you
know, and this year we have raised substantially our oil price projections
and in this year's long-term outlook for the first time we have coal-to-
liquids coming in, so coal-to-liquids, we believe, at the reference case oil
price path that we envision, would be economically competitive. There
are many issues involved with siting the plants.
MR. BOUCHER. That is all understood, but at what price per barrel of
oil do coal-to-liquid fuels become price competitive?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I believe that investors would want to know
that prices would be $40 per barrel or higher for a sustained period of
time.
MR. BOUCHER. And do you see prices being at $40 per barrel or
higher here for a sustained period of time?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Our long-term reference projection is for prices
at that level or higher.
MR. BOUCHER. And so given that economic reality, what interests
are the companies that have expertise in converting coal to liquid fuel is
now showing in developing that technology in the United States, that has
a long experience in South Africa with that technology and with that
market, might be a case in point.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I have not been following the individual
companies closely, but I do know that some projects are under
consideration. I know there is a project in Wyoming that is under
consideration. I know there are some projects, I believe, in Pennsylvania
that are under consideration.
MR. BOUCHER. And the private sector is showing some genuine
interest in this?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think there is some interest.
MR. BOUCHER. I would like to invite your attention to specific
company activity and if you could become apprised of that and report to
us, that would be extremely helpful. Let me move to another subject.
Can you tell us today how much the political risk for instability in Iran
contributes to the price of petroleum?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. As you probably heard at the hearing last week,
there are really a whole set of factors that are driving oil prices.
Geopolitical risk is one of them. Iran is one of those geopolitical risks.
MR. BOUCHER. I am asking you to quantify that to some extent.
Can you do that?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I am really not able to separate out Iran from
the--
MR. BOUCHER. Can you quantify the general geopolitical risk?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, there is also the issue of low surplus
capacity to produce oil, so at other times when there has been more
surplus capacity, geopolitical risk would be less of a concern, so again, it
is hard to separate out.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, give me the circumstance we confront today.
Given the capacity that is available today, given the price of petroleum
that we have today, can you give us a range of the percent of that price
that is attributable to political risk generally?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I would actually have a hard time doing that.
MR. BOUCHER. All right, let me move to another question.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Um-hum.
MR. BOUCHER. We have already heard, in response to your answers
to Chairman Barton, that we are importing today about 2 million barrels
of refined product, gasoline coming into the U.S. to meet our 20 million
barrel per day demand. Is that number correct? If not, please give us the
correct number.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think we are probably importing a little bit
less than two million barrels of refined product--between one and two is
the right number.
MR. BOUCHER. All right, between one and two. Is there a
difference in price for imported product as compared to domestically
produced product and if so, what is that number?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. There does need to be an arbitrage spread
between the U.S. market and the European market to bring product in,
but the U.S. market clears that at one price.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, so you are saying the refined product that
comes in from abroad comes in at the American domestic price, is that
correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I am saying if we need refined product from
abroad to meet our demand, then the U.S. market price is going to be
equal to the price that we pay for that overseas plus the cost of
transportation.
MR. BOUCHER. If there is really no difference in price, then why
would an outage of American refining capacity result as it did last
August in a dramatic one-up in gasoline prices?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, first of all, there is a time lag in the
process. In fact, last fall, as I recall, tremendous amounts of imports did
come in from Europe and that was one of the reasons why prices fell
dramatically following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita after they initially
rose. So I do think that in some places the world market does help us,
but needing to go out to the world market does mean that, you know, we
need to have prices high enough to attract those imports of product.
MR. BOUCHER. My presumption here is that there is a difference in
price between the refined product imported from overseas and the refined
product created domestically here, if for no other reason, then because of
transportation. Any information that you have concerning that difference
in price would be extremely helpful to us. And Mr. Chairman, I detect
that my time has expired and I thank you for your indulgence.
MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding] It is always educational to listen to my
colleague, Mr. Boucher's, questions and I do appreciate them. But he
didn't allow you to answer one of the dilemmas on coal-to-liquid, which
is the siting of a refinery and the cost to do that, Dr. Gruenspecht, and as
we debated on the floor last week, that was part of that debate. I mean,
the capital investment for coal-to-liquid, you are correct. It is about $40
a barrel. Someone says $35 to $45. The projection of the return over the
advertised amount over whatever the return would be 10 to 20 years plus
the capital risk, that is why the refinery bill is so important, because there
is a coal-to-liquid refinery provision as part of the overall refinery debate
and I guess we will get a chance to debate that again.
And I understand your inability to quantify risk because that is what
the futures market does. I mean, that is where the futures markets really,
they are the ones that are taking capital in a transparent process and
trying to make an assumption of what the risk is and that is not in your
arena, nor are you risking your own capital to do that. But let me go to
in your testimony in the debate and discussion on transition from MTBE
to ethanol and you specifically mentioned a very tight ethanol market
limited by short-run ethanol production capacity. Can you elaborate on
this statement specifically where we are now in terms of supply and what
the market is demanding?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Okay, let me try to do that. In 2005 the
demand for ethanol ran about 263,000 barrels a day. Replacing MTBE
in the reformulated gasoline that it was used in would require about
130,000 barrels a day of ethanol. So if, and this is an important if, if you
kept all the ethanol that was used in 2005 where it was used in 2005, and
tried to use that 130,000 barrels a day, you would need about 390,000
barrels a day. That is not what has happened. In February, ethanol
supply was up around 302,000 barrels a day.
What is being done is ethanol is being moved out of conventional
gasoline blends in the Midwest, so called E10 or gasohol, I think was the
old term, and some of that ethanol is being taken and moved to the
reformulated gasoline areas. So in fact, the ethanol is getting to where it
is needed to substitute for MTBE, but the amount of ethanol being used
in conventional areas is being reduced. So again, like all these questions,
the answer ends up being somewhat more complicated.
MR. SHIMKUS. What kind of capacity increases are we looking at
within the next six months? I mean, there is a lot of planned facilities,
built and on line, so what is your projection?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I had thought we were at a number like 50,000
barrels a day over the next six months, I think, is in the ball park and I
think there is even more coming on line by the beginning of 2007, so yes,
I think there were 33 plants under construction as of the beginning of this
year.
MR. SHIMKUS. I think that number is close. Let us talk about the
imports, then. That is going to be a debatable issue, so what about, how
much are we importing today?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think we had, I always go barrels and gallons.
I think we imported something like 80 million gallons so far this year
from the Caribbean basin countries. I think altogether, putting it on the
same terms I have been talking to before, from the Caribbean and from
Brazil, it is about 22,000 barrels a day.
MR. SHIMKUS. And what do you think this will increase to based
upon demand and the changing markets?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. My understanding is that the world ethanol
market is pretty tight this year and while there could be some increases,
we are not expecting very large increases.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would the gentleman yield?
MR. SHIMKUS. If I have to.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, you don't have to.
MR. SHIMKUS. Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What would the impact be if we suspended the
tariff on imported ethanol temporarily, say, for 12 months or 24 months?
What would that impact be on amounts imported and the domestic price
of ethanol?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. When the market is in balance, the domestic
price of ethanol, if you look, is pretty much the price of gasoline plus the
value of the tax credit. That is what the price of ethanol has been
running when the market is in balance. That is what the price of ethanol
is right now. That makes sense because in the Midwest areas of
conventional gasoline, someone is deciding whether to mix ethanol in or
not, and what they are going to look at is can I make my fuel cheaper by
adding this or not adding this? My guess would be that in the short run,
you might get some more ethanol imports, but it is not a tremendous
quantity, maybe 10,000 barrels a day, 20,000 barrels a day more, and
what you would find is that ethanol would go back in to the Midwest
gasoline that it has been taken out of to use in reformulated gasoline
blending and that the price probably wouldn't change all that much.
MR. SHIMKUS. And I would concur with that analysis.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, you know, sometimes what we have to
say is good news for people and sometimes it is not. In the longer run
suspending the tariff could make a bigger difference.
MR. SHIMKUS. The tariff is not impacting the ability of people who
want to import ethanol into this country to do that. The demand is there.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I am an economist but I wouldn't go that far. I
think right now the market is pretty tight and the potential for the
quantity to go up I think is limited in the short run. I think the price is
driven by this blending of conventional gasoline in the Midwest and the
price wouldn't change much. I think over time it could make a
significant difference.
MR. SHIMKUS. Let me follow up on this line of questioning, as far
as the transportation issue and the transportation and the blending
infrastructure. What is your projection as far as the time needed to
switch in these two arenas to ensure that ethanol is getting where it needs
to get to? Or is there a problem?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. My sense is that there have been some
problems. In our February paper, we talked about the lower East Coast
and Texas as being the two places likely to have problems. Those I think
turned out to be the case and I think Texas is still having some difficulty.
MR. SHIMKUS. Currently, how is ethanol being transported?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think by railcar, barge, and some tanker truck,
where you have real bottlenecks.
MR. SHIMKUS. So you don't believe that some of the alternative to
pipelines is not meeting up with the demand?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think there have been some transitional
issues. I think most of the transition is behind us. There are still some
stumbling blocks. It still needs to be watched closely.
MR. SHIMKUS. Let me quickly, I still have a minute left, go to Mr.
Wehrum from the EPA. As I understand your written testimony, on page
two, EPA does not view alternative fuels that may be required as part of
an energy strategy, such as ethanol or biodiesel, to be boutique fuel. Is
that correct?
MR. WEHRUM. Mr. Chairman, we define a boutique, or at least we
use that term in EPA, to mean a particular kind of fuel and it is one that
is adopted by a State or a local area for purposes of improving air
quality, and that is approved into the State Implementation Plan for
which we require States to have to show how they are going to meet our
air quality standards.
MR. SHIMKUS. Through the SIP call, through the State
Implementation Plan.
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct. A boutique, as we define it, is a fuel
that is approved as a control measure in the State Implementation Plan.
MR. SHIMKUS. If a State or locality has a requirement in place
related to ethanol and biodiesel and that requirement has positive benefits
for reducing air pollution in the Clean Air Act nonattainment areas like
St. Louis or Chicago, I assume the EPA would consider the benefits of
those fuels in evaluating the SIP plan, is that correct?
MR. WEHRUM. Well, I would answer that question in two ways. In
nonattainment areas, those that don't meet our air quality standards,
measures that are adopted into the implementation plan are the measures
that are considered for purposes of judging whether the plan is sufficient
to bring the area into compliance. So if an ethanol-blended fuel, for
instance, were not a part of the SIP, then it would not be considered in
that way. Having said that, if an ethanol blend is being used, whatever
effect it is having on air quality would be manifested in the values that
are measured by the monitors in the area and would be reflected in that
way.
MR. SHIMKUS. Yes, and I will end on this. Like biodiesel, the 20/80
mix, it is a 50 percent reduction in emittants and so we talk about
renewable fuels, we talk about ethanol, but really biodiesel is another
great renewable fuel that has some positive benefits. Let me now turn to
my colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 8 minutes.
MS. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see you in the
Chairman's chair.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thanks. It is good to be here.
MS. ESHOO. Yes. Welcome to the witnesses. This is a very
important hearing and I appreciate the fact that the Chairman of our
committee has begun the examination and we need to have a very good
one, not only to examine the issues, but to understand them better,
because there are many complexities. So I am going to try to get into
some of the complexities. One of the issues that many constituents have
raised with me, and I can't help but notice we go driving through the
areas at home and you see the gas stations. They are really only a
handful of companies and I can't help but think that there is fierce
competition in my district in terms of high technology, but I don't see the
kind of competition amongst the oil companies. In your examination of
things over at the EIA, have you examined the whole issue of
competition or the lack thereof, and the impact that that has overall, or do
you not examine that?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That is generally not within our purview. The
Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, I know the President
has--
MS. ESHOO. No, I am not talking about potential violations of
antitrust.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MS. ESHOO. In fact, I don't really think that matters.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Okay.
MS. ESHOO. I don't think they have to collude. I think that there
are so few and that there has been such a consolidation in the industry, that,
amongst a few, if one is going to raise the price, they know their brother
friend across the street that represents that oil company are going to raise
their prices too, but since that is not something under your purview,
maybe it will be with people that come in to testify. But I think it is
something that the committee should examine, because I do think that it
is part of this overall challenge that we are facing.
I would like to read something in to the record and I will obviously
be calling it to your attention at the same time. One of the issues, and it
has come up today and it is a legitimate one to examine, is the whole
issue of capacity at our U.S. refineries. This is a Reuters article that was
published January 25 of this year, and I am just going to, if I can, Mr.
Chairman, submit the entire article for the record, but I would like to
read part of it to you, "An ExxonMobil Corporation official told
congressional aides this week" now remember, this was dated January 25
"that flat North American demand for gasoline forecast through 2030
means there is no need to build new U.S. refineries, a congressional
source told Reuters on Wednesday. Scott Melman, manager of Exxon's
economics and energy division, on Tuesday briefed aides with the U.S.
House Energy and Commerce Committee" and I understand it was
bipartisan staff "on the company's oil demand outlook. According to a
committee staff member who attended. 'Exxon said they don't want to
build any new refineries in North America because of flat demand for
petroleum products by 2030,' the staff member said, speaking on a
condition of anonymity."
So would you comment on this? I mean, because this is something
that is constantly brought up in the debate in the Congress when we talk
about energy, that we need to drill our way to energy independence, that
we have environmental laws that obstruct refineries from being built in
the country, which have an effect on our overall energy scene. Would
you comment on this?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Sure. Our view is that there will be growth in
demand for refined products in the United States, in the long run. It is
also our understanding that there is a significant interest in the industry in
adding to refinery capacity, if not necessarily building entirely new
greenfield refineries. And I mentioned earlier in my testimony that there
is by our count, at least one and a half million barrels per day of
announced projects, and that is not to 2030, that is between now and
2009, 2010.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, would the gentlelady yield?
MS. ESHOO. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What is the demand projection increase? Can
you give us specific numbers and within a timeline?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Sure. We have petroleum demand growing to
about 26 million barrels a day by 2030.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. From the current 20?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. From the current 20.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Is it a straight-line increase of 1 to 2 percent a
year, approximately?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I would have to look that up and check for the
record.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, that is important.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Because if Exxon is saying, in the year 2030
which is 24 years from now, demand will finally flatten out, that may be
true.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Historically in the United States demand has
gone up at least 1 percent and in some years as high as 3 percent, we are
going to be using a lot more refined products in this country in 2030.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MS. ESHOO. Glad to, Mr. Chairman. In this article, a spokesman for
ExxonMobil, Mark Budrow, said that the fact that the company is not
seeking to build new refineries is "very consistent with what we have
been saying for quite some time. We think the most cost-efficient and
effective way, the fastest way to add capacity in the United States is to
refine our own refineries," Budrow said. Do you know what refine our
own refineries means? Refine our own refineries. I mean, is that--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I take it that means improve and round out the
refineries. And again, companies do differ among themselves. I mean,
you have some companies that are very aggressive in refining--
MS. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, on this point of the whole issue of
refineries, capacity in our country, we really should have representatives
from the oil companies here to answer these questions. I mean, there are
only a handful of them, but it is--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. They will be here tomorrow.
MS. ESHOO. But I think the institute is going to be, a trade
association is going to be here.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We have got API and both big national groups
are having their Washington head of their office here tomorrow.
MS. ESHOO. The CEOs will be here?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I haven't said that yet.
MS. ESHOO. Well, that is what I am suggesting.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. But I mean Red Cavaney and Bob Slaughter,
who both head the National Refiners Institute and the American
Petroleum Institute, will be here tomorrow sitting right where those two
gentlemen are.
MS. ESHOO. Are those trade associations?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes.
MS. ESHOO. All right. To Mr.--is it Wehrum?
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct.
MS. ESHOO. On the whole issue of boutique fuels, we had a very,
very good debate and discussion when we were drawing up legislation
here at the committee. That was passed. Can you tell us, as representing
the EPA, how that is working today, how effective our legislation was,
relative to boutique fuels?
MR. WEHRUM. Congresswoman, you are referring to the Energy
Policy Act of 2005?
MS. ESHOO. Right. Yes.
MR. WEHRUM. We are aggressively implementing several aspects of
the Energy Policy Act that are relevant to the fuels program. I think first
and foremost the renewable fuel standard, EPAct as we call it, Energy
Policy Act, required EPA to develop and implement a program that
would require specified amounts of renewable fuels to be blended in to
the gasoline supply on an annual basis, beginning with the year 2006.
MS. ESHOO. Yes.
MR. WEHRUM. We have adopted a rule, just for the year 2006,
which we believe assures compliance with the mandate and right now are
moving quickly to adopt or propose to publish a proposed regulation and
as soon as we can after that promulgate that action that will set out the
comprehensive program that would be effective from 2006 and beyond.
MS. ESHOO. So we are still in the process of developing how it is
going to be administered?
MR. WEHRUM. As I said, Congresswoman, we moved in a step-wise
fashion and--
MS. ESHOO. I want to understand where it is.
MR. WEHRUM. Certainly. And the first step that we took was to
adopt a rule that applied specifically for calendar year 2006. The
mandate began to apply in--
MS. ESHOO. Yes.
MR. WEHRUM. --calendar year 2006, and that rule was published
and is effective and establishes a nationwide compliance mechanism for--
MS. ESHOO. Is this on boutique fuels, though, the question that I
asked?
MR. WEHRUM. This is the renewable fuels standard.
MS. ESHOO. No, on boutique fuels.
MR. WEHRUM. It is not specific to boutiques, but it is--
MS. ESHOO. But that was my question.
MR. WEHRUM. Okay.
MS. ESHOO. That was my question. So if you could address my
question?
MR. WEHRUM. Sure.
MS. ESHOO. I appreciate the other information, but I would like to
know about boutique fuels, because it is an area that has been raised in
terms of cost.
MR. WEHRUM. Sure.
MS. ESHOO. And we are talking about gasoline prices, so I would
like to know where the Administration is with this.
MR. WEHRUM. Sure. The provision most specific to boutique fuels
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a requirement for EPA to develop
and publish a list of the boutique fuels that currently exist in the various
State and local programs, and the effect of that listing would be to limit
the number of boutiques that could be approved after that point.
MS. ESHOO. Actually, you were supposed to come up with that list
nine days after the legislation was enacting. It is now May of 2006. This
is a long time ago. So, Mr. Chairman, I see that I have gone over my
time.
MR. HALL. [Presiding] We used some of your time, though. I will
allow you another 30 seconds.
MS. ESHOO. Well, I think that I am just as frustrated as my
constituents. It is very difficult, I think, for anyone that is listening to
this hearing today to extract from it why we are where we are in our
country. I mean, just a very simple question about boutique fuels which
is going to come up in the debate, and there may even be legislative
directives about this, we addressed here some time ago, and for me to
hear that the EPA is working on coming up with a list, really falls far
short. So it really is not encouraging. And so I am just going to stop and
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. We have got a lot of
work to do.
MR. HALL. I thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Bono.
MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Dr. Gruenspecht, could you help
me understand a little bit about the way in which domestic oils come to
market? A mom and pop well gets their oil out. Then what happens?
Who is the person that comes to the mom and pop wellhead and picks up
that oil? What is that person called? What is that company called?
They come and they bring their truck. It is not a wholesaler, is it just a
transportation company? Is that all they are, generally speaking?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I would assume it is something like that.
MS. BONO. So for example, Marathon Oil. So does the mom and
pop domestic producer, is there competition with who might come? Can
they sell their oil to multiple buyers, or is there some that it is almost a
monopoly, they can only sell, generally speaking, to one company? And
the reason I ask this is I don't quite understand the domestic producer,
the spread in which they are paid has changed dramatically.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. In some cases that does apply. Sometimes that
has to do with demand for a particular grade of oil. If a particular
refinery that uses a particular grade of oil, say, is down for maintenance,
it can affect what a particular producer can get for that oil.
MS. BONO. But you know, then you would think it would be a spike
or a certain thing. In my opening statement, I mentioned giving
incentives to independent producers. Right now the rising spread
between West Texas intermediate and other domestic oil is different. In
Illinois, it is about $8. In Wyoming, it can get to $25 to $20. So I am
trying to figure out what justifies that spread, and the spread has
changed. It hasn't been spiking. The spread has changed continuously
up and the domestic producers are saying it is hard to get sympathy right
now in this business, but they are saying they are finally making money,
they are able to reinvest that money in aging equipment, that they
couldn't do--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MS. BONO. --when the price of oil was too low. So now they are
reinvesting the profits they are having, but the spread keeps changing and
the domestic producer is seeing less and less, compared to what the
Chairman was saying about the refineries, and clearly the transportation
people, or whatever they are called--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MS. BONO. --are taking it from the wellhead to the refineries.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, I am not sure it is necessarily the
transportation issue. I mean, the same thing is observed on the market,
the spread between light oil and heavy oil, say, which is maybe a
different spread than the one you are talking about. That had been as
narrow as $2 to $3 a barrel and now it is up to very high levels. The
spread has opened up because the higher quality, most in demand oils
that produce the most light products, given the type of refining capacity,
their value has skyrocketed relative to the heavier oils, less desirable oils
that are more difficult to process. This is not just something
domestically; this is something in the worldwide market.
MS. BONO. But the gravity of the west Texas oil might be better
than, say, Illinois crude.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MS. BONO. Yet Illinois has less sulfur, and that has not changed.
That was the same way before--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. No.
MS. BONO. --this market, so why now is the spread--and I think this-
-like the Chairman's finding, money from the refineries and the spread
has gone irrationally high and the same thing here, it is money. It is
again added into the price to the consumer, that people don't even realize
it is happening and I think somebody ought to look at these spreads, that
the domestic producers--it is not their fault. Oftentimes, they are seeing
lower and lower profits. I mean, yes, they are increasing, but compared
to everybody else in the supply chain.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, this is something we have been asked to
look into in the past and we do look into. But again, we find that there
really is an extra high premium on the very high quality oil right now,
and that is maybe part of what these producers are seeing. Again, we
will look into it for you.
MS. BONO. I would appreciate that very much, and if you could
respond in writing, that would be very helpful to me. Thank you and I
yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. I thank the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
MR. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wehrum, in your
written testimony, you and Mr. Gruenspecht both discussed how States
and localities benefit from adopting area-specific clean fuel blends. As
you both noted, these cleaner fuels improve air quality and are often far
less costly than other pollution control options, including opting into
Federal reformulated gas requirements. Yet Section 1541 of the energy
bill passed last August sharply limits States' ability to adopt clean fuels
requirements. It does this in two ways. First it freezes the total number
of unique State fuels. This will prevent States from requiring any new
clean fuel blend unless an existing blend is dropped. Second, the energy
law bars States from requiring even an existing clean fuel blend to be
used in new areas of the country. The only exception is for one specified
low volatility fuel type. Do you agree that together these existing
provisions will substantially limit any additional State clean fuel
requirements?
MR. WEHRUM. Congressman, we, as I noted a moment ago, are still
in the process of developing the list of boutique fuels that is required by
the Energy Policy Act. Clearly the Energy Policy Act limited the
number of boutiques that are available to be approved in the future.
MR. WAXMAN. That is the question I had. So these two provisions
in the energy bill in August will limit the number of boutiques. You
haven't finalized the answer.
MR. WEHRUM. Yes, they will, Congressman.
MR. WAXMAN. Now, do you believe it is important to involve the
States which rely on benefits from these fuels in any discussion of
whether and how to further limit State fuels? That is the President's
approach under the Governors Task Force, right?
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct, Congressman.
MR. WAXMAN. Now the majority of Republicans here are talking
about adopting a new bill to further limit States' authority to require
clean burning gasoline. It appears they want to pass this bill by late May
or early June. Your process with the Governors won't be completed by
then, will it?
MR. WEHRUM. We intend to complete our process by the end of
June, Congressman.
MR. WAXMAN. By the end of June. Now, if the majority wants to
further limit clean fuels, about all that is left to do is to block any State
from ever adopting a clean fuel blend that--in the future, or to force
States to eliminate their existing requirements. The States have asked to
testify on any such proposal but have never been permitted to do so.
Now the Majority wants to short circuit the President's process to
involve the States, and today we have learned EIA is testifying that
restricting the number of fuel blends too much could actually raise gas
prices. Seizing State authorities and circumventing the States'
involvement is contrary to the principles of cooperative federalism, on
which the Clean Air Act is based; thus in itself is objectionable. But
doing this in the name of high gas prices is simply foolish. State fuels
requirements were never the problem. Even if they had been, Congress
just passed a bill to strictly limit such requirements, and limiting them
further may raise, not lower, gas prices. I put that out for my colleagues
and for the two of you to listen to, because I think we are moving this
thing in this legislation so quickly that I don't think we are really going
to get a full input from the States, and I fear that if we make the wrong
decision, we are going to get the exact contrary of the result of what we
are trying to achieve. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate both
of your testimony, and I did want to point out what you had put in your
written statements to us. I yield back the balance of my time.
MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman. The Chairman recognizes the
gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Myrick, for 5 minutes.
MS. MYRICK. Since I had to leave the room, Mr. Chairman, I will
pass on this round.
MR. HALL. I will recognize myself for a quick question of Mr.
Wehrum, if I might ask you. Federal law, a certain part of the Energy
Policy Act, requires the Government to examine, and I guess that means
a study before they examine it and examine it as they study it, options to
enhance flexibility in the fuel distribution infrastructure, reduce price
volatility and cost to consumers, provide increased liquidity to the
gasoline market, and enhance fuel quality consistency and supply. How
far along is the Administration in their completion of this study?
MR. WEHRUM. Congressman, we are currently consulting with DOE
and preparing to implement that study and fully intend to complete it by
August, which is the statutory deadline.
MR. HALL. August of this year?
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct, Congressman.
MR. HALL. And would it be possible to accelerate the work, get it a
little earlier for us? Some of us are rushing toward November.
MR. WEHRUM. We will move as expeditiously as we can manage,
Congressman.
MR. HALL. That is what I am asking. One other question to--I guess
also to you. Will any of the boutique fuels currently approved and used
today become functionally identical to the Federal fuels requirements,
and would they then no longer be considered boutique?
MR. WEHRUM. Congressman, the answer to the first question is we
believe the answer is yes, and Atlanta is a good case in point, which has
a combination of volatility standards and sulfur standards in place for
gasoline, and we believe, once our Federal programs have been fully
implemented, that the Atlanta program and the Federal program will be
very consistent as it applies to those requirements. In answer to the
second question, the boutique standard would remain part of the State
Implementation Plan unless and until the State requested that it be
removed and EPA approved that request. So there is not an automatic
mechanism that would make it go away.
MR. HALL. I thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wehrum, the President
made a televised speech address in response to the public outrage on
gasoline prices and he was going to direct the EPA to take a number of
actions, like waivers, to try and reduce the prices. The State of Texas
asked for a waiver from the RFG requirements due to the ethanol supply
problems mentioned by the EIA in their testimony. A number of States
like Virginia didn't ask for the waiver, since EPA staff said they
wouldn't get one. Other States don't think they will get a waiver, since
they haven't heard back, despite the President's speech. Do you know a
timeframe for Texas to get a response, when you consider the fact that
the EIA says the ethanol transition in Texas is the most difficult in the
entire Nation?
MR. WEHRUM. Congressman, the President has asked Administrator
Johnson and ourselves to act quickly and aggressively on requests for
waivers of fuel standards under the Energy Policy Act provision. To my
knowledge, we actually have not received an official request from the
State of Texas. Having said that, there has been a tremendous amount of
dialogue between folks on my staff and various officials in the State of
Texas, as well as the fuel producers and suppliers and distributors, to
understand the situation and make a judgment as to whether a waiver is
appropriate under the standards set by the Energy Policy Act. And to
date, the information we have received indicates that, at least to this
point, it doesn't appear that a waiver is necessary.
MR. GREEN. Okay. But do you know you haven't received a
request from the State of Texas?
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct, Congressman.
MR. GREEN. Okay, I will follow up on that. Mr. Gruenspecht, your
testimony notes that we have a very tight ethanol market due to limited
ethanol production capacity and that this is causing some Midwest
ethanol to be shifted to RFG areas, which many are major urban areas
outside the Corn Belt, and again, Houston, Texas, and we benefited from
reformulated gas, although it is all MTBE up until recently. Many States
in the Midwest have state-level ethanol mandates. Do these mandates
have the potential to limit the flexibility to move ethanol around where it
is needed?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is our view that there is enough flexibility.
There is enough ethanol that can be moved, that would be moved, but
there definitely are logistical challenges in moving it. It is less the State
policies that are the logistical challenges of moving the ethanol out of the
Midwest.
MR. GREEN. So logistical is a bigger problem than a State--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think logistical is the big problem this year.
MR. GREEN. You know, I have information, for example, that in
Dallas, Texas, that there are railcars waiting to unload ethanol, but not
enough distribution facilities available. Do you have any knowledge of
that? Or any other urban areas like Dallas, Texas, that we have heard.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I understand that there are rail bottlenecks in
Dallas and that they need to use some tanker trucks to get the ethanol
around rather than directly off the train. So there are some difficulties,
but again, that is more the logistics category than the State mandates for
ethanol.
MR. GREEN. Yes. That was what I was following up on, because
our committee understood when we eliminated or didn't provide the
protection for MTBE, that you can't pipeline ethanol and that is what
you have when you can't pipeline it. Would you elaborate and discuss
on whether we can expect any increase in the ethanol production
capacity here along the Gulf Coast so we don't have to ship it from the
Midwest by rail or even tanker truck?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. This is really just out of news reports, but I
thought there was some discussion of ethanol production capacity, I
believe, in Louisiana, as I recall, but I am not sure what the timing is.
But I know that in the short run there is a lot of capacity planned, mostly
in the Midwest, and I think that the bulk of it would still come from the
Midwest.
MR. GREEN. Okay. So we still have problems with distribution
because I don't know if we are laying a lot of new rail lines, although I
know some distribution facilities are trying to ramp up, but you know,
the law--the energy bill was signed last August and here we are in the
middle of May almost and we are seeing those problems come to a head.
Could you give us some information on how the elimination of the
oxygenate mandate and the widespread use of MTBE is leading to an
increased reliance on gasoline imports, on the imports of both gasoline
but also the potential for importing ethanol? The question, I guess, is the
elimination of the oxygenate mandate and the elimination of--because we
use MTBE in so many areas in the country outside of the Midwest. Is
there any estimation of what would help us--what the percentage would
be for gasoline imports or ethanol imports?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, it is my understanding that there may be
some short-term increase in ethanol imports under current law, but the
bulk of the ethanol will be taken out of the Midwest, moved to the RFG
areas, and again, two-thirds of the RFG had already gone over to ethanol
before this year, in California, New York, Connecticut. The Midwest
was already ethanol-based RFG. It was really the East Coast, outside of
New York and Connecticut, and Texas that will still be MTBE areas. I
think there will probably be some extra conventional gasoline used in the
Midwest as the ethanol comes out of there and goes to the RFG areas in
Texas and the East Coast, outside of New York and Connecticut.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Shadegg.
MR. SHADEGG. Thank you. Mr. Gruenspecht, I want to clarify some
points in your testimony. Earlier this year, you issued a report, EIA did,
entitled, "Eliminating MTBE in Gasoline," in which you estimated that
U.S. domestic ethanol production would fall 130,000 barrels per day
short on average this year. Later in March, Administrator Caruso
testified before the Senate and reaffirmed that estimate. As I understand
your testimony today, you are reaffirming that estimate again. You are
saying that if we were to leave the current ethanol where it is currently
being consumed, we would fall 130,000 barrels per day short in the
remainder of the country. But as you explained in your testimony, what
is in fact happening is we are reducing the amount of ethanol used in the
Midwest and trying to ship it now, I guess, with logistic problems, to the
other areas of the country, is that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. We need to replace the MTBE. We need
130,000 barrels of ethanol. Ethanol production capacity is growing, but
it has not grown 130,000 barrels, so I wouldn't say, you know--
MR. SHADEGG. Just by your estimate, is that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That you need 130,000 barrels of ethanol to
replace the MTBE where it had been used, yes.
MR. SHADEGG. And I that I thought was based on your testimony, it
was 263,000 barrels per day produced in 2005. The need is 390,000
barrels per day, absent MTBE and that is where the 130,000 barrels per
day comes from, is that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That is adding up last year's supply and this
extra 130,000.
MR. SHADEGG. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And I mentioned that production capacity, or
production in February was about 302,000.
MR. SHADEGG. And in response to the Chairman's question, I
believe you indicated that--and I am not sure, he thought it was 10,000--I
thought I heard 20,000 barrels per day currently imported. Which was it
or do you know?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It's 22,000 barrels per day. I was doing it in
gallons and making the translation.
MR. SHADEGG. Yes, I heard that little discussion of 80 million
gallons.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Twenty-two thousand barrels a day total
ethanol imports.
MR. SHADEGG. Imports now?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Imports now.
MR. SHADEGG. And your belief was that that could climb by an
additional 10,000 to 20,000?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, in that neighborhood.
MR. SHADEGG. Which means it would nearly double?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. If it was 20,000, it would double.
MR. SHADEGG. It would in fact double. One of the issues is, well,
where would we get this additional ethanol, and I believe one of your
responses was, well, you understand the ethanol market worldwide is
tight right now. A fair amount of that ethanol is produced and consumed
in Brazil and as I understand it, Brazil recently reduced their ethanol
quotient or proportion from 25 percent to 20 percent, I believe, in
response to the tight market, is that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I understand that to be the case.
MR. SHADEGG. And that is like what you are talking about in the
Midwest right now, we are reducing the proportion of ethanol in gasoline
in the Midwest because of the demand for that ethanol elsewhere around
the country, is that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. On average, that is correct.
MR. SHADEGG. On average.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is not like it is reduced from 10 percent to a 9
percent blend. It is that there is less of the 10 percent blend being used.
MR. SHADEGG. Okay. My understanding would be that--two points
I want to make from that. One is, to the extent that ethanol helps clean
the air, wherever we reduce the use of ethanol in the Midwest, we are
losing the advantage that ethanol has for cleaner air, is that correct?
Maybe I would ask your colleague. I am sorry.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, I think he knows more about clean air
than I do.
MR. SHADEGG. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
MR. WEHRUM. Could you repeat your question, please,
Congressman?
MR. SHADEGG. The point is that under the current situation, because
we do not produce enough ethanol domestically to meet domestic
demand, we are in some locations reducing the amount of ethanol in the
country that is in the gasoline because it is being placed somewhere else.
That is going to lose the air cleaning advantages in those portions of the
country where we reduce reliance on ethanol, correct?
MR. WEHRUM. That is correct, Congressman.
MR. SHADEGG. The other question I had, back from you, Mr.
Gruenspecht, if Brazil, for example, were the import tariff to be lifted
temporarily on ethanol, that tariff that I spoke of, 2.5 percent plus 54
cents a gallon, there is at least a prospect that the market would cause
Brazil to say, well, it doesn't even need 20 percent ethanol in its
gasoline, it could go to 15 percent if the market price, world market price
for that ethanol made it more economical to sell it in the United States
than to consume it in Brazil.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I hate to speculate on U.S. policy, I really
hesitate to speculate on Brazilian policy, but I do follow your logic.
MR. SHADEGG. You follow the point. The point is, some people
say, well, there is no point in reducing the tariff because we are already
importing virtually all that is bring produced. My point is, the market
will decide that. With the tariff gone, the cost of selling that ethanol in
the United States would go down and the incentives to import it would
go up, which is why some of us are advocating that we ought to
eliminate that tariff at least temporarily. I don't advocate its permanent
elimination, but I believe, if we are looking for immediate solutions for
American consumers for this year, everything we can do we should be
doing and that is one of the things that is an option open to us. And at
least the President last week discussed the issue with several members in
Congress, isn't that correct?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, and I believe Secretary Bodman did as
well.
MR. SHADEGG. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Before we yield to Mr. Stupak, if we were to
eliminate the tariff, what is the estimate of the amount of ethanol that
could be expected to immediately be imported per day? In other words,
if we eliminate the tariff next week, when would you get a supply
response in the U.S. market and how big would it be?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, our review of the supply response is on
the order of 10,000 to 20,000 barrels a day and--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And how soon?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Relatively soon.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Within two weeks after the tariff was reduced?
I mean, it takes a certain amount of time.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, a certain amount of time to transit, but
Brazil is not that far.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And it wouldn't be next January?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. No, it could before that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It could be this summer?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It could be before then, yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. And I thought, in Brazil, the ethanol
used was 100 percent ethanol in their vehicles. Is it a blend? I thought
that they actually were an ethanol economy, but I am a little confused. Is
it like a 90/10 or an 80/20 blend and it is gasoline and ethanol?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I thought they have flex fuel vehicles, I believe,
to a significant extent.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. See, maybe I could just be wrong, but I
thought you could actually drive a vehicle in Brazil that used pure
ethanol, it is 100 percent ethanol.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. They use something like our E-85, I think.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So it is a gasoline/ethanol blend.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think they use a lot of gasoline/ethanol blend.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Mr. Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on that
question, even if we looked at the import of the E-85, is there a shortage
in America of the E-85 fuel? I mean, from where I live, it was not
around, I mean, if even you want to use it.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think what is being suggested is that if Brazil
would lower its proportion of ethanol use, they would not ship E-85 here,
they would ship ethanol here.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. So it would be the ethanol. It is about 10
percent in a regular gallon of gas?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is about 10 percent in gasohol and
reformulated gasoline, and there is lots of gasoline in this country that
doesn't use any ethanol at all.
MR. STUPAK. Correct, correct. Okay. Let me ask you another
question, Mr. Gruenspecht. Another question the Chairman had asked
earlier. In your testimony, you referred to the crack spread, the
difference between the value of a barrel of crude oil and an equal amount
of refined gas. The Chairman asked you about the spread and you
replied that the spread is currently about $20 per barrel but should be
closer to $8 to $9 a barrel, I thought you said. Where does the extra
money go? If it's $8--use $8 so it is easy math for me. $8, if it should be
$8, it is $20. Where does that extra $12 go?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, it is cost and profit of the refining sector
together. That is what the crack spread represents.
MR. STUPAK. So the 12 bucks would go to refiners?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Profitability in the refining sector is much
better than it has been historically. And indeed that is again why we are
seeing more interest in refinery capacity additions.
MR. STUPAK. So when you speak about September 2004 until
September 2005, there is evidence that the refinery costs went up 255
percent in this country. Would part of that be because of this crack
spread?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, I think that is a discussion I believe you
had with Secretary Bodman.
MR. STUPAK. Yes.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, this is a Washington Post number.
MR. STUPAK. Article, correct.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Article. I am trying to get a handle on that.
Let us see where we are on this.
MR. STUPAK. Yes, when the Secretary testified, he said he would
get back with us. We are still awaiting the answers to our questions.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes. Again, it is the crack spread. It was
clearly heavily influenced since September 2005 by the effects of
Hurricane Katrina. As I recall, the pipelines--including the Plantation
pipeline--were down. U.S. refiners lost about four million barrels a day
of capacity, so, yes, the value of a barrel of gasoline, with a loss of 25
percent of U.S. refining capacity, shot up dramatically.
MR. STUPAK. We had hoped that 255 percent just wouldn't be from
Hurricane Katrina, which hit on August 31 and the 1st of 2005. I am
talking about September 2004 until September 2005. So Katrina, if it
had that dramatic of an effect, would have to make that effect in 30 days
or 31 days and we are talking about a whole year's spread.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, actually, it is my understanding that the
calculation that you are describing, I realize it is not yours, it is a
Washington Post calculation, was comparing the average crack spread in
September 2004 to a single day crack spread of September 5, which was
Labor Day in 2005.
MR. STUPAK. Sure. So if you are using this crack spread and if you
are using Hurricane Katrina--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. --and if it represents a 255 percent increase, when it
should be $8 a barrel, probably, as opposed to--it had to be more than 20
bucks a barrel then, and you did take advantage of Hurricane Katrina as
an excuse to jack up those prices, or to increase the spread, as we would
say.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, given the tremendous loss in the
capability to produce gasoline, it is not surprising that the price of
gasoline rose dramatically.
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And to the extent that the price of crude oil did
not rise that dramatically, in part because of policy to release or make oil
available from the strategic petroleum reserve--
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --that spread would naturally open up.
Unfortunately, there was less of an opportunity to offset the effect of
Katrina on refined product prices than on crude oil prices.
MR. STUPAK. Sure. Let us go to the transition of winter fuels to the
summer fuels. We are seeing more significant increases, compared to
this time last year, based on what factors? We are up at least 70 cents, 72
cents I think I said in my opening.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I agree.
MR. STUPAK. So what would be the difference?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think crude oil is first and foremost the main
factor that has been driving gasoline prices. That, plus, as the testimony
also points out, there were two sort of special or shorter term
circumstances, one being the fact that our winter-to-summer transition
also included a transition, in certain parts of the country, from
reformulated gasoline with MTBE to reformulated gasoline with alcohol,
and the other being that we have still significant refinery problems. It is
really not just the hurricanes, there was one large refinery in Texas that
had a couple of explosions, I think, last year and that was still slow
coming back. There are still a couple of refineries that are not fully back
from Katrina, and there was a lot of refinery maintenance this April, a
larger than usual amount, some of that being deferred maintenance, so
you could attribute some of that to the hurricane. Some of that may be
having to do with some of the specifications, like ultra-low sulfur diesel
coming up later this year.
MR. STUPAK. So should we, then, if we are concerned about these
transition periods, we can't seem to get them leveled off, shouldn't we be
concerned then about--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. This will be the gentleman's last question.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--about the expected high
cost of heating our homes this winter, home heating oil? Shouldn't we
really be addressing that now, then, so we can try to resolve that, so that
transition, an increase or a spike or a spread, whatever you want to call it,
won't be so great this winter?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. The transition to the winter is a lot less
complicated than the transition from winter to summer. Summer to
winter is a lot easier because you are not worried about the mixing of
fuels. I think the big effect, in terms of diesel fuel, will be the ultra-low
sulfur diesel switch-over this year, and also the price of crude oil. Again,
that is going to drive home heating oil prices this year.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Congressman Stupak.
Congresswoman Blackburn. And are you 5 minutes or 8 minutes?
MRS. BLACKBURN. I hope I am 8.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay, I couldn't--
MRS. BLACKBURN. I waived my opening statement--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. You are 8.
MRS. BLACKBURN. --because I have three questions for Dr.
Gruenspecht that I would like to ask.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentlelady is recognized for 8 minutes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you. And then one for Mr. Wehrum. Dr.
Gruenspecht, I want to talk about refinery capacity utilization, and we
had Administrator Caruso with us last week--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. --and talked with him a little bit about this and
that we are at 95 percent capacity, and that is so high, especially when
you look at world capacity as high as it is, and we have heard a lot about
India and China and you all have mentioned repeatedly the impact that
that has on a worldwide market. So are they building refineries or are
they just serving as end users of the product?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I believe there is refinery expansion underway
in Asia, but my understanding is it is also having a hard time keeping up
with demand growth, so this is a worldwide--
MRS. BLACKBURN. But they are building new refineries.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I believe they are, yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And then, how long does it take them to
get one stood up over there, do you know?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think a refinery takes, as it takes here, several
years to build.
MRS. BLACKBURN. It does?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It does.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And the regulatory environment in the
United States, have we just made it too difficult to build a new refinery?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is my understanding that the most cost-
effective way to add refinery capacity is, in many cases, to add to
existing refineries and that is what many of the projects that I mentioned-
-I mentioned the total of 1.5 million barrels. I think nearly all of those
are add-ons to existing refineries.
MRS. BLACKBURN. And do you think the permit process and
everything is just--the add-on is much easier than trying to go the new
route?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think the add-on is cheaper--
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --than going the new route.
MRS. BLACKBURN. It is cheaper?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I believe it is cheaper.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Because you have a lot of the infrastructure
already there that you can use.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. All right. Let us talk about windfall
profits tax, because we hear folks bringing that back around and they are
saying that that is possibly something that they would advocate for, or
changing the way that we measure inventory, in order to be able to
increase taxes on oil company profits. So looking at that windfall profits
or changing the inventory structure, the measurement--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. --so that you could tax more, would that have a
positive or a negative effect on investment in the new crude oil resources
or the refining process?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, speaking to the crude oil resources, I can
say that internationally, where most of the crude oil is one of the
problems that I think has been impeding investment has been the
tendency of some governments--I think, Venezuela, perhaps to some
extent Russia--to sort of renegotiate deals as the market price changes to
try to extract more. At the time a deal is put together, if there is a
perception that the upside will be taken away--if there is an upside, but
that if there is a downside, say, world crude oil prices turn down, then
tough luck on the investor--that does have an effect and I think we have
seen that internationally in the development of crude oil markets. One
could draw an analogy, perhaps, to that type of effect domestically. In
other words, returns from refining from 1990 to 1999 were extremely
low and nobody was offering much in the way of added returns during
those years. So there is a perception that if you take a risk and if things
turn out well, you will be subject to large taxation.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. But if things turn out poorly, you are on your
own. That does tend to have a somewhat discouraging effect.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Both in the near end and the long term. So you
mentioned Contango and Administrator Caruso had talked about that last
week.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. That was one of the reasons the current market
is in Cantango's because of the feared disruption of the supplies, and in
the future, either events from overseas or from the hurricanes we know
are going to affect that, so we--going back to the refinery issue and being
near capacity and needing expansion and needing more capacity on new-
-here, new refining capacity in the United States, one would think that
that should be an encouragement for building refineries or getting some
of these out of the Gulf Coast area, and also for opening up some more
domestic supplies. Do you have any further comment on that?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Again, I think we are seeing an environment
where lots of new refinery projects are being announced. Lots of them
are on the Gulf Coast because that is where a lot of the existing refining
capacity is. And again, there are some economic advantages in adding
on to that. It does create some of the risks that you have described. In
terms of crude oil, most of the attractive prospects are elsewhere in the
world and some of the problems that we have discussed I think are
affecting the pace of the development of those.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Wehrum, I
have got just really one thing for you, dealing with New Source Review
primarily. I would like to get your thoughts on this, because we know in
1998 the EPA came out with the Petroleum Refinery Initiative and we
had actions that were taken under New Source Review, and it seemed at
that time that--and going forward it seemed that several projects and
things that formerly had been called routine maintenance were now
considered to be major repairs and changes. And what I would like to
know from you, just a point of a clarification, do you think that there is
in the industry confusion about New Source Review and what that
requires?
MR. WEHRUM. Congresswoman, we took a very close look at this
question a couple years ago. When the President published his National
Energy Policy, he asked EPA to investigate the impact of New Source
Review on the energy sector, including the refinery part of that sector. In
our conclusions, we did decide that uncertainty was one aspect. Well,
we concluded that NSR was in fact having an impact on the energy
sector, at least as it applied to the existing facilities, and we also said that
uncertainty was one aspect of the program that was causing an impact.
And I will say, we have gone to great lengths during this Administration
to try to reform the NSR program to try to make it easier, simpler, faster
and just a better program all the way around, and I feel like we have had
some great--some good success at that.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Great. Thank you for that. And I think that is
important. We just heard Dr. Gruenspecht use the word cheaper in
talking about expanding and reforming existing space, rather than trying
to get new refineries into the ground and of course we know that that
means individuals are going to end up paying less when they actually go
to the pump and make that purchase. So I appreciate your comments and
I appreciate your testimony and being able to look at those New Source
Review regulations and look at the effect that they are having on the
expansion and on the building of new refineries with the expansion of
existing ones.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentlelady's time has expired.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr.
Inslee.
MR. INSLEE. Thank you. Gentlemen, I represent a district in
Washington.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Did you give an opening statement?
MR. INSLEE. I did not.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So you are an 8 minute guy.
MR. INSLEE. Thank you very much. Well, some would say even 10,
Mr. Chairman. We in Washington have been hit twice now with the
second energy costs anomaly. The first was in the Enron debacle, when
some of the raiders took over a billion dollars out of our economy, and
now we are having sort of the second shock wave hitting, so this is of
single moment to my constituents. And what they are telling me is what
I think is common sense, is that Congress needs to rather than tinker
around the edges and offer gimmicks like a hundred buck check to make
everybody sort of have a happy meal and go away and leave Congress
alone; it just isn't going to cut the muster. We need to do some
significant things to restructure the energy markets to provide
alternatives to the existing fuels that can be, in effect, an alternative and
can keep prices down.
Now, I was just reading the Wall Street Journal this morning, an
article published some time ago about Brazil, and in Brazil the Ford
Motor Company has an advertisement running right now that has a guy
pull up to the pump and he can't decide between whether he likes
chocolate or vanilla, and he can't decide whether he likes blondes or
brunettes, and he can't decide whether he likes gasoline or ethanol, but
he can burn both, so he decides on whatever is cheapest, because in
Brazil, unlike this country, several years ago they decided to have a real
energy policy that would create real alternatives to gas and oil and give
real consumers real choices. So cars in Brazil now, when you--you are
free. You are not addicted to oil. You have got freedom because you
drive a car that can burn either ethanol or gasoline. The Ford Motor
Company is making them, General Motors is making, they work and as a
result, I believe they have kept down some of the gasoline prices in
Brazil, because now you have an alternative competitor with the existing
markets.
So we are going to be talking. Just right after this hearing there
will be some amendments to try to inspire the creation of a flex-fuel car
industry here so that Americans can have that choice. So I guess the
question I have, a long question, what are the salutary benefits of
developing an alternative fuel to gas and oil and truly make it available
to Americans, as far as the price, once you get a competitor fuel source in
this economy?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I will try to be brief. My understanding is that
there are about five to six million vehicles in the United States that are
flex-fuel vehicles that can burn E-85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15
percent gasoline, so we have those vehicles. The people who own those
vehicles are not filling them up in this country with ethanol, with E-85,
and there are some issues with the availability of it and it is my
understanding that it is available in only 600 stations. There are also
issues with the price of it, I would imagine, because as we discussed,
right now the price of a gallon of ethanol, when the market is in balance
in this country, is the wholesale price of gasoline plus about 50 cents,
which is the tax credit that we give. A gallon of ethanol has about two-
thirds the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, so right now, if you
bought ethanol at the market price and put it in your flex-fuel vehicle,
you wouldn't be very happy--that is my understanding.
MR. INSLEE. Right. But 15 years ago, those exact conditions existed
in Brazil and they said we can't do this because ethanol costs a little
more than gasoline and we have only got 10 percent of our cars that are
flex-fuel and therefore let us just go and call it a day and go home. But
the people in Brazil said, no, we are going to develop a policy that is
going to take care of both the chicken and the egg. It is going to drive
the production of more flex-fuel vehicles, which creates demand for
ethanol, which gives confidence to the investors to develop the
distribution system for ethanol, and we are going to help the
development of the distribution system with some tax incentives and
otherwise to help the distributors make those investments, and they took
care of both the chicken and the egg and now 40 percent of all their
transportation fuels are in fact ethanol, which are as cheap or cheaper
than gasoline under market conditions in Brazil. And the way they did
that is that once they started to do this, they increased their sugar cane
production by a factor of three. They now get three times as much
alcohol per acre in Brazil as they did 20 years ago because they didn't
have the status quo mentality, and they got 20 times more flex-fuel cars
on the roads because they said there is going to be a market or pumps
available to them. I guess what I am saying is that if we look forward
like we did in the space race, other than saying we don't have computers,
so we will never get to the moon, Brazil adopted some visionary policies.
Now, if you assume that we are at least as smart as the Brazilians and can
have at least the efficiency of Brazilians in cellulosic ethanol some day,
we may not have it right now, but if you make the assumption that we
will, and we do develop the policies that have most if not all of our new
cars coming out as flex-fuel vehicles, will not that have a salutary benefit
by creating a competitive fuel competitive with gasoline and at least try
to dampen some of these price increases? And I will just tell you, that
has been the Brazilian experience, which, by the way, last week
celebrated national independence. They are totally self-sufficient in
energy right now.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, they are.
MR. INSLEE. So I was just wondering, if you make those
assumptions, would it have that benefit?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, if you make those--if you can get ethanol
that is competitive on a fuel-value basis, there is a tremendous potential
to displace petroleum-based fuels. Clearly Brazil has some advantages.
They are the world's low-cost producer of sugar. You know, that has
been the case for a long time. I think American farmers are very smart,
but on the other hand, there are some natural conditions in Brazil that
make the equatorial countries more suited for cheap production of sugar.
But again, American ingenuity is a good thing. The other thing that
Brazil does is, of course, it allows significant offshore development, so
part of their independence, I think, has related to their increasing oil
production as well as, again, their very--
MR. INSLEE. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --strong program in ethanol.
MR. INSLEE. We intend to have our first commercial cellulosic
ethanol plant out of the Northwest, in Southeastern Idaho. It is ready to
go, just waiting for the loan guarantees to get consummated. I will just
tell you, there is an asset I think Americans have that at least equals
Brazilians, which is technological innovation capabilities. What we have
lacked is the Brazilian vision to make this happen and I am just hoping,
this afternoon, we can take some modest steps in that direction to unleash
Americans' inventiveness, together with our top soil. I think it would
both be a marriage. I want to ask you this quick question. If you prepare
gasoline on a price volatility basis, many of us are concerned about the
lack of oversight over the speculative markets that really don't have
much transparency or openness right now, unlike other regulated markets
in commodities. What comments would you give us about the volatility
of gasoline relative to other commodities that in fact are subject to the
Commodities Futures Trading Program, which gives transparency and
some degree of regulation to those speculative markets?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, I do believe that the gasoline contracts
that are traded on the organized exchanges are subject to the same rules
as other exchange-traded futures contracts, so again, I am not
representing the financial regulators. As I said in my testimony, I think
most of what is going on is really driven by fundamental market forces.
It is certainly true that the volume of nonphysical trade has increased in
recent years, but I have a feeling that the speculation is more an effect of
the real market conditions than the cause of them, than the cause of high
prices in this setting. I think the rise in world oil prices has maybe
attracted some types of investors who don't have a physical interest in
the market, but I have not seen anything that suggests that speculative
activity is behind the trend in gasoline prices, and I think it is more,
again, the crude oil prices, the transitions, the tight refining situation.
The fundamentals can explain, I think, most of what is going on.
MR. INSLEE. Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER. [Presiding] Thank you very much, the gentleman
from Washington, and the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Wyoming, Ms. Cubin.
MRS. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. My first
question will to go Mr. Gruenspecht. I recently sent a letter of inquiry to
your boss, Administrator Caruso. This goes along with what
Congresswoman Bono was asking you. And my letter asked why the
cost of gasoline and other refined products at the pump in Wyoming are
not reflective of the low prices crude oil has been trading for in my home
State, and this is not a new phenomenon with this energy crunch. This
has been going on for a long time. I wonder if you can provide any
insight into that matter. And as you may know, during the first week of
March of this year, crude oil was trading for $61 a barrel nationally, but
for roughly half of that in Wyoming. And so it isn't exactly the same
issue that we have been discussing here, but if Wyoming crude is selling
so much cheaper, why are those savings not being passed on to
Wyoming consumers? But first of all, why is Wyoming making about
half on their crude oil that other States are?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, again, I think, in terms of your letter, we
are in the process of working on that, so you will have that shortly. Let
me begin with that. But in the earlier discussion with Representative
Bono, we discussed the different qualities of crude oil.
MRS. CUBIN. Right. But that doesn't fit my situation, because I am
talking about the qualities of the oil being the same.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MRS. CUBIN. And we are getting half, at any given time--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MRS. CUBIN. --half to significantly less for the exact same quality of
oil that places in Oklahoma, Louisiana or so on--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. right.
MRS. CUBIN. --are getting and I wondered if you can explain why.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, I want to take the time to get it right and
again, we will answer by letter. I also understand that certain oilfields
tend to be tied economically to certain refineries, through certain
pipelines, and it is my understanding that changes if a particular refinery
or buyer of a particular source of crude oil is down for maintenance, that
can have a significant effect on the price of oil. I am not saying that that
is the case. I am trying to be responsive at the table, but I will get back
to you with--
MRS. CUBIN. Good.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --a full answer.
MRS. CUBIN. Good. Because, you know, just to help you avoid
some of those--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MRS. CUBIN. --pitfalls that lapses in discussion that we are having
right now, this isn't a particular instance. This has been an extremely
long time that this has been going on, and so that is the question I would
like to have answered. And any possible fixes you might be able to
suggest, as well, would be appreciated and I am willing to wait for that
letter. I understand this isn't an easy question because it has a long
history. I have another question for you. What rate of growth is
necessary, do you think, in our domestic refining capacity to keep up
with demand? You mentioned in your testimony that "we are now
seeing major capacity expansion announcements," which I agree is
encouraging. However, what level of expansion will it take to get back
to the comfort level of excess refining capacity that we had 30 years ago?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think 30 years ago we had a comfort level
from one side of the market, maybe not too comfortable from the other
side of the market, in the sense that there was a lot of refining capacity--
MRS. CUBIN. Yes.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --in this country in the late 1970s, early 1980s,
and then refining capacity generally declined until the, say, the early
1990s.
MRS. CUBIN. Right. Wyoming shut down--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MRS. CUBIN. --many refineries during that period.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Many I think would have been called in front
of your committee "tea kettle" refineries.
MRS. CUBIN. Yes.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I would not want to insult any refinery.
MRS. CUBIN. I wouldn't find that insulting.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think that term has been used. And then,
since about 1993, refinery capacity has been growing. But again, over
the last 5 years, I think refinery capacity has been growing a lot slower
than demand. The 1.5 million barrels, maybe 1.7 million barrels of--
MRS. CUBIN. Million or billion?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Million barrels a day--
MRS. CUBIN. Yes.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --that we think would come on board. Right
now, we are doing about--we have about 17.3 million barrels a day, so
that would be about a 10 percent increase in capacity. That is what we
think is likely possible before 2010. That would be pretty healthy. That
would be faster than demand growth.
MRS. CUBIN. Okay, that was my next question. I know that--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. So that would be a 10 percent increase over
about a 4 year period. That would be more than 2 percent a year on
average. Again, a lot of that is sort of back-loaded, but refinery capacity
between now and 2010 would have grown faster than demand, if in fact
we get 1.7 additional refinery capacity by 2010.
MRS. CUBIN. And we don't have announcements for that many at
this time, right?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think we have announcements for about 1.5.
MRS. CUBIN. Okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That is the way we count it. There is also a lot
of what is called capacity creep--
MRS. CUBIN. Right, right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --the very small adjustments that people don't
announce. And looking at the historical trends in capacity, we think it is
reasonable to think of capacity creep adding another 200,000 barrels a
day.
MRS. CUBIN. And so you are estimating future demand and future
hopeful capacity, and by 2010, you think--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I guess, from the point of view of the
consumer, a more comfortable situation than today.
MRS. CUBIN. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden.
MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
having this series of hearings that you have scheduled. Dr. Gruenspecht,
I read through your testimony and I walked away sort of depressed.
Although it is very helpful, it is--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Only the messenger.
MR. WALDEN. I know, I know. And as I read through this, we are
trying to figure out solutions here that will have both short-term and
long-term benefit. We recognize with the passage of the energy bill, a
lot of what we were investing in wasn't going to produce immediate
results, but would set the country finally on a path towards long-term
improvements in making America more energy independent. And as I
read through your testimony here, when we are trying to figure out what
is the right number of blends for boutique fuels, if you will, there is a
downside to going to say one blend, because the refining capacity
changes, or the changes in refineries would have to be made. It wouldn't
be investments in new capacity. Is there a magic number of blends? I
mean, are there certain blends that are made in enormous quantities
versus others that are made in small amounts that do drive up the costs?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I really don't have that off hand. I would say
there is, again, this trade off between the ease of distribution and the ease
of production and that is a tough--and there is also the air quality issue,
which I don't mention because it is out of my jurisdiction, but--
MR. WALDEN. You see where I am going with that, though.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MR. WALDEN. I mean--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. But it is not just the number of blends. I mean,
there is one thing to keep in mind--
MR. WALDEN. The volumes.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. If you would have, let us say, whatever number
of blends you have and you had it in more geographically distinct--
MR. WALDEN. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --areas, you still have a distribution issue
associated with getting whatever number of blends you have to a larger
number of distinct areas. The other thing is there are differences--it is
really the distinct fuels that matter and there are some fuels that are
distinct, not because of State Implementation Plans, but because of other
State requirements. Some of this relates to what has been done under the
Clean Air Act. Some of it relates to really the number of geographic
areas served with a fuel rather than simply the number of fuels.
MR. WALDEN. Well, that is, I guess, what I am trying to get at.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And that is another--right.
MR. WALDEN. Somewhere in there you all that do this full-time
must be able to give us some counsel about, if you eliminated these three
or merged these two or these eight, there would be an efficiency gained
that would help with the fungibility and not drive up price, I guess. And
so to the extent you can get us that information, that would be helpful.
Since I have only got like 2 minutes, I want to just fire off a couple
others. I heard a report at some point that China and India today
consume more gasoline than the world consumed 10 years ago. Is that
an accurate--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That doesn't--
MR. WALDEN. By all--I am assuming.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. That doesn't sound right to me.
MR. WALDEN. That is why I like to ask these questions, so we don't
repeat inaccuracies. But there has been an enormous growth.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. A tremendous growth in demand.
MR. WALDEN. Can you quantify that?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I know that China's demand in 2004 grew by
over a million barrels a day.
MR. WALDEN. And what is our consumption?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Our consumption is about 20. Theirs is, I
think, on the order of six and a half to seven million barrels a day. So I
think they have become the number two consumer.
MR. WALDEN. Is that--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And they are on an upward track. In our short-
run projections, it is growing like half a million barrels a day per year.
MR. WALDEN. We are sort of flat, though. I mean, it is nine-tenths
of a percent growth is what you are seeing or what you testified to today.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes, we are certainly not growing at the pace
that China is growing. They are going to be a larger and larger share of
the world oil consumption, and India as well.
MR. WALDEN. Okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And we are going to grow in absolute terms,
but our role as a share of world consumption is, in our view, likely to
decline. We are the biggest consumer now.
MR. WALDEN. And now we are going to debate fuel efficiency--
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Right.
MR. WALDEN. --standards for vehicles, which, even if we were to
pass something today, is out several years. You made the comment
about Brazil, that one of their keys to energy independence, in addition to
development of ethanol through using sugar, is also their ability to access
their own reserves. When it comes to America's energy independence,
how important are all these other changes we are looking at versus
accessing our own reserves? I mean, there would have been incredible
quantities in Alaska and offshore.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I mean, I don't think it is one--again, taking
this longer term view--
MR. WALDEN. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. --on both the demand side and the supply side,
I think the Minerals Management Service has recently looked at our
continental shelf reserves or potential technically recoverable oil, and
they think, in the moratorium areas, there would be, I think, 19 billion
barrels of technically recoverable oil. ANWR, the mean estimate is 10
billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. So to put that in
perspective, I think total proved U.S. reserves now are about 20, 21
billion barrels. So there is substantial amounts, I mean, relative to
proved reserves.
MR. WALDEN. So it is nearly double?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. The proved reserves. I don't think you would
double production.
MR. WALDEN. Right.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. I think production--Alaska, looking at maybe
up to one million barrels a day production at full utilization, but again,
that is a long way off in time.
MR. WALDEN. Right. If we were to get that million barrels a day
production increase, what effect would that have on price? Do you have
a ratio in your testimony?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. If you got it today, it would be very helpful, I
think, because in the short run it has a bigger difference than in the long
run. In the long run, our feeling is the price impact would probably be
modest, but again, the energy independence impact could be significant.
MR. WALDEN. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired. We have a
series of three votes on the floor. We are going to recognize Dr. Burgess
for the last 5 minutes of questions for this panel, then we are going to
recess. When we come back at approximately 1:45, we will bring the
second panel up. So, Dr. Burgess, are you ready to ask your questions?
Dr. Burgess?
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. This will be our last questions for this panel.
MR. BURGESS. I was just going to get some clarification on the
crack spread that the chairman had brought up earlier. It was a term I
was not familiar with.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Yes.
MR. BURGESS. If you could perhaps go through that in simple
declaratory sentences for me?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Okay. You have a barrel of crude oil and that
has a market value on the wholesale market. You have a barrel of
gasoline and that has a value on the market. And the difference between
the value of a barrel of gasoline is worth more than a barrel of crude oil
and that difference is called the gasoline crack spread.
MR. BURGESS. And I missed the line of questioning from the other
side, but is it fair for us to assume that that represents the built-in profit
to that product?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. It is both the cost and the profit.
MR. BURGESS. Okay.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Obviously refining is an activity that involves a
lot of capital equipment, a lot of investment, so the crack spread
encompasses both the cost and the profitability of refining.
MR. BURGESS. Is the cost of refining a fixed cost that would have
existed at $50 a barrel oil that will now be the same for $75 a barrel oil?
Does the cost of refining go up as the cost of crude goes up if you
subtract the cost of the crude?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. There is some impact from the cost of crude
because energy is used in refining, but there is also the impact of changes
in specification. So, for instance, making the blendstock to blend with
ethanol is more difficult than making the blendstock to blend with
MTBE. So there are costs related to the specifications. They are costs
related to the cost of energy used in the refinery, just like other producers
who use energy in their production process, you know, their costs go up
when energy costs go up. So the crack spread is not just a measure of
profitability, it is a measure of cost and profitability together.
MR. BURGESS. Well, both of you obviously--and I appreciate your
indulgence for being with us so long, but do either of you have an
opinion as to what you would like to see this committee do as we go
forward with this discussion?
MR. WEHRUM. I will just say, Congressman, that we stand ready to
provide assistance. On the boutique fuels questions, there are a number
of important questions in play right now, including, should we further
limit beyond what the Energy Policy Act required, and should we take
other steps directed at some of the other fuels programs that we
implement? And those are hard questions that we are all taking a hard
look at and we stand ready to help out with that.
MR. GRUENSPECHT. And we also stand ready to provide any data
analyses that are requested by the committee and others. We both
successfully avoided answering that.
MR. BURGESS. As the cost goes up--and you talked about this,
doctor, about the utilization that--the utilization of fuel obviously goes
down with the price spike. Has that impacted the product in the
pipeline? Pardon the phrase. I mean, do we have more reserve available
now because the price has gone up? Or, how has the price affected
utilization? Is it evident enough to see that in the marketplace?
MR. GRUENSPECHT. Well, in 2005, we think, where previous
gasoline demand had been growing steadily, data that we have suggests
that it leveled off. In 2006, we are expecting some growth in demand
again, but I think that over time, we would expect, if people believed that
prices are going to be sustained at a high level, we think you will start to
see changes in behavior and changes in vehicle purchase decisions and
that will be reflected in the level of demand.
MR. BURGESS. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back so we can go vote.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank you, Congressman. I had just one
final clarification question for our witness from EPA. Congressman
Waxman was asking about the requirements in the Energy Policy Act
that restrict over time the number of boutique fuels that are available
nationwide. I was one of the co-authors of that and the intention was to
restrict the number of boutique fuels. There is no secret about that. My
question to you is, does anything in the act lower the standards for air
quality on a parts per billion basis or any kind of an 8 hour standard, or
in any way did anything in the Act do anything to lower the requirement
of air quality?
MR. WEHRUM. No, Congressman, it did not.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Not a bit?
MR. WEHRUM. Mr. Chairman, it did not.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. I thank each of you. We will have
follow-up written questions on both sides of the aisle. We are going to
recess until after these series of votes. We will have the second panel
and we will reconvene at approximately 1:45.
[Recess]
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We want to welcome our second panel. And
we have with us Mr. Geoff Sundstrom, who is the Director of Public
Relations for the American Automobile Association; we have Mr. Mark
Cooper, who is the Research Director for the Consumer Federation of
America and a frequent testifier. We are glad to have you back again.
And we have Mr. John R. Wilkins, who is the Executive Vice President
and CIO of the Delaware Valley Wholesale Florists Association, and he
is here on behalf of the Society of American Florists. We welcome each
of you gentlemen to the committee. Your statements are in the record in
their entirety. We are going to recognize each of you for approximately
8 minutes to elaborate on that testimony and we will start with Mr.
Sundstrom. Welcome to the committee.
STATEMENTS OF GEOFF SUNDSTROM, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, AMERICAN
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; MARK COOPER, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CONSUMER FEDERATION
OF AMERICA; AND JOHN R. WILKINS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CIO,
DELAWARE VALLEY WHOLESALE FLORISTS, ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY OF AMERICAN
FLORISTS
MR. SUNDSTROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Geoff
Sundstrom and I am the American Automobile Association's Director of
Public Affairs. I am AAA's primary spokesman on motor fuel issues.
As you may know, AAA is the largest motorist organization in North
American, with nearly 50 million members in the United States and
Canada. Our members drive approximately 25 percent of all the motor
vehicles in operation in this country. Using figures from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, we estimate that they will purchase
approximately 33 billion gallons of gasoline this year, and at current
prices will spend an estimated $96.4 billion on gasoline. Unlike others
that testify on this issue, AAA has no involvement in the regulation,
refining, shipping, blending, or sale of gasoline. We represent the end
users of this increasingly contentious, yet completely indispensable
product.
Our members are very concerned about whether gasoline is going to
remain readily available at a reasonable cost in the United States, or if we
are slowing moving toward an era of much higher prices with even less
reliable supplies of fuel? After Hurricane Katrina, Americans paid the
highest prices ever for gasoline, an average of $3.05 per gallon on Labor
Day weekend of last year. As unpleasant as that experience was, the
public clearly understood that the storm had harmed vital components of
our energy infrastructure, and while fuel prices were exceptionally high,
it was a common belief at that time that the situation would be temporary
and that gas prices would come back down. Since the beginning of
2006, however, the national average price of self-serve gasoline has
jumped from $1.78 per gallon to $2.92 per gallon, a whopping increase
of $1.14 per gallon in just a few months.
Many motorists are now alarmed that the rising gas prices have
become a permanent part of our lives in this country. They are
concerned because this year's price increase will cost a typical family
about $1,260 more per year in gasoline expenditures at current prices, or
about $100 more each time the monthly gasoline credit card statement
arrives in the mail. AAA calculates this increase on the assumption that
the average vehicle consumes 550 gallons of gasoline each year, as
reported by the Federal Highway Administration, and the average
household owns more than two vehicles--actually about 2.1 vehicles per
household. An extra $100 per month may not sound much like much to
some people, but it is helpful to remember that an estimated 50 percent
of American families say they always or frequently live pay check to pay
check, according to my colleagues here from the Consumer Federation of
America. And the median household income in the United States is only
$45,000 per year. So with these realities in mind, it is easy to understand
why a sharp unexpected hike in fuel prices can be a threatening financial
setback for many citizens.
Part of the focus of today's hearing is to discuss what else the
Federal government might do to help rein in the price of gasoline or help
offset its impact on motorists, and AAA has a few ideas that we would
like to share with you. America's energy woes are complex and far
reaching. The gasoline price volatility consumers are experiencing at the
pump is a result of the escalating price of world crude oil; rapidly
increasing worldwide demand for energy; America's growing insecurity
as the world's largest importer of oil and gasoline. Experts say the
weakening of the dollar in response to our large trade and budget deficits
may also be playing a role in the price of oil.
On the domestic side and clearly of our own doing, there is price
volatility spawned by the reliance in some markets on a variety of fuel
blends to serve clean air or local economic goals. America may not be
able to control the world price of crude oil or influence demand in other
countries, but we can clearly exercise more influence over our own
destiny. But to do so will require leadership and action by the Federal
government, as well as active participation by consumers and business
leaders.
In the area of energy demand and especially demand for gasoline,
more can and must be done to encourage conservation. Motorists must
reduce consumption by using the most fuel-efficient cars, avoiding
unnecessary trips, maintaining their vehicles, driving gently, car pooling,
and using public transportation when necessary. And these are all tactics
and techniques that we have been talking to our members about for many
years.
As previously stated, all consumers do not have the same economic
incentives to do more with less, and actually rising prices hit hardest at
those at the lowest end of the income scale, and do not therefore
constitute a workable fuel conservation or air quality improvement
program, in our opinion. In fact, fuel economy of the total fleet in the
United States has been stuck at about 24 miles per gallon for at least the
last 10 years. So clearly, even though prices are going up, consumers
have not made a major switch in the choice of vehicle selection when
they enter the new car showroom.
AAA believes the Nation, industry, and government must commit to
achieving higher fuel economy standards on all vehicles. Congress
should clearly clarify that the Administration has the authority to raise
fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles. Once that authority is
granted, the Administration should exercise the authority so that real
gains are achieved in fuel efficiency without compromising safety.
In the area of energy security, a previous generation of Americans
was wise to invest in a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of the United States.
It has somewhat lessened the dangers of an abrupt disruption of oil
imports. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said with regard to gasoline.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have taught us that the United States
needs a cushion of available fuel in times of emergency, especially now
that the Nation imports more than 10 percent of its refined products from
offshore. AAA believes Congress and the Administration should explore
measures that would enable a minimum level of mandatory refined
product inventories to be available in an emergency. Such a system
exists in Europe and actually was able to provide critical gasoline to the
United States during production shortfalls that occurred following last
year's hurricanes. Should similar or worse disasters occur in the future,
our ability to immediately move gasoline to areas that need it will again
prove critical to people and the economy. And actually, I am with
AAA's national office, which is in Florida, and the situation hits close to
home. Both last year and the year before, we had local gasoline stations
without fuel in the neighborhood of our national office.
In the area of boutique and biofuels, a much more coordinated
approach is needed between the Federal and State governments and all
the many industries affected by changes in the way we make gasoline.
Industries that are forced to frequently change the composition of their
products, or make specialty products for small markets, lose efficiency
and incur costs from a variety of causes. These costs are understandably
passed to consumers, a process that becomes especially easy when the
industry involved is operating with a minimum of spare capacity and
very low inventories. In our opinion, such a situation invites speculation
of the price of that commodity, further driving up costs to consumers.
While this is an extremely complex problem, AAA encourages
Federal and State officials to reach agreement on the use of a smaller
number of fuel blends that will meet or exceed our clear air goals and be
used as widely as possible. As these transitions are made, more careful
attention must be paid to the implementation process by Federal and
State agencies. For example, the transition between MTBE and ethanol
seems to have resulted in temporary fuel shortages here on the East Coast
and appears to be one of the contributing factors to today's high fuel
prices. That type of experience should not be repeated.
As for the value of the dollar and its implications for the global
price of oil, AAA leaves that to others that are more qualified to comment.
However, we think it is important that Congress and the White House
resist measures to excessively subsidize fuels to make it cheaper for
Americans while driving up the Nation's indebtedness.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing AAA to address the
distinguished committee.
[The prepared statement of Geoff Sundstrom follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFF SUNDSTROM, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
RELATIONS, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Introduction
AAA is the largest motorist organization in North America with
almost 50 million members in the U.S. and Canada. AAA members
drive approximately 25 percent of all the motor vehicles in operation in
this country. We estimate they will purchase approximately 33 billion
gallons of gasoline this year and at current prices will spend an estimated
$96.4 billion on gasoline.
Impact on Consumer
Since the beginning of 2006, the national average price of self-serve
regular unleaded gasoline has jumped from $1.78 per gallon to $2.92 per
gallon: a whopping increase of $1.14 per gallon. This year's price
increase will cost a typical family about $1,260 more per year in gasoline
expenditures, or about $100 more each time the monthly gasoline credit
card statement arrives in the mail.
Time to exercise more control over our own destiny
1. Motorists must reduce consumption. AAA will continue to educate
the public on steps they can take to drive more efficiently.
2. AAA believes the nation - industry and government - must commit to
achieving higher fuel economy standards on all vehicles.
3. Government should work with the private sector to develop
alternative fuel and vehicle programs.
4. AAA believes that Congress and the Administration should explore
measures that would enable a minimum level of mandatory refined
product of gasoline inventories. Such a system exists in Europe and was
able to provide critical gasoline to the U.S. during production shortfalls
that occurred following last year's hurricanes. Should similar or worse
disasters occur in the future, our ability to immediately move gasoline to
areas that need it will again be critical.
5. More planning must be done to ensure fuel is available during
evacuations, in the immediate aftermath of storms or from other
widespread damage, and in areas far-removed from a disaster site that
might lose access to energy resources.
6. AAA encourages federal and state officials to reach agreement on the
use of a smaller number of fuel blends that will meet or exceed our clean
air goals and be as widely used as possible.
Mr. Chairman: My name is Geoff Sundstrom, and I am the
American Automobile Association's Director of Public Affairs. I am
AAA's primary spokesperson on motor fuel issues and have oversight
responsibility for AAA's widely-sourced Fuel Gauge Report Web site
which tracks national, state and local fuel prices each day. I also work
with local AAA clubs on fuel price inquiries from members and the
media in your home districts.
AAA appreciates your invitation to appear before the Energy and
Commerce Committee to discuss the rising price of gasoline. As you
may know, AAA is the largest motorist organization in North America
with nearly 50 million members in the United States and Canada. Our
members drive approximately 25 percent of all the motor vehicles in
operation in this country. Using figures from the U.S. Department of
Transportation, we estimate they will purchase approximately 33 billion
gallons of gasoline this year and at current prices will spend an estimated
$96.4 billion on gasoline.
Unlike others that testify on this issue, AAA has no involvement in
the regulation, refining, shipping, blending or sale of gasoline. We
represent the end-users of this increasingly contentious, yet completely
indispensable product. Our members are your constituents and as you
know, they are very concerned about whether gasoline is going to remain
readily available at a reasonable cost in the United States, or if we are
slowly moving toward an era of much higher prices with even less
reliable supplies of fuel.
After Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans and the Gulf Coast,
Americans paid the highest prices ever for a gallon of gasoline in this
country: an average of $3.05 per gallon on Labor Day Monday of last
year.
As frustrating and unpleasant as that experience was, the public
clearly understood that a dramatic natural disaster had befallen the
southeastern United States. They heard and read that the storm harmed
vital components of our energy infrastructure. And while fuel prices
were exceptionally high, it was a common belief that the situation would
be temporary and that gas prices would come back down.
Since the beginning of 2006, however, the national average price of
self-serve regular unleaded gasoline has jumped from $1.78 per gallon to
$2.92 per gallon; a whopping increase of $1.14 per gallon. With
hurricane season around the corner, and because fuel prices now seem to
be rising significantly higher with each passing year, many motorists are
alarmed that rising gas prices have become a permanent part of our lives
in this country.
They are concerned because this year's price increase will cost a
typical family about $1,260 more per year in gasoline expenditures, or
about $100 more each time the monthly gasoline credit card statement
arrives in the mail. AAA calculates this increase on the assumption that
the average vehicle consumes 550 gallons of gasoline each year as
reported by the Federal Highway Administration and the average
household owns more than two vehicles.
An extra hundred dollars per month may not sound like much to
some people, but it is helpful to remember that an estimated 50 percent
of American families say they always or frequently live paycheck to
paycheck, according to research by the Consumer Federation of
America, and the median household income in the United States is
$45,000 per year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. With these
realities in mind, it is easier understand why a sharp, unexpected hike in
fuel prices can be a threatening financial setback for many citizens.
Of course, pain at the pump is not felt equally. It depends on where
you are on the economic ladder. If you are among the sizeable group
that can readily afford a large, luxury vehicle that may not be especially
fuel-efficient, the high price of fuel is mostly an annoyance.
Or, if you are an urban dweller with access to mass transit, and one
who rarely if ever drives a car, gas prices may be little more than an
abstraction. But for most of America's 200 million licensed drivers, high
gas prices are a real problem.
Part of the focus of today's hearing is to discuss what else the
Federal government might do to help reign in the price of gasoline or
help offset its impact on motorists. AAA has a few ideas to share with
you.
The energy problems consumers are experiencing today will not be
solved overnight. Although our association has worked for many years
to encourage fuel conservation by motorists and has provided members
and the public with helpful advice for doing so, the magnitude of the
issues before us require an increase in thoughtful leadership from federal
and state lawmakers.
America's energy woes are complex and far reaching. The gasoline
price volatility consumers are experiencing at the pump is the result of
the escalating price of world crude oil, rapidly increasing world-wide
demand for energy and America's growing insecurity as the world's
largest importer of oil and gasoline. Experts say the weakening of the
dollar in response to our large trade and budget deficits may also be
playing a significant role. On the domestic side - and clearly of our own
doing - there is price volatility spawned by the reliance in some markets
on a variety of fuel blends to serve clean air or economic goals.
America may not be able to control the world price of crude oil or
influence demand in other countries. But, we can exercise more
influence over our own destiny. But, to do so, will require leadership
and action by the federal government, as well as active participation by
consumers and business leaders.
In the area of energy demand and especially demand for gasoline,
more can and must be done to encourage conservation. Motorists must
reduce consumption by using their most fuel efficient car, avoiding
unnecessary trips, maintaining their vehicles, driving "gently" and
carpooling or using public transportation whenever possible. We should
avoid the impulse to horde gas or constantly top off tanks. Even in the
best of times there is not enough fuel in the system to fill every car and
truck to the top of their fuel gauge.
As previously stated, all consumers do not have the same economic
incentives to do more with less. Inexorably, rising prices hit hardest
those at the lowest end of the income scale, and do not therefore
constitute a workable fuel conservation or air quality improvement
program. AAA believes the nation - industry and government - must
commit to achieving higher fuel economy standards on all vehicles.
Congress should clarify that the Administration has the authority to raise
fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles. Once that authority is
granted, the Administration should exercise the authority so that real
gains are achieved in fuel efficiency without compromising safety.
Likewise, government should continue to work with the private
sector in developing alternative fuel and vehicle programs.
In the area of energy security, a previous generation of Americans
were wise to invest in a strategic petroleum reserve for the United States
that has somewhat lessened the dangers of an abrupt disruption of oil
imports. Unfortunately the same can not be said with regard to gasoline.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have taught us the United States needs a
cushion of available gasoline in times of emergency, especially now that
the nation imports more than 10 percent of its refined products from
offshore. AAA believes Congress and the Administration should explore
measures that would enable a minimum level of mandatory refined
product inventories. Such a system exists in Europe and was able to
provide critical gasoline to the United States during production shortfalls
that occurred following last year's hurricanes. Should similar or worse
disasters occur in the future, our ability to immediately move gasoline to
areas that need it will again prove critical to people and the economy.
At present, AAA is concerned that the level of preparedness based
on experiences from last summer's hurricane season have not resulted in
meaningful short- and long-term action to address fuel availability.
More planning must be done to ensure fuel is available during
evacuations, in the immediate aftermath of storms or from other
widespread damage, and in areas far-removed from a disaster site that
might lose access to energy resources as a consequence. Electricity
generating equipment needs to be available at gas stations, for example,
so fuel can be dispensed when power lines are down.
In the area of boutique and bio-fuels, a much more coordinated
approach is needed between the federal and state governments, and all of
the many industries affected by changes in the way we make gasoline.
Industries that are forced to frequently change the composition of their
products, or make specialty products for small markets, lose efficiency
and incur increased costs from a variety of causes that include raw
materials, labor, maintenance, storage, transportation, research and
regulatory compliance. Those costs are understandably passed to
consumers, a process that becomes especially easy when the industry
involved is operating with a minimum of spare capacity and low
inventories. Such a situation also invites speculation in the price of the
commodity, further driving up costs to consumers.
While this is an extremely complex problem and there are no simple
solutions, AAA encourages federal and state officials to reach agreement
on the use of a smaller number of fuel blends that will meet or exceed
our clean air goals and be as widely used as possible. As these transitions
are made, more careful attention must be paid to the implementation
process by federal and state agencies. Significant investments have
already been made in boutique fuels, and untangling this apparatus will
require careful oversight. For example, the transition between MTBE
and ethanol seems to have resulted in temporary fuel shortages in some
locations and appears to be one of the contributors to today's high fuel
prices. That type of experience must not be repeated.
As for the value of the dollar and its implications for the global
price of oil, AAA leaves that topic to others who are much more qualified to
comment. It is important for Congress and the White House to resist
measures that would excessively subsidize energy to make it cheaper for
Americans while driving up the nation's indebtedness.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing AAA to address this
distinguished Committee.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We thank you. We now welcome Dr. Cooper,
and your testimony is in the record and you are recognized for 8 minutes
to elaborate on it.
DR. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify, particularly after this morning, since I will address
specifically many of the questions that were raised. I would like to say
the same facts, different story. I believe the lack of competition,
capacity, and mismanagement of short-term supplies are at the core of
increasing gasoline prices, and this is true of the global crude market and
the domestic refining market.
In recent years a frenzy of trading in energy commodity markets has
added to the upward spiral. If this were a free market, if this were just
supply and demand, there would be 15 million barrels a day more of
production capacity in the crude market and at least three to five million
barrels a day more for refining capacity in the domestic market. These
are not decisions that are made according to simple economic supply and
demand forces. The gasoline market is rigged. It is rigged against the
consumer and we simply cannot allow political and strategic behaviors to
run the price up. It would be a buck 50 if this were really a supply and
demand market. We simply cannot allow these decisions to run the price
up and then tell consumers to pay the price.
In the past 15 years the petroleum products supplied in the U.S.
market has increased twice as fast as refining capacity. Gasoline
consumption has increased over two and a half times as fast as refining
capacity, and while gasoline consumption was increasing by about 20
percent, the amount of gasoline and blending components in storage
decreased by 6 percent. Self-sufficiency requires substantial spare
capacity. We are not short one to two million barrels a day of capacity,
we are short five to six million barrels a day, if you look at the spare
capacity in truly competitive industries.
The tightening of the domestic gasoline market was a natural result
and the intended purpose of the merger wave that took place in the 1992.
ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhilips Tosco Unocal, BP Amoco
Arco. There are four where there used to be eleven. As a result of that
merger wave, four out of five regional refining markets and 47 out of 50
wholesale gasoline markets in the United States are concentrated by the
Department of Justice's guidelines for measuring markets.
With market power overpriced, oil companies have raised the
domestic spread; that is a little bit bigger than the crack spread we heard
about this morning, mostly made up of the crack spread. They have
raised that domestic spread by over 30 cents per gallon since the late
1990s. Five years running, the return on equity earned by the major oil
companies has exceeded the Standard and Poor's industrials. That had
not happened in the previous 30 years. The last two years have set new
records. Using the S and P industrials as a base, we estimate that in the
past 6years they have generated excess profits of over $100 billion.
The cash flow in the industry for the large companies exceeds the
growth in capital expenditures by more than $100 billion. The industry
is piling up cash at unprecedented rates. The three American majors
alone increased their cash on hand by $30 billion, their total current
assets by $67 billion and bought back $35 billion of their outstanding
stock. We know where the excess profits have gone. They are sitting in
the bank accounts of the major oil companies. The domestic refining net
income has increased by $23 billion since 2002. That is why the crack
spread has increased. Yes, there are some costs there, but unequivocally,
it has become a profit center for the oil companies.
Now, things have gotten so bad in the domestic market that even the
DOE has recently recognized that the upward pressure placed on the
gasoline market by tight conditions here may, in fact, be pulling up the
world price of crude. Let us be clear. The U.S. is by far the largest
gasoline market in the world. When we watch when a political entity
like OPEC watches the domestic spread go up and up, when they watch
the profits of oil companies go up and up, they understand that there is
more consumer surplus, more rent to be extracted from consumers. And
so the price of crude may, in fact, be chasing the price of gasoline up in
the United States.
And to make matters worse, the financial markets have experienced a
massive increase in volume; $10 billion a month for the last 40 months.
A massive increase in volatility, a massive increase in risk. Some people
estimate that as much as 20 percent of the price of oil traded in that
market, it has to do with the risk volume hedge premium. That works
out to 30 cents a gallon. Interestingly, we have the question raised about
West Texas Intermediate and why that price seems to have increased
much more than the price of crude. In point of fact, refiners don't pay
West Texas Intermediate spot price for the crude they acquire, they pay a
refiner acquisition cost and the EIA should not use West Texas
Intermediate to calculate the crack spread. They ought to use the actual
refiner acquisition cost of crude.
I would urge you to tell them to do that and show you what has
happened to the spread, because in the last 5 or 6 years West Texas
Intermediate has lost touch with the physical fundamentals in the market.
That difference has increased, a study we did last year and we put in
earlier this year on natural gas, suggests how that can operate. More
money, ten, hundreds of billions of dollars are chasing the same amount
of physical commodities in these markets. And frankly, when I went to
college, they used to tell me too much money chasing too few goods is a
prescription for inflation. That is what is happening in these financial
markets.
There are obviously no short-term solutions. We wish you would
have started a real long-term solution 5 years ago, 6 years ago when we
first testified. In fact, we would be in the mid-term, by economic
standards, if we had started. So we think that policymakers really have
to look at the fundamental structure of this industry. You cannot be
distracted by the excuse du jour that you get each spring as these prices
go up. We have been through boutique fuels, through ethanol switch,
through low storage to a refinery fire here, a pipeline outage there, there
is always an excuse to explain why prices run up, but the underlying
problem is an infrastructure, an industry that is not resilient, has no
excess capacity, and frankly, as you heard today, the oil industry will not
build sufficient excess capacity to put down pressure on price.
You are going to have to adopt public policies that get that job done.
They have made it clear; they have shown for 10 years they won't. In
the short term, we think we need a strategic refinery reserve. We think
we need a strategic product reserve. Last fall when the President
announced that our European allies were going to send us more product,
where were they getting it? They were getting it from their strategic
product reserves. We don't have one. We need anti-trust authorities that
worry about unilateral actions that increase prices. Market forces are so
weak in this sector that you don't have to collude to raise prices. You
raise your price, you look over your shoulder, you know what your
fellow members of the industry are going to do. There are so few of
them, they are easy to monitor and you can raise prices by unilateral
action.
We need commodity market regulators who look at all markets. Yes,
contracts are traded. The over-the-counter market is not regulated; it
needs to be regulated. More changes hands there than on the regulated
exchanges. We need joint Federal-State task forces that look at this
industry. We need more eyeballs from different perspectives working
together to look at these industries. The Feds alone have not done the
job that needs to be done.
In the long term, we really do have to address fundamentals and in
fact, we have to rapidly increase our fuel efficiency. Yesterday we put
out a report entitled "50 by 2030." The idea was simple. We need to get
to 50 MPG by 2030 and the analysis is straightforward. A family that
walks into an auto dealership today typically takes out a 5 year auto loan.
They can buy a 40 plus mile per gallon car, spend $4,000 more and that
will increase their auto loan payment. But in fact, the gasoline savings at
$3 a gallon will offset that entirely. It is cash flow neutral.
Now is the time to dramatically increase the target we have for fuel
efficiency. And finally, we need to expand our research, development,
production, and distribution of biofuels. We will need liquid fuels, no
matter how efficient our cars get and that is where we need to find them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mark Cooper follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARK COOPER, RESEARCH DIRECTOR,
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research at the
Consumer Federation of America (CFA). I appear today on behalf of
CFA and Consumers Union. The Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) is a non-profit association of 300 pro-consumer groups, which
was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through advocacy
and education. Consumers Union is the independent, non-profit
publisher of Consumer Reports.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the problem of rising gasoline prices and supply conditions.
The Impact of Rising Gasoline Prices
The American consumer is reacting to $3.00 per gallon gasoline
prices differently now than they did last fall when I testified before the
Committee about record high prices. At that time, the immediate cause
was obvious, the hurricanes in the Gulf. Although, I raised concerns that
price increases were unjustified and reflected fundamental problems in
the industry. Profits soared last year, affirming the suspicions by many
that oil the companies were exploiting severe market conditions.
Today's gasoline prices highlight fundamental problems in the
industry - a lack of competition that enables oil companies to exploit a
tight market that they have created and preserved through strategic
underinvestment and mismanagement. The prospect of sustained high
prices at these levels is alarming to the average American household. If
gas prices average $2.75 per gallon over the course of this year, the
typical family household will experience an increase of well over $1,000
to their annual gasoline bill compared to the late 1990s.
Fundamental Flaws in Market Structure
We have been pointing out what is wrong with this market for five
years. Record high prices and profits today reflect a six-year trend in
rising gas prices for consumers. The oil industry attributes this trend to
rising crude oil prices and a string of supply disruptions in the market. A
closer look at the structure and function of the oil industry and the
economic forces at work, reveals a market in which the forces of supply
and demand are too weak to prevent abuse of consumers. I submit for
the record our study from 2004, which discussed this history in great
detail.
There is not sufficient competition on the supply-side to force
producers to expand capacity and alleviate pressures on prices. Demand
is so inelastic that, when prices are increased, consumers cannot cut back
sufficiently. Having kept markets tight and eliminated competition, the
oil companies can exploit any excuse to drive prices and profits up.
To better understand what is going on with gas prices, we must look
back over the last decade and chronicle the mergers that swept through
the industry eliminating competition and resulting in refinery closings
and reductions in storage of product, coupled with the long term refusals
to build new refineries. I need only read the names of the major oil
companies to remind you of the results - ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco,
ConocoPhilips Tosco Unocal, BP Amoco Arco. There are four, where
there used to be eleven. As a result of that merger wave, four out of the
five regional refining markets and 47 out of 50 state wholesale gasoline
markets are concentrated.
The antitrust authorities will say they have not colluded. They don't
have to. The industry has become so concentrated, the capacity has
become so restricted, the barriers to entry so large, and it is so difficult
for Americans to cut back on demand (economists say demand is
inelastic), in short market forces in this industry are so weak, that they do
not have to collude to raise the price level. Each company acts
individually and knows full well that its brethren will act in a parallel
way.
The industry will tell you that existing refineries have expanded, but
clearly not enough to build the spare capacity to put downward pressures
on price. They choose to keep so little spare capacities that they cannot
even do spring cleaning without price run ups. They do not fear running
on short supply because there is little competition to steal their
customers. The industry has gained market power over price by strategic
underinvestment in refinery capacity, just as OPEC has set the conditions
for increases in the global cost of crude by restricting the addition of
production capacity.
Excess Profits
Last year the oil companies earned more income than in the five
years between 1995 and 1999. More importantly, four of the five highest
years for profit in the oil industry since the Arab oil embargo of 1973
have occurred in the past six years. I have submitted for the record our
study of oil industry profits over the past two decades, which
demonstrates over $100 billion dollars of excess profits in the 2000 to
2005 period. We arrived at that estimate by comparing the return on
equity of the oil companies to the Standard and Poor's industrials. We
corroborated it with an examination of the huge cash flow that they
enjoyed, which is not being reinvested in the industry, since net new
investment was a small fraction of net income over the 2000-2005
period. Free cash flow is piling up in huge masses of current assets and
stock repurchases.
Crude prices have gone up and so has the domestic spread and
refiner margins. Interestingly, the net income the large oil companies
earn on their downstream operations - predominately refining but also
marketing - in the U.S. has increased by almost 23 billion dollars since
2002 compared to the increase in net income by the oil company's
foreign downstream operations, which have gone up by only about 7
billion dollars.
The most obvious indicator that market forces are working against
consumers can be seen in the "Domestic Spread" over the past six years.
The domestic spread is the difference between the refiner acquisition cost
of crude oil and the pump price, net of taxes. When we subtract taxes
and crude costs from the pump price, we isolate the share that domestic
refining and marketing take in the final price. The bulk of this is for
refining. In the first quarter of 2006, it was over 30 cents per gallon
above the historic average. In April 2006, even before the dramatic price
increases of April, it was about 40 cents per gallon higher than the
average.
The evidence is quite clear that rapid consolidation within the
industry has changed the market fundamentals and behavior patterns.
They simply do not compete on price to increase market share. They do
not worry about running out of product, because they know they can
simply raise the price of gas. They closed refineries for business reasons
and refuse to build new ones for business reasons.
Pulling Up the Price of Crude
This huge increase in domestic spread and refiner margins may have
another effect. Things have gotten so bad in the U.S. gasoline market
that even the Energy Information Administration, in its most recent
report This Week in Petroleum, recognizes that the tight U.S. gasoline
market may be "pulling up" the price of crude. After all, the U.S. is the
largest single oil consumer in the world and the largest gasoline market
by far, accounting for over a quarter of the world-wide total. When the
domestic spread and refining profits go up, it signals that there is more
consumer surplus - more rent - to be extracted from the American
consumer.
In recent years the upward pressure on prices and the demonstration
of more rent to be extracted has been reinforced by commodity markets.
The New York Times recently (April 29, 2006) noted in an article
headlined, "Trading Frenzy Adds to Jump in Price of Oil," that some
analysts believe a huge increase in trading volume, volatility and risk are
adding as much as 20 percent to the price of oil. That works out to
about 30 cents per gallon. I have submitted for the record a report I
prepared earlier this spring for four Mid-West Attorneys General on the
impact of commodity market trading on natural gas prices. Therein I
describe in detail the same factors - a continual increase in volume,
volatility and risk - that are affecting both the crude oil and natural gas
markets.
Recommendations
There are no short-term solutions, but I must remind you that the
American gasoline consumer has been afflicted by this market for six
years. If we had started working on effective solutions six years ago, we
could be well into the mid-term of a long-term policy shift. Policy
makers are going to have to reform the fundamental structure of this
industry and change the underlying dynamics.
To address short-term spikes in prices, we recommend:
<bullet> Increased oil industry revenue funneled back into expanding
our refining capacity.
<bullet> We need a strategic refinery reserve and a strategic product
reserve that are dedicated to ensuring we have excess capacity
sufficient to discipline pricing abuse.
<bullet> Setting requirements that guarantee an increase in refining
and storage capacity to deal with the industry's failure to build
capacity and keep adequate stocks on hand by creating strategic
refinery and product reserves.
<bullet> Mechanisms that prevent pricing abuse in the energy markets
including formation of a joint task force of federal and state
Attorney Generals to monitor the structure, conduct and
performance of gasoline markets, with an emphasis on unilateral
actions that raise price.
To address long term fundamentals change the supply-demand
balance in this sector, we recommend:
<bullet> Accelerating the day when we will use less oil by setting
aggressive, concrete targets for reducing America's oil
consumption. Specifically, we need concrete steps for reducing
fuel consumption through aggressive, targeted improvements to
vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
<bullet> A national policy that promotes the research, production and
use of biofuels.
Hopefully, the current round of price spikes will convince policy
makers to take steps to build a better future for American consumers by
addressing market who's forces that are working against the American
people and for the interests of a few.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to working with the committee on policies that can solve
the nation's oil problem.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. We now want to hear
from Mr. Wilkins on behalf of the florists and given that it is Mothers
Day coming up, thank you for taking time to come talk to us.
MR. WILKINS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, the Society of American Florists and I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of the floral industry.
Gasoline prices, as well as all fuel prices are very important to our
industry, maybe even more so than some of the other smaller businesses,
as I will try to describe here today. And with your permission, I will
submit my written statement for the hearing record and just summarize it
here.
As a way of an introduction, I am the Executive Vice President and
one of the second generation family owners of the Delaware Valley
Floral Group, which is a floral distribution, logistics, and transportation
provider which was founded by my father in 1959. We work hard to
remain a family business and we have an active third generation in the
business today. We employ over 500 people. One of our divisions is
Delaware Wholesale Florist. We purchase and import floral products,
including fresh cut flowers, cut greens, potted plants, and hard goods,
which are florist supplies, from growers, manufacturers, and importers
both domestically as well as worldwide.
We then sell these products to retail florists, mass marketers, and
other retail outlets. They, in turn, resell them as is or convert them to a
finished product for the end consumer. It is important to note that other
than labor cost, perhaps no single factor plays a bigger role in the bottom
line of the floral businesses than does the cost of fuel. Fuel costs impact
every step in the market chain, as I would like to briefly describe.
It is appropriate, though, to mention that, as you actually just said,
that this week is, for the wholesale florists or really for the florist
industry, one of the busiest weeks of the year. And I would be really
remiss if I didn't remind you all to buy flowers for your mother and your
wives and your daughters, if they happen to be mothers, as well. But
when you do that, let us stop and think about something. We estimate
that up to 50 percent of the cost of those flowers could be attributed to
transportation cost. Our industry has very little ability to pass through
added cost to our customers.
Quickly, here is how the market chain works. A large percentage of
cut flowers sold in the U.S. are grown in South America, Europe, Africa,
or Asia. Our domestic production, which is also important to us, comes
primarily from California, Florida, Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon.
Obviously, all fuel costs, including gasoline, will play a big role in
getting flowers from those places to you, the end consumer. As an
example, 32,500 boxes of flowers come in by air through the Port of
Miami every day. They are unloaded from planes and go through
customs. Then brokers move them again by motorized transport and
they are reloaded onto other planes or trucks for shipments to importers'
and wholesalers' warehouses. In our case, they are sent usually by one
of our own refrigerated tractor trailers from Miami to New Jersey. And
if they are grown in the U.S., they would come from say, California all
the way to New Jersey, usually by tractor trailer, sometimes by air, but
when by truck it is a 36 hour, nonstop run by a team of tractor trailer
drivers. From our warehouses in New Jersey, the flowers are shipped via
our fleet of 101 delivery trucks to our retail customers. And we are not
done yet. From the retailer, they are usually delivered right to the
customer's door, be it their homes, offices, to churches for weddings or
other special events.
The point is there are a lot of planes, trucks, and delivery vehicles
involved in getting flowers from the grower to you and of course, they all
use fuel: jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline--all refined from oil. You will
also notice that I said refrigerated trucks. Flowers are perishable
products and we have to keep them cool. At Delaware Valley, our policy
is to keep them at 30 to 35 degrees and to make sure that they have been
kept in that range from the time they are cut at the grower until they
reach the retail florist. This is what we call the cool chain. As we all
know, however, running refrigeration increases fuel cost and energy cost.
How is our industry coping with all of this? Well, back in 2004, the
Society of American Florists did a survey of retail florists. At that time
gasoline was $2 per gallon. About 50 percent of the florists said gas
prices were hitting their profits harder than heating prices or healthcare
costs. Only 11 percent of the florists reported that they were able to
increase product prices. About half said they were increasing delivery
fees. Now gas is close to $3 a gallon. These small businesses just can't
cope with the continued rise in gas prices. Keep in mind that they are
also facing double digit inflation in healthcare costs, rising labor costs
and even things like estate tax planning costs, just to mention a few other
concerns. Small businesses simply can't keep absorbing all these costs,
especially when they can't fully pass them along to their customers.
At our company, we use lots of diesel fuel. In fact, we buy it in
10,000 gallon tank loads, so we do get a discount. However, we are
coping with increases and unpredictability in prices which makes it not
only expensive, but hard to plan ahead. Two years ago we were buying
diesel fuel for a $1.57 a gallon. Today it is $2.74 a gallon, almost twice
as much. To cope with these prices, our company is experimenting with
different kinds of fuel efficient trucks, but for us that means more capital
investment. We are encouraging our customers to place bigger orders
less often. We are using computer routing software to make deliveries
more efficient. Although we try to be as efficient as possible, we still
have to impose higher delivery charges on our retail customers and our
trucking division currently imposes a 22 percent fuel surcharge on its
customers.
I mentioned the floral industry has a limited ability to pay us
through additional costs to our customers and why is that? Flowers are a
discretionary purchase. We compete with wine and chocolate and teddy
bears and jewelry and even dinners at restaurants. Almost any kind of
gift that you can think of is a competitor of flowers. So if the price of
flowers goes up too much, we lose market share to one of the competing
gift items or industries. The floral industry is working together to try and
establish the kind of joint advertising that will help us to sell more
flowers, but we don't want to see our efforts increase our market share
only to be eaten away by higher prices at the pump.
In closing, I applaud you for holding this hearing and for having the
courage to ask the questions you are asking. The U.S. needs a coherent
national energy policy, but as a businessman, I am not here to
recommend price controls or arbitrary government intervention. As
business people, we want to keep expanding our businesses and hiring
more employees. We very much appreciate the opportunity to be here
and we look forward to continuing to work with you. I would be pleased
to answer questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of John Wilkins follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WILKINS, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT
& CIO, DELAWARE VALLEY WHOLESALE FLORISTS, ON BEHALF OF
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FLORISTS
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FLORISTS
<bullet> The floral industry - growers, wholesalers, transporters,
importers, distributors, and retail florists - represents a major component
of the U.S. economy: $19.5 billion, at retail.
<bullet> All of the businesses in that market chain are significantly
impacted by the price of fuel. Other than labor costs, perhaps no single
factor has more power to impact the bottom line of floral businesses than
the cost of fuel.
<bullet> The increases, and the unpredictability of changes, in fuel
costs combines with other uncertainties and changes impacting the
industry (increasing globalization of trade, growth of e-commerce
and the Internet, other economic changes) to challenge the floral
industry, just as those changes impact other small businesses in our
economy.
<bullet> Up to an estimated 50 percent of the cost of flowers is
attributable to transportation costs.
<bullet> Fuel costs impact every step of the market chain. Imported
flowers travel by air transport, which is significantly affected by the price
of jet fuel. At the port, motor transport moves flowers through
Customs and then back onto planes, or onto refrigerated trucks, for
shipment to wholesalers. Domestic growers also must ship flowers
either by truck or by air. Wholesalers then must ship flowers to
retail floral shops, supermarkets, and other customers. Finally,
florists usually deliver floral arrangements directly to the
consumer's home, office, or event location. Each step in the market
chain incurs transportation costs, which are significantly impacted
by fuel prices.
<bullet> Adding to transportation and storage costs, flowers are a
perishable product, and must be shipped and stored under refrigeration.
Growers and importers precool their products before shipping and
require that trucks be precooled and stay cooled during transport.
Wholesale and retail florists also must maintain and ship product
under refrigeration. Running trucks and delivery vans under
refrigeration adds to fuel consumption and, therefore, to cost of
transportation.
<bullet> The industry is assessing fuel surcharges, working to
achieve better efficiency in delivery, and trying in other ways to counter
increases in fuel prices. However, there is a limit to which fuel costs can
increase without driving profits to zero - or into losses.
<bullet> Flowers are a discretionary purchase, competing for the
consumer's dollar against other gift items (wine, chocolate, etc.).
Therefore, increases in the cost of fuel cannot be fully passed through to the
consumer without decreasing overall sales.
<bullet> The U.S. needs a coherent energy policy, that will help our
economy and our businesses, large and small, be able to survive and deal with
energy costs as a predictable cost of doing business.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
Society of American Florists appreciates the opportunity to present this
testimony, discussing a topic very important to the floral industry, as it is
to other segments of our economy: the price of fuel.
I am John Wilkins, the Executive Vice President, and one of the
second-generation family owners of the Delaware Valley Floral Group. I
have served on the Board of Directors of the Society of American
Florists, and I am also a past president of the Wholesale Florist and
Florist Supplier Association.
The Delaware Valley Floral Group is now in its third generation.
One of our divisions is Delaware Valley Wholesale Florist, which was
founded by my father in 1959. Our headquarters is in Sewell, New
Jersey, and we have locations in Edison, New Jersey; Baltimore,
Maryland; and Miami, Florida. Another one of our divisions, Flower
Transfer, provides transportation and logistical services to the floral
industry, and operates a fleet of tractor-trailers.
The Society of American Florists (SAF) is the national trade
association representing the entire floral industry, a $19.5 billion
component, at retail, of the U.S. economy. SAF membership includes
some 10,000 small businesses: growers, wholesalers, retailers,
importers, suppliers, educators, and related organizations, located in
communities nationwide and abroad. It encompasses a market chain
including growers, wholesalers, transporters, importers, distributors, and
retail stores - all of whom are impacted by the price of fuel. The
industry produces and sells cut flowers and foliage, potted foliage plants,
potted flowering plants, bedding plants, and florist supplies.
U.S. Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture
figures show that there are over 10,000 floriculture growers in the U.S.,
over 1,000 wholesalers, and over 22,000 retail florists. More than
350,000 people are employed in commercial greenhouses, wholesale
florists and retail florists. Despite the industry's large size and economic
strength, it is made up largely of small, family-owned businesses. Many
floriculture growers, wholesalers and retailers own businesses which
have been in their families for several generations.
As a wholesale distributor and logistics provider, Delaware Valley
purchases floral products - fresh-cut flowers, greens, flowering and
foliage plants and hard goods -- from growers, manufacturers and
importers, and sells them to retail florists, supermarkets, mass marketers,
and other retail outlets of flowers, greens, and floral products, who in
turn resell them to the end consumer. As a result of the increasing
globalization of trade, the growth of e-commerce and the Internet, and
changes in the U.S. and global economy, the flower industry, just like
many other small businesses across America, continues to experience
challenges.
FUEL COSTS IMPACT EVERY STEP IN THE MARKET CHAIN
OF THE FLORAL INDUSTRY
Other than labor costs, perhaps no single factor has more power to
impact the bottom line of floral businesses than the cost of fuel. From
growers to wholesalers to retailers, an increase in fuel prices can
dramatically impact the bottom line. I want to talk with you more about
how our industry works - the various points at which gasoline and diesel
fuel, as well as jet fuel, impact the industry. I think it will help you move
from the impact of fuel prices on consumers and consumer spending to
the impact on businesses, employment, and our economy more generally.
As I discuss the various parts of the market chain, I will talk about
jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline prices - all of which factor into the
prices of floral product as it moves from grower to importer or wholesaler to
retailer to consumer.
As you buy flowers for your mothers, or wives, or daughters, this
coming weekend in celebration of Mother's Day, I am estimating
that up to 50 percent of the cost of the flowers is attributable to
transportation costs. That's not counting the percentage that might be
attributable to other fuel prices -heat for greenhouses and electricity for
refrigeration, for example. Transportation costs alone, at a very rough
estimate, account for up to 50 percent of the cost of flowers you buy.
First of all, a large percentage of the most popular cut flowers sold
in the U.S. are grown overseas - in South America or in Europe - even in
Africa and Asia. And our domestic production of cut flowers - which
remains a very important part of the industry as well - takes place
primarily in California, Florida, Washington, Hawaii and Oregon.
Obviously, fuel costs to transport those flowers through the market chain
to consumers are going to play a big role.
If produced in, say, Colombia, the flowers must come by air carrier,
to one of the major U.S. ports - usually Miami. Depending on the
country of origin, flights could come also through JFK in New York,
through Los Angeles and San Francisco, through Chicago, through
Houston. The cost of air transportation, obviously, is significantly
affected by the price of jet fuel.
When the flowers reach the port - say, of Miami - they are unloaded
from the plane and taken through U.S. Customs. After they have cleared
customs, the broker then moves them -- again by truck or other
motorized transport - and they are loaded either onto another plane or to
refrigerated trucks, for shipment, usually to importer's warehouses or to
wholesalers. From the port, the flowers are again stored under
refrigeration until they are shipped to the retail florist or other outlet for
sale to consumers. Taking my example, the Port of Miami alone handles
32,500 boxes of flowers every day - so these operations are large,
complex - and when an increase in the price of fuel is added into each
step, it has a big impact on the industry's ability to plan and to survive.
Flowers will not perform well for the consumer unless they are
maintained at a cool temperature. Extreme heat can destroy flowers
quickly. At the very least, it will result in a greatly reduced vase life for
the consumer. Research in our industry has found that roses, for
example, will last much longer if they are kept at something between 30
and 35 degrees F. during the entire time from cutting until they reach the
ultimate consumer. Delaware Valley's policy is to require that all trucks
maintain refrigeration within that range. Refrigeration makes truck
transportation more expensive.
The process described above is also true for flowers coming from
U.S. growers into the market. From California, Florida, or wherever they
are grown, the product must be carried quickly, with proper refrigeration,
to the wholesale and the retail customer - and finally, of course, to the
ultimate consumer. Again, refrigeration is required and contributes to
the fuel costs. Growers and importers precool their products before
shipping. They also require that the tractor-trailer rig which carries
flowers from the farm or warehouse to the wholesaler be precooled. The
truck may have to sit in the yard with its engine and refrigeration
running, while the trailer gets cool enough to load the flowers safely.
Next, the product moves again to one of the U.S. wholesale
operations like Delaware Valley. It must be carried in refrigerated
tractor-trailer rigs or by air, for example, from Miami to Philadelphia.
Time is of the essence in floral transportation, so we want to get the
flowers into our refrigerated warehouses and back out to our florist or
other customers as quickly and safely as we can.
For our operations, once the product gets to Delaware Valley, we
have a fleet of 101 refrigerated chassis-cab delivery trucks, which move
floral product from our facilities to those of the retailers, supermarkets,
and other customers all over the U.S.
All of the Delaware Valley trucks - the tractor-trailer rigs and the
chassis-cab delivery trucks -- use diesel fuel, although the trucks of many
wholesalers may be using gasoline. Either way, the unpredictability of
fuel prices makes business planning difficult. Two years ago, our price
of diesel fuel was $1.57/gallon. Today, it's $2.74/gallon - that's an
increase of $1.25 over two years. (It should be noted that Delaware
Valley buys diesel fuel in 10,000-gallon lots. At the pump, the price
would be significantly higher.) But even though we can achieve
economies of scale, the price increases will impact our business
planning, and, ultimately, our ability to make a profit. And it's more
complex than that: the average diesel fuel price in 2005 was
$2.26/gallon -- but in January of 2005, the price was $1.85. The yearly
average price in 2003 was $1.29/gallon. For the business owner, you can
see how difficult it is to predict what the costs are going to be and
incorporate that into realistic business planning.
Once the flowers reach the florist shop, we still aren't finished with
transportation costs. As you well know, florists usually deliver floral
arrangements directly to your home or office - so we have yet another
incremental, fuel-cost addition: here, the price of gasoline for the
florist's delivery truck. The great majority of floral purchases are
delivered directly to the consumer - to the home, the office, or the
location of a special event.
HOW ARE FLORAL BUSINESSES COPING WITH INCREASED COSTS?
At the end of 2004, SAF did a survey of retail florists which showed
some of the following results:
"With gasoline prices still hovering around the $2-per-gallon mark
. almost 40 percent of recent retail florists responding say they're
absorbing higher gasoline prices so far - compared to the 50 percent
who reported absorbing higher prices in May. Eleven percent of
recent respondents reported they've increased product prices, versus
7 percent earlier in 2004. About half of respondents reported that
they have raised delivery fees to compensate for higher costs. Fee
increases (per delivery) range from 50 cents to $4. Florists reported
other ways of compensating - including redesigning delivery routes,
calling customers to make sure they're home before deliveries, and
urging drivers to fill tanks whenever they see lower gasoline prices.
About 50 percent of these respondents say gasoline prices are
affecting profits more than heating prices and health-care costs.
In December, 2004, at the time of this survey, the national average
price per gallon of regular gas was $1.95, about 31 percent higher
than the same time the year before. The West Coast reported
averages of $2.16 per gallon and the Gulf Coast reported a lower
average of $1.84 per gallon." [SAF Press Release, December 9,
2004]
That survey was taken a year and a half ago - with prices around the
$2/gallon mark. The average retail price of a gallon of gasoline rose
almost four cents across the nation during the past two weeks, according
to a Lundburg Survey released last Sunday. Self-serve regular averaged
about $2.94 a gallon, and the average price of mid-grade was
$3.04/gallon. Premium hit $3.14 a gallon, compared with $3.10 two
weeks ago. SAF is again surveying retailers to see how they are
responding, in this very busy period right before Mother's Day.
I haven't touched, in this testimony, on the cost of natural gas,
because it's not a topic of this hearing. Natural gas is used to heat the
greenhouses in which flowers and plants must be grown in most parts of
the U.S. - and natural gas prices, as you know, have also increased
dramatically. Grower after grower has mentioned to us how the situation
is reaching crisis proportions. Growers in the U.S. are closing or sealing
off portions of their facilities, letting greenhouses lie vacant, because it's
too expensive to heat them.
Our industry can't continue to absorb those price increases - which
impact every step of the chain, from grower to consumer. All of the
costs of transportation must get pushed along and reflected in the price of
the product, if our market system is to work.
Yet there is a limit to which they can be passed along to the ultimate
consumer.
We in the floral industry have an added wrinkle. Flowers are not a
necessary purchase - they are a discretionary purchase. We compete for
the consumer's dollar against things like wine, chocolate, or other gifts,
even in good times - and in tighter times, we have to compete against
other choices the consumer might have for available spending - movies,
college educations, vacations, and so on. The point is, there is a limit -
and not a very high one - to how many costs we, as businesspeople, can
pass through to the consumer. So the increases in fuel costs are tending
to come out of our own profits - at every step along the chain: brokers
and importers in Miami, trucking companies, airlines, growers,
wholesalers and, of course, the retailer who finally sells the product to
you.
Even though Americans think of flowers as an integral part of
holidays - Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas -
and as an integral part of formal occasions - like weddings, funerals,
christenings, business banquets, and high-school proms - Americans are
not high per-capita consumers of flowers when compared with our
European counterparts. We in the U.S. spend about $31 on cut flowers
per capita per year, compared with $55 in Denmark or Belgium, $72 in
Holland, or $112 per capita in Switzerland. Our industry continues to
work together on joint marketing and promotion efforts for flowers, to
increase the demand. But to make those efforts work well, we have to
supply good-quality, long-lasting product to the consumer when and
where the consumer wants to buy it. Fuel costs are a major
consideration.
To make matters worse, the traditional retailers in our industry -
made up by far for the most part of small business owners, often family-
owned businesses, sometimes owned by a family for three or four
generations - are now under extreme pressure from the supermarkets and
mass marketers. Retail flower shops are a difficult business, and retailers
go out of business at a relatively high rate.
All of these incremental fuel cost increases from each segment of the
market chain - fuel for air transportation, truck fuel, gas to deliver to
consumers' homes and offices - add together to compound the final cost
of the product, and to make business-planning very challenging. And of
course the real question is whether those additional, sometimes very
unpredictable costs can be passed along to the consumer or absorbed by
the business without harming the business and ultimately, our economy.
What are we doing at Delaware Valley to help counter these
increased costs and avoid laying off employees or downsizing our
business? We have had to increase our delivery charges to our retail
customers. We are imposing a 22 percent fuel surcharge over our normal
rate to our transportation customers (product that, for example, we might
carry for other wholesalers, product carried to mass marketers, or product
carried on "back-hauls," (the return-run of an otherwise-empty tractor-
trailer). At this point, most of the transportation companies are also
assessing fuel surcharges.
We are a large company, and our transportation is efficient. We
utilize computer tracking. We are experimenting with different types of
fuel-efficient trucks. We are encouraging our customers to place fewer,
but larger orders to save on transportation costs. We're doing everything
we can to counter the increases in gas and other fuel prices. But we, as a
company, would not be able to continue operations without imposing
these fuel surcharges at this point in time. As rising fuel costs cut further
and further into businesses' already low margins, the additional costs
added will quickly drive profits to zero - or into losses.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. needs a coherent energy policy: not price controls, not
arbitrary government intervention - but an energy policy that will help
our economy, and its businesses, large and small, be able to survive and
deal with energy costs as a predictable cost of doing business.
As a business owner, we would encourage Congress and the
Administration to work toward a more coherent national energy policy:
for example, encouraging alternate fuel sources, encouraging more U.S.
domestic production under environmentally safe practices. Government
interference in the marketplace itself is usually viewed negatively by
business, of course. The law of unintended consequences often seems to
follow direct government intervention. But for business owners, like me
and my family, to continue to employ and provide benefits for our
employees, and plan ahead for our business operations, we must be able
to buy fuel at reasonable, and reasonably predictable, costs.
I very much appreciate your giving the floral industry the
opportunity to present some examples of the impact of fuel costs on our
industry, and our employees, nationwide.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. The Chair
recognizes himself for the first 5 minute question round. Mr. Cooper,
your testimony is always thoughtful and on the point. I appreciate that. I
have found out that crude futures on the New York Mercantile, the
margin rate is set by the traders themselves; it is not a regulated rate.
And currently it is somewhere between 3 and 6 cents per dollar per
contract, which means for about $300 to $400 you can control a thousand
barrel contract that is worth in today's prices, $74,000. On the other
hand, the margin requirement on a refined gasoline futures contract is
over $10,000. Would it be a good idea for the Congress or the regulators
at the CFTC or the SEC to set a minimum margin requirement on crude
futures by statute or regulation?
DR. COOPER. Well, I frankly think that we need to get a much better
understanding of what those markets are doing to us. I mean, if you look
at the growth of trading in that market, and obviously low margin
requirements, there was a popular phrase way back when in a Texas
company called "asset-light", "asset-light" gets you in trouble, as we
have learned. So what you allow here is you allow people to commit to
huge sums of financial obligations, counter party risk, with very little
assets behind it and that encourages more and more trading. If you look
back at these markets, the dollar value of trading for energies, they
include wood there, but I don't think it is wood that is driving those
numbers, has been increasing by something like $10 billion a month
every month for 40 months.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. But my question is--
DR. COOPER. Yes, and that helps. So the answer is that if you
discipline people by forcing them to back their promises up with more
cash, you will reduce the number of people who are--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I had the President of IMEX in my office
yesterday and he thinks it is a bad idea, obviously. He doesn't want
anybody telling him how to set the margin requirement. But he does
state that if the market rate requirement were to go up, there would be
less speculation in the market. Now, he doesn't necessarily think that
would be a good thing. His opinion is the speculators provide the
crediting and they take the opposite side of every trade and that if we
took the speculators out of the market, the price of gasoline would
probably go up because you would have a less liquid market. But it
seems to me, to the extent there is a speculative aspect to the crude price,
that making it more difficult to speculate would tend to cool off the
market, which would tend to bring prices down.
DR. COOPER. The quick fee is not free, and that is the point they
miss. Every time that a transaction takes place, if it is more volatile, if
there is more risk, there are transaction costs, right? So every time those
transactions take place, you are increasing the risk premiums. You have
to pay more to get someone to actually part with a barrel of oil and over
the last two or three years folks have looked at this liquidity, the
increasing volatility and risk have added dramatically to the traded price
of oil and we think that sets a target. The people who own the physical
commodity then start to shoot at--that is one step. There are lots of other
things we would like to see. I think that resides in a different committee.
I may be wrong.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We can always try.
DR. COOPER. But, you know, the over-the-counter market is
unregulated. Traders don't have to report. They are less regulated than
bankers, for sure. With bankers we require them to register reports, have
a clean criminal record, for instance, and then we set their margin
requirements. And frankly, in a certain sense, energies are more
important than money to this economy and they ought to be better
regulated.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I need to ask a question of Mr. Sundstrom. I
think in your testimony you indicated that you supported the creation in
the United States of a refined product reserve, is that correct?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Who would pay for that?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Well, ultimately, the consumer would pay for it
through taxes or through increased price in the fuel, but you were just
talking about volatility in the futures market. Really, our concern for a
long period of time, many years, has not been so much the price of
gasoline, although we are mortified that it is as high as it is now. Our
concern has been the stability of the price and we think that by having a
cushion of reserve gasoline in this market, particularly with the smaller
number of refiners that are operating in the United States, that ought to
help stabilize prices, particularly when we are faced with situations such
as we have had in the last few years, the hurricanes in Florida.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Cooper mentioned this, too. Would you
just tell the domestic distributors or refiners to maintain a higher than
normal inventory, like they do in Europe, or would you like to see the
Government create a stockpile?
MR. SUNDSTROM. I think the most direct way to do it would be to
require it of those that produce the fuel.
DR. COOPER. You have either or both. Those are the two ways to
get it. You could require a percentage of your expected sales to be in
storage and/or you could have a Federal stockpile to be used for other
purposes or similar purposes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I have got about six more questions, but it is
not fair to the other Members. My last question is to you, Dr. Cooper.
You always give great potential solutions and I am serious. I have never
heard you say anything that didn't make some sense, at least to think
about doing and I am sincere, but as smart as you are, not once today did
you mention any kind of a supply side component to your solution. You
didn't mention drilling in ANWR, you didn't mention drilling in the
OCS. Is it just anathema to the consumer groups to have a supply
component to your solution matrix?
DR. COOPER. Well, I actually did mention a supply component. I
talked about biofuels and alternative fuels.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I guess so. What percent of the market
do you think--
DR. COOPER. Well, but the problem with that supply side solution is
one, it would not have a significant impact on the price of oil. It is a
mature resource base, it is not going to change the balance in the world
in the long term, and above all, the same entities will control that
resource that have underinvested in their capacity, that are still not
treating oil, if it is worth $50 or $60 a barrel, so when we look at supply
side, biofuels have three characteristics that we find very interesting.
One, it is a different raw material. It can be corn, it can be switch grass,
it may be coal. I am sure I might get a question about that. Okay, it is a
different raw material.
Two, those ethanol plants compete with refineries. They expand the
capacity about our ability to produce liquid fuels. And three, for most of
these, it is a different set of actors, actors who are not part of the club or
the game, okay? And so in the scheme of things, we think that is where
we get a much bigger bang for the buck is looking at those alternatives.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, thank you, sir. Mr. Boucher.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
let me say, Dr. Cooper, that I share the Chairman's view of the quality of
your testimony. I am continually impressed with your thoroughness and
the fact that you research the subject completely and then make a
comprehensive presentation. You have certainly done that again here
this afternoon. And you have just answered my first question, which was
the potential contribution on the supply side, that coal to liquid fuels can
make. We heard from the Energy Information Administration this
morning that at a time when oil is priced at about $40 per barrel, the coal
conversion to liquid fuels becomes economic and EIA is projecting well
above $40 per barrel for the long term. That is bad news, generally, for
gasoline consumers, but it does point to the appropriateness of making
some investments now and taking such steps as to further encourage the
advent of coal to liquid fuels in this market. I have some other questions
for you, but let me just ask, would you like to make a brief comment
about that potential?
DR. COOPER. Well, again, I have just sort of given you the reasons
why we look for the alternatives and I would rather not get into picking
and choosing which of those alternatives will be best.
MR. BOUCHER. That is fair enough.
DR. COOPER. I do think what we need to look at is whether there are
structural impediments and critical decisions that can be made to
promote the transition. So we heard a lot today about the lack of
infrastructure for the ethanol fuels. The question is will the industry
provide the infrastructure? If not, how do we goose that? What is the
automobile industry doing about it. So I think given that these
alternatives are out there, we also need to look at the balance of
subsidization. There are some people who say the oil industry is heavily
subsidized; some people will say it reflects a certain set of characteristics
about the industry in terms of depletion allowances and so forth. So we
need to think about the balance so we are not tipping the scale one way
or the other.
MR. BOUCHER. Let me move to a different area. I believe you
indicated that the domestic spread in the United States, the difference
between what crude oil markets for and what the price at the pump is, is
something on the order of 40 cents per gallon above the average. Is that
number essentially correct?
DR. COOPER. Above the historic average.
MR. BOUCHER. Above the historic average. What is the historic
average?
DR. COOPER. Well, if you look over the course of a year, it is about
30-35 cents and that is the difference between the crack spread was only
about 20, historically. I am using the domestic spread which includes
retailing. So it is about 30 or 35 cents. It has gotten a lot higher than
that in the last 6 years.
MR. BOUCHER. And so that added component of 30 to 35 cents
above the historic average, they would be 40 cents above the historic
average. It is attributable, I am sure, to a variety of factors, but if you
had to target one, what would you nominate as the most prominent factor
that leads to that and to what extent does the shortage of an adequate
refinery capacity in the United States contribute to it?
DR. COOPER. Well, in the report we submitted for the record, we
looked at an interesting contrast. We look at the large American oil
companies. They have U.S. refineries and foreign refineries. The rate of
profit on the U.S. refineries has increased twice as fast as the foreign
refineries in the last 5 or 6 years. The explanation for that has to be a
difference in the market structure. Our market is much tighter and you
heard Mr. Gruenspecht this morning talk about the fact that the European
market had excess capacity because of the switch to diesel. We didn't
have that capacity and so the ability to raise the profit margin here faster
than abroad is a function of market structure.
MR. BOUCHER. Some have suggested that because of the restrained
refinery capacity in the United States we are seeing record profits for the
refiners and the fact they are realizing those record profits is largely the
reason that we are not seeing the construction now of adequate refinery
capacity in the United States. Maybe that is of necessity a subjective
conclusion that one must reach, but my question to you would be is there
any evidence that would point to that conclusion?
DR. COOPER. Well, there was evidence in the mid-90s discovered in
the merger proceedings where, and you heard mention of that this
morning, the corporate memo said we've got to tighten this market up,
and after the mergers, refineries were closed. The market was tightened
in that respect. Studies were done of the behavior of the players in that
market. The Iran study I cite in my testimony, in which they discovered
that refiners used to compete for market share. They would cut their
prices. They used to worry about going short, but now they don't. Why?
Because they know they can put the price up. So in a certain sense, the
relationship between the price and the structure is always conjectural.
Occasionally you will find a smoking gun in a corporate memo. Well,
we got those. So at every level we have the evidence that this has hurt
us. GAO did a study, as well, which said it also hurt us.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
MR. BOUCHER. I will be pleased to yield.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I think, to be fair to the refineries, and I am not
defending their margins today, but in some of those time periods they
were loss leaders. The refinery business, at one time in the United
States, was not a profit center. It is now, that is not necessarily a bad
thing that we can argue. I think your testimony about the concentration
by region is worth further investigation. So I am not attacking your main
point, but we need to be fair to the refiners. There was a time in this
country that they were losing money and that is one of the reasons some
of those mergers happened, because some of the major oil companies
wanted to get out of the refinery business because they didn't think they
could make any money.
DR. COOPER. And at the same time, we have to remember that a
great deal of the refining capacity in this country is integrated and so
where the profits are taken is a function of the transfer price. And so
when the price of crude oil on the market goes to $65, I am self-
supplying 50 percent of my capacity with oil I own. My cost of binding
that crude didn't go up to $65. I could transfer that oil to my refinery at
the old price because my cost didn't go up and my refinery profits would
go way up. In the alternative, I could take the world oil price and then
transfer that to my refineries; my profits would look smaller. So it is
correct, I think, that we also need to look at these integrated companies
and their overall profit.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. But isn't it true that the big, big integrated
companies tended to shed their refinery systems as opposed to acquire
more?
DR. COOPER. Certainly, through the 1990s and after the mergers, we
closed about 50 refineries. They were a function of those mergers.
Earlier we heard about the tea kettles, that was a small refiner bias. We
had decided in the 1980s we wanted to have these things. We can debate
whether that was a good idea, although we look back on that excess
capacity industry, it cost us money. We look back on that excess
capacity industry and say hey, that turned out to be a pretty consumer
friendly environment, even though it raised the cost a little bit. So in
fact, we can have the refining industry we want by setting the public
policy and you are right, it was a thin margin business for a while in an
average margin integrated company. Now it has become a pretty fat
margin business in a very fat margin integrated company.
MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge one further
question, this will be brief. Dr. Cooper, you have referenced the need for
reserves. You mentioned both the need for a product reserve and the
need for a refinery reserve. Mr. Dingell and I are introducing a bill
tomorrow that would call for a national refinery reserve modeled on the
very successful strategic petroleum reserve. My question to you is if we
had a product reserve, which we don't have today, but there has been
commentary from several witnesses about the appropriateness of it; if we
had the product reserve, why would we also need a refinery reserve? Do
we, in fact, need both?
DR. COOPER. Well, I would rather attack the problem at the refinery
level. That has become the bottleneck. I think the product reserve also
helps, because it is a very short term. Let us be clear. We have a really
short-term problem in this industry. Americans can't stop driving. We
built our country around the assumption that we are going to get in our
cars and go places and so in the short term, you have got a really
significant spike problem. And so it just struck me that the approach that
was taken to a strategic refinery reserve, and I use the word strategic.
Let us be clear. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not used to
discipline price, has never been used to discipline price. We envision the
strategic refinery reserve and the strategic product reserve being used in
that fashion and so I used to say about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
make it so big that no politician would dare not to use it when things got
bad. It is clearly not big enough yet, by that standard. But the strategic
refinery reserve gives you a 60, 90-day and out flexibility; a product
reserve is that really short-term response in a very volatile market.
MR. BOUCHER. Thank you, Doctor.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time is up. Mr. Terry of
Nebraska.
MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing on this
dialogue, you started your opening statement talking about how the oil
companies are not expending their profits on infrastructure, but rather
hoarding the cash for a variety of different reasons, but what should they
be using by the dollars by way of infrastructure? Should they be
building up refining infrastructure with those dollars, pipelines,
exploration? What other areas should they be using their dollars?
DR. COOPER. Well, clearly they have underinvested in refining
capacity and the statements by Exxon about not wanting to build new
refineries has sort of reminded people that this was a business decision.
So clearly, we are, by the standard of comparison to other sectors,
manufacturing sectors, we are a good five million barrels a day short of
refining capacity. They should have built it, they haven't built it. That is
one place to spend it and it is not that expensive compared to $100
billion of excess cash flow, free cash flow, that you can build an awful
lot of refineries. The numbers I have heard is $2.5 billion, so there is
plenty of money there to build those refineries.
MR. TERRY. Are they just not building it here, or are they building
it overseas?
DR. COOPER. In fact, looking at the Exxon spreadsheet financials, I
didn't look at all of them, they weren't building any place, but overseas
you had, you heard this morning, you had the shift in Europe to diesel,
which created excess capacity for gasoline.
MR. TERRY. We had just heard, or I have been told that they are
using money to build up the infrastructure, including refining, but it is so
difficult to do within the United States, that they would rather set up
refineries overseas and just bring in the refined product. That is why I
was curious about whether it is just U.S. investment in infrastructure, or
whether the investment is overseas and you are saying that is not even
happening overseas.
DR. COOPER. Again, I looked at the Exxon sheet. Ask me a
question and I will go through the financials of the American majors.
Now, BP and Shell, they behave differently because they are not
domiciled here.
MR. TERRY. Yes. You had answered the Chairman's question and
actually, that was leading into mine, about whether ethanol plants and
some of the biofuel plants that are coming up, either on line now or being
built now, are going to come on line, whether that could provide some
relief on the supply side. And I really like that model because what I see
is a bunch of corn growers banding together in a co-op and building an
ethanol plant, so if you could expand on how that can and what capacity
we need to build up with biofuels to provide some relief in the future.
Then also, is there a way that these co-ops that are building the 50
million gallon plants for ethanol, whatever their feedstock would be,
whether or not they could team up and in essence become a co-op for a
refinery and combine the two processes?
DR. COOPER. Well, let me give you, we have looked very hard,
because we went out on a limb with this, with our "50 by 2030," which is
a 50 MPG car in a quarter of a century. I estimate that would reduce our
oil consumption below what it otherwise would have been, by about five
and a half million barrels a day, which is very substantial. I mean, if you
think about the oil market today, we are told there is one million barrels a
day of excess capacity in the whole world oil market; five million barrels
a day is a big number in that context.
But the interesting thing is that there is a bill in the Senate,
bipartisan, shooting for 10 million barrels a day reduction by 2030,
which is my end date. Ten million barrels a day is a very big number
and I can only get half of that out of the vehicle fleet by getting to 50
miles per gallon. This will tell you how deep a hole we have gotten
ourselves into here, okay? So if you look out there, I can see two and a
half million barrels a day of biofuels, as liquid fuels coming into that
market. You have heard the numbers today. There are hundreds of
thousands today, right? That is a massive increase. That is a huge
challenge. I understand the farmers say we can do it, we can do it, but
when you look, right? So that is a real challenge and I am only three
quarters of the way to that 10 million barrel a day goal. We have a lot of
work to do in order to get, to use the President's word, end our oil
addiction.
MR. TERRY. Yes.
DR. COOPER. That is a tremendously difficult task and so two and a
half million barrels a day of biofuels will keep a lot of farmers busy and
it is a big job.
MR. TERRY. I think you have done a good job of showing how we
need to have a more comprehensive approach in this. In my last few
seconds, Mr. Sundstrom, E-85.
MR. SUNDSTROM. Yes.
MR. TERRY. Nebraska. Omaha, Nebraska. One pump for 600,000
people. Even if I wanted to buy a flex fuel vehicle, I am not driving 186
blocks to get to the one. One of the biggest blocks is that the gas station
chains are not allowed to put an E-85 pump under the canopy. What are
you all doing to see if we can't put more flex fuel vehicles out on the
road and that they actually have a place to fuel up?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Well, I am not certain that it is up to us to put the
pumps in. Clearly, our members are interested in the alternative fuel
vehicles and we encourage their purchase, but the reality is there a very
small percentage of those vehicles on the road right now and I guess we
would have some sympathy for the gasoline station owner who might put
in one of these pumps only to have the occasional drive by and fill up
once a week, so you know, clearly something more needs to be done to
stimulate investment in the infrastructure. I am not sure it is going to
come strictly from the private sector.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for appearing. Mr. Sundstrom, thank you for speaking about
the affect that high gas prices have on the American family, on the
average American family because, you know, the price increase will cost
the family an average about $1,200 a year. My district in northern
Michigan, it is very dependent upon tourism. We have the Great Lakes,
we have national forests, outdoor recreation. We drive long distances.
Can you please address the effect of this $1,260, I believe you said in
your testimony, would have on tourism in places like northern Michigan?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Well, AAA is also one of the largest travel
agencies in the United States, so we are clearly very concerned about
that, as well. Our members disproportionately travel at a greater rate
than just about any other segment of the population. We do a summer
travel survey every spring. We will actually release that on the 18th of
this month. Frankly, we are not exactly sure what we are going to hear
from the American public about their travel intentions this year.
We hope that because the economy overall is doing relatively well
that people will feel secure enough in their jobs and their income that
they will hit the road, but we are in uncharted territory. As I said earlier,
the national office of AAA's in Florida, in Orlando, which is the largest
tourism destination in the United States. There are areas in this country
that are extremely dependent on Americans getting in their vehicles and
traveling for recreation, so you know, that is another element to the
gasoline price situation that causes us a lot of anxiety.
MR. STUPAK. Thanks. Mr. Cooper, in your testimony you
mentioned potential for energy commodity traders to take advantage of
increased volume and validity. In fact, you specifically cite the New
York Times article, "Trading Frenzy Adds to Jump in Price of Oil."
Knowing that some of us believe this adds as much as 20 percent to the
price of crude oil in the market. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, I have introduced legislation, the PUMP Act, H.R. 5248, that
would extend the oversight of the Commodities Future Trading
Commission to off-market trades, which are currently unregulated.
Legislation such as PUMP, which would provide increased oversight and
transparency to these markets, would that be something your
organization could support and secondly and specifically, on the New
York Times price of oil, that article you mentioned, what are some of the
recommendations short term and long term? You cite some in your
testimony, but what are some of the short term/long terms we should do,
if not the PUMP Act, but what else should we do?
DR. COOPER. I submitted for the record a study I did earlier this
year for Attorneys General in the Midwest on natural gas supply and futures
markets, and therein we had a series of recommendations and the
fundamentals are almost exactly the same. The regulatory structure is a
little different at the burner tip as opposed to the pump, but the physical
and financial markets are essentially the same. And we emphatically
supported extending oversight to the off exchange or the over-the-
counter markets. They are entirely unregulated, with vital commodities
that--
MR. STUPAK. So you would be supportive of the PUMP Act?
DR. COOPER. Oh, absolutely. And there is a graph in there which
shows what happened when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
said they were going to ask people to document their trades. The traders
just, they stopped reporting. I mean, it was amazing. Effective oversight
will scare people out of the market and frankly, as far as I can tell, the
liquidity, the volatility, the risk premium, the volume is hurting us, not
helping us at this stage and so oversight over those markets is critical;
reporting requirements for large traders are critical, which has been in
legislation that has moved around in both parties. We would also like to
see better trading limits and position limits.
Chairman Barton talked about one in the gasoline oil market. We
think there are others in the natural gas market; the positions are even
larger and the settlement window is even smaller, so it is remarkable how
few people can own how much gas and set that contract price. It just
doesn't make any sense. We regulate onions and soybeans and pork
bellies better than we do natural gas and gasoline and it is a mistake we
just made are we just modernized the act a few years ago, regulatory
decisions were made and so I think these are decisions that need to be
revisited.
MR. STUPAK. Commodity Future Trade Commission, that aspect of
it, we actually have passed a House bill earlier this year, I believe it is
before the Senate, and then they sort of object to any more oversight of
this but yet, we know at least three-fourths of all the future oil trades are
unregulated. There is no transparency to it.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. Burgess.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sundstrom, several
times it has been mentioned now about the mandatory refined product
reserve in Europe. Can you tell us how much gasoline is currently in the
reserve?
MR. SUNDSTROM. No, I cannot. Let me also say that AAA was
caught unaware that Europe had gasoline reserves that they could assist
us with and we were quite pleased to find out that they had that available.
We had spoken with members of the industry over a number of years
about that and we were told that it was completely unworkable, not
feasible, and too expensive. But we were certainly gratified to find that
Europe had that product available to us.
MR. BURGESS. Well, the fact that they use more diesel than
gasoline, does it make it easier for them to have the refined product
reserve of gasoline there?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Well, in recent years, yes, that is my
understanding.
MR. BURGESS. And what about, would you have to rotate the stock
so that it didn't become stale or old?
MR. SUNDSTROM. That is actually one of the reasons that we were
told it was unworkable in the United States, but again, it sounds like they
figured out a way to do that in Europe.
MR. BURGESS. Do you know how they have done that?
MR. SUNDSTROM. No, I do not.
MR. BURGESS. What would be the minimum level of mandatory
reserve for refined product, in your mind?
MR. SUNDSTROM. Well, to begin with, I think the citizens of
Florida, in the Gulf Coast, would like to see a product available that
would meet their needs for a week or two, if they were to lose their
capacity to receive gasoline or move gasoline in the wake of a major
hurricane.
MR. BURGESS. Dr. Cooper, you referenced a memo, and I am going
to assume that is a memo that we have seen in the past that Mr. Markey
has had in the committee. I don't suppose you have a copy of that memo
today?
DR. COOPER. I don't have it today, no.
MR. BURGESS. If it is the same one that Mr. Markey has shown us in
the past, the second line on that was concern about the increasing
problem with liability and with siting new refineries. Is that still an
issue?
DR. COOPER. Well, as far as I can tell, it is not an issue in the
sense that they haven't tried. I mean, if you think about the first time I
testified here on this issue in 2001, they could have gotten refineries sited
by now and you have heard, we don't have evidence of the specific refineries
that have been prevented. They simply haven't tried and that was a
business decision and now we have fairly strong affirmation of that from
the Chairman of Exxon who says he is not going to build any new
greenfield refineries because he sees demand easing up in 2020.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of that memo be made available to the members of the committee?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Without objection, so ordered.
MR. BURGESS. With the bill that we passed last fall that would
accelerate siting of refineries, is that the type of thing that you think will
help in this regard?
DR. COOPER. I don't think the industry is interested in building new
refineries and that is the fundamental problem. They do not see it as in
their business interests and we put the quotes from the Chairman of
Exxon in, it is in the document we submitted. Having gained market
power over price, it is not in their interest to lose that market power by
building and there are so few of them that there is not a competitive
market that forces them to make those decisions, so I don't think that the
impediment was, though, the siting problem. I think the problem was a
business decision and the economics of that business decision haven't
changed all that much.
MR. BURGESS. But indeed, there are other companies that are
smaller companies and, if the siting of refineries was not problematic and
if they were perhaps some liability relief, might that not go toward
creating more refinery locations?
DR. COOPER. There is precious entry in this business and the list of
companies I have read you is a massive exit and so there is very little
entry in this business. The barriers to entries are very great.
MR. BURGESS. But still, small start-up energy companies are not
unheard of. Down in my district, there is a gas company which started
poking holes in the Barnett Shale a few years ago and now they are a big
player, so it does happen.
DR. COOPER. That is right.
MR. BURGESS. They started up with some of the research and
development that this Congress, not this Congress, but Congress
provided them, some Federal money that was provided, so it is not
necessarily a bad thing to increase energy supply.
DR. COOPER. No, I just said there is precious little, not enough to
discipline the price.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Wilkins, I was grateful to hear you say that you
didn't favor price controls, though I will have to admit, I am not a big
purchaser of flowers, but my district office bought Starbucks coffee for
an academy event not too long ago and I asked them how much it cost
and it was a 2.8 liter container and it cost $12, that is $16.29 if I
remember my metric conversions, per gallon, if I remember my metric
conversions. I was just going to ask if you thought we needed a price
control on Starbucks because the price seems to be out of hand and our
constituents can't afford it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I never knew my metric conversion. The fact
that you can remember yours is a testimony. Let us see. Does Mrs.
Cubin want to ask questions of this panel?
MRS. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on. I will submit
my questions to them in writing.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. All right. Does Mr. Radanovich wish to ask
questions of this panel?
MR. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit them
in writing, as well.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Does Mr. Bass? Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions to ask
these fine witnesses here today and I want to get on to the markup that is
happening, but I do want to welcome a dozen or so constituents of mine
from the Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service who are visiting me
right now and they are in the crowd here today and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, if they will stand up.
MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Does Ms. Bono wish to ask questions?
MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a brief one,
actually, I think. I apologize. I have been out of the room for almost the
entire questioning, so I hate to be redundant, but I believe that one
question that hasn't been asked is something communities can do, is
synchronizing traffic lights something that we have looked at or has that
question been asked? I apologize again, but synchronizing traffic lights,
it seems like we could make a great dent in efficiency.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. That question has not been asked.
MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It is a good question.
DR. COOPER. Well, I think there is a very broad array of things that
we can do and anyone who can show a local government that a change in
rules or regulations will, in fact, lower the oil consumption of their
citizens owes it to those citizens. The example I like to use is
remarkable; in many communities in America, it is illegal to put a
grocery store in a neighborhood. Because of zoning laws, we have
separated it. So people have to get in their car to go to the grocery store,
and so there is a large array of things that we could do to save oil and
gasoline and I think we ought to have programs to stimulate that.
MS. BONO. But your group hasn't looked at specifically
synchronizing traffic lights?
DR. COOPER. We haven't. We have been focused on the automobile
because increasing the efficiency of the automobile is the grand slam in
this equation.
MS. BONO. Thank you. In my district, actually, we have a lot of
lanes specifically designed for electric vehicles, not hybrids, but the little
tiny electric vehicles. People do take those to the grocery store, so we
are working on it. But also, for Mr. Wilkins, where are we here? Within
your industry, have you witnessed more concern over fuel costs and
impacts in certain geographic areas? I would assume the desert,
California, southwest region would be among the higher regions and if
so, do those of us who are mothers in the southwest region expect six
flowers instead of a dozen on Mothers Day?
MR. WILKINS. Well, certainly for Mothers Day, the cost of flowers
will vary depending upon supply and demand, and I don't think that we
have really heard a lot about costs being higher in certain regional areas
of the country, although that may be. Certainly, fuel costs are higher in
California and on the West Coast than they are on the East Coast and so I
wouldn't expect that you would see a cut back one way or another.
When there are temporary price increases, you will generally see it being
passed along in the form of the delivery charge or something like that or
the retail florist. The provider will be absorbing at least part of that cost.
MS. BONO. So in your industry are you looking for more efficient
vehicles or alternative fueled vehicles as a whole?
MR. WILKINS. Yes, I think a number of industry partners are doing
that. In our particular case, we are right now looking at more fuel
efficient vehicles and it is kind of a sort of a conundrum between picking
the types of vehicles because what we find is that the vehicles that we
have been using, always diesel fuel based powered vehicles, the vehicles
that tend to be able to carry the most weight and to be the most reliable
are also the less fuel efficient and we are looking at trucks like the
Sprinters, that a lot of folks have heard of. But they are a lighter weight
truck. They have a lot better fuel mileage, but they can't carry as much
load. In some cases, you are forced to have two trucks of that type to
replace one truck that is less fuel efficient.
MS. BONO. All right.
MR. WILKINS. And so there are some of the things that we are
involved in, but you know, we have even gone the route of consolidating
routes using computer routing software that has allowed us to take trucks
off the road, but it also means laying off some people at the same time
because of that consolidation.
MS. BONO. Thank you. I thank you all. Mr. Chairman, I know you
want to get on to the markup, so thank you for holding this hearing and I
yield back. Thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you. Seeing no other Members present
who haven't been given a chance, we are going to adjourn this hearing.
Thank you to you gentlemen and we will probably have written
questions for you. This hearing is adjourned. We are going to reconvene
the markup at 3:30, so we will change the room and reconvene for the
markup at 3:30.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY DR. MARK COOPER, RESEARCH
DIRECTOR, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
The Honorable Barbara Cubin
1. In regards to the currently volatile energy markets, you state in
your testimony that "if we had started working on effective solutions
six years ago, we could be well into the mid-term of a long-term
policy shift." Would you then agree that American consumers
would not be in this situation had the energy bill first passed by this
committee and the larger House of Representatives in the summer of
2001 been enacted into law?
No. The policies that will actually address the problem have never been
included in legislation passed by either house. The key to a long-term
solution is a substantial increase in the fuel efficiency of the vehicle
fleet. The House has voted this down. In the mid-term, a strategic
refinery reserve provides capacity to cushion supply shocks. The House
voted that down.
2. You also stated in your testimony that the refining industry
have historically "closed refineries for business reasons and refuse to
build new ones for business reasons." I agree. Would it then not
make sense for this Congress to pass the Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act (HR 5254) - a bill that would encourage new refining
capacity by streamlining the current facility citing process?
As I pointed out in my testimony, the industry has no desire to build new
refineries. It does not see the business value of doing so, as surplus
capacity puts downward pressures on prices. The solution is a strategic
petroleum reserve, which can easily be built within the existing
requirements.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY GEOFF SUNDSTROM, DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
The Honorable Barbara Cubin
Q1. Are there regions in the country where your members are
disproportionately affected by rising gas prices? In your testimony,
you astutely pointed out that skyrocketing fuel prices do not present
the same economic challenge to urban dwellers -with access to mass
transit - as they do for regular drivers. As public transportation is
relatively nonexistent in Wyoming and much of the rural west,
driving is simply a necessity. What conservation measures do you
recommend to your rural members in today's climate of high fuel
costs?
A1. AAA has for many years published a free brochure on conserving
energy and saving money at the gas pump called "AAA Gas
Watcher's Guide." This publication offers tips and advice that can
be useful to all motorists and is available at many AAA offices and
on the Web at www.aaaexchange.com.
With regard to the special fuel-use situation encountered by those
who must travel long distances in rural areas, AAA suggests the
purchase or lease of the most fuel-efficient vehicles available that
also meet the sometimes special needs of rural households. For
some motorists this may mean a switch within the same family of
vehicles, from a larger truck to a smaller truck for example, or from
a SUV model with a large engine to the same model equipped with a
more fuel-efficient motor. Other consumers may be able to move
from a large car, truck or SUV into a more fuel-conserving car,
minivan or station wagon. AAA makes this recommendation
because many of the vehicles consumers choose to drive are much
heavier and have a lot more power than what is truly needed to
safely transport them and their belongings from place to place. This
combination of excess weight and horsepower consumes more fuel
than is necessary and adds expense to household budgets regardless
of whether a consumer lives in the city or country.
Rural motorists who frequently drive on roads with high speed limits
should also be aware that driving safely at lower speeds generally
increases fuel economy. Long-distance drivers also need to pay
special attention to the importance of regular maintenance on
vehicles that quickly accumulate miles on their odometers.
Establishing a maintenance routine on the basis of miles-driven,
rather than on months or years of ownership, is a best practice in this
circumstance. Maintaining proper inflation of tires also contributes
to improved fuel economy.
Combining errands into a single continuous trip -- a technique
sometimes called trip-chaining -- can be an effective way of limiting
miles driven and fuel consumed, and car pooling with others who
must make regular long-distance trips to similar destinations can be
helpful for some households. Another tip that may be useful is to
consider driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle from day-to-day, and
occasionally renting a larger vehicle if extra carrying capacity is
necessary. Using cargo trailers to haul materials to the destination
and then unhitching them, can allow the use of a smaller vehicle for
everyday transportation needs. Continuously driving a large car,
truck, van or SUV that is equipped with rarely-used excess carrying
capacity, generally uses more fuel and costs more money at the gas
pump than is necessary for many households.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING-
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
GASOLINE: SUPPLY, PRICE, AND SPECIFICATIONS
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2123,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton [chairman] presiding.
Present: Representatives Barton, Hall, Bilirakis, Stearns, Deal,
Norwood, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Fossella, Bass, Pitts, Bono, Walden,
Sullivan, Burgess, Blackburn, Waxman, Markey, Boucher, Eshoo,
Stupak, Green, Inslee, and Ross.
Staff Present: Margaret Caravelli, Counsel; Maryam Sabbaghian,
Counsel; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel for Energy and Environment;
Sue Sheridan, Minority Senior Counsel; Lorie Schmidt, Minority
Counsel; and Bruce Harris, Minority Professional Staff Member.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The committee will come to order. Since this
is a continuation of a series of hearings we have had on our gasoline
supply situation and, more generically, the energy situation for this
country with respect to oil and gas, we are not doing opening statements.
Today, our witness list includes a wide range of experts: We have
Mr. Red Cavaney, who is the President of the American Petroleum
Institute; we have Mr. Bob Dinneen, who is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Renewable Fuels Association; Mr. Bob
Slaughter, who is President of the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association; Mr. William S. Becker, who is the Executive Director, State
and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators of the Association
of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; we have Mr. Paul Reid, who is
the President of Reid Petroleum in Lockport, New York, on behalf of the
National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America; Mr. William H. Shea, who is the
President and CEO of Buckeye Partners, and he is here on behalf of the
Association of Oil Pipelines; and last, but not least, we have Mr. John
Conley, who is President of the National Tank Truck Carriers,
Incorporated.
STATEMENTS OF RED CAVANEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; BOB DINNEEN, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION; BOB
SLAUGHTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION; S.
WILLIAM BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE AND
TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATORS/ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIALS; PAUL REID,
PRESIDENT, REID PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONVENIENCE STORES AND SOCIETY OF
INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF AMERICA;
WILLIAM H. SHEA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BUCKEYE
PARTNERS, LP, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
OIL PIPELINES; AND JOHN CONLEY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CARRIERS, INC.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Gentlemen, welcome. Your statements are in
the record in their entirety. We will start with you, Mr. Cavaney. We
have got seven witnesses on the first panel. We will give each of you,
let's say 7 minutes to explain your testimony, and then we will have
obviously some questions.
Welcome, Mr. Cavaney.
MR. CAVENEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, honored
members of the committee.
U.S. oil and natural gas companies understand the frustration that
consumers have expressed about energy prices. We recognize that high
energy prices are adversely impacting individuals, households,
businesses, and potentially our economy itself. Our members are
working very hard to provide additional supplies.
Crude oil inventories have been building and are at record levels. At
the same time, we are meeting some of the world's most stringent new
environmental requirements. During the week ending April 21st,
refineries were operating above 90 percent of capacity, and for the month
of March utilization was 90.8 percent, which is higher than from March
of a year ago.
To address refining capacity concerns, we have spent billions of
dollars to recover from last year's hurricanes and we anticipate bringing
an additional 1.3 million barrels of new refining capacity per day
onstream between now and 2011.
The industry has also undertaken major investments to meet the
4 billion gallon renewable fuels standard for 2006, while also delivering
new gasoline with 90 percent less sulfur and new onboard diesel fuel
with 97 percent less sulfur.
Oil and gas is a long lead time business, and we are making the
necessary reinvestments. Since 1992, oil companies in the United States
have reinvested more than $1 trillion compared to their cumulative
earnings over the same period of almost $700 billion. Our industry is
also looking to the future. Since 2000, we have reinvested $98 billion in
emerging energy technologies, including alternatives, an amount that
represents 73 percent of the total U.S. investment in this area by the
Federal government and all U.S. companies.
Congress should not impede the industry's efforts focused on
reinvesting today's earnings to meet tomorrow's energy needs. Oil
companies do not set the price of crude. It is bought and sold in
international markets, and the price paid for a barrel of crude oil reflects
the market conditions of that day. Importantly, more than half of the
price of a gallon of gasoline is attributable to the cost of crude.
As noted in a June 2005 Federal Trade Commission report, and I
quote, "The world price of crude oil is the most important factor in the
price of gasoline. Over the last 20 years, changes in crude oil prices have
explained 85 percent of the changes in the price of gasoline in the United
States." As evidenced by more than 30 Federal Trade Commission and
other government investigations over several decades, our industry has
been exonerated of any anti-competitive behaviors. And let me again
make clear to the committee, we condemn price gouging.
Today's energy situation is shaped by past government policy
decisions made over the previous two decades. These policies have
resulted in decreased domestic oil and natural gas production, modest
improvements in energy conservation and efficiency, and increased
imports as industry was left with little access to U.S. resources, and had
no choice but to source supply from abroad in order to meet growing
U.S. consumer demand.
In recent years, growing demand for oil from China, India, and the
United States, has come at a time of diminishing spare worldwide
production capacity, and rising geopolitical tensions have placed great
stress on the available global supply of crude oil. The solution to the
energy challenges before us is to increase and diversify sources of
supply, including alternatives, reduce demand, and expand infrastructure.
We have sufficient domestic oil and gas resources remaining to be
discovered in the U.S., enough oil to power more than 60 million cars
and heat more than 25 million homes for 60 years, and enough natural
gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. Only government policies
stand in the way of increasing access to these resources, facilitating
refinery capacity and pipeline expansions, and increasing energy
security. Congress recognized the harmful effects of localized boutique
fuels in last year's Energy Policy Act, limiting the number of fuels that
States may adopt and requiring studies of the effects of boutique fuels.
Our industry strongly supports the use of ethanol as a valued
gasoline additive. However, the expansion of the patchwork quilt of
boutique fuels by States mandating ethanol use at different
concentrations and/or under differing terms is counterproductive to
growing ethanol presence in the gasoline supply.
To maximize success with ethanol, we need to concentrate on its
integration into the national gasoline pool while permitting E-85 to grow
in those locations where it meets the test of the marketplace, not the
reverse.
I conclude with some additional thoughts that could further increase
refining capacity and add additional flexibility to the distribution system:
Streamline the permitting process to ensure timely reviews of capacity
expansion requests and provide decisional certainty. Reform new source
review requirements to clarify what triggers these reviews, and further
explore former U.S. military bases as potential sites for refineries and
related infrastructure opportunities.
I look forward during the questions and answers to providing other
insight, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Caveney.
[The prepared statement of Red Cavaney follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RED CAVANEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
I am Red Cavaney, President and CEO of API, the national trade
association of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. API represents more
than 400 companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas
industry, including exploration and production, refining, marketing and
transportation, as well as the service companies that support our industry.
Introduction
The oil and natural gas industry understands the frustrations that
consumers have expressed about energy prices. We recognize that high
energy prices are adversely impacting individual households and
potentially our economy. The industry is also cognizant of the criticism
for what may appear to some as unreasonable or unjustified prices and
high earnings. I will attempt to address those concerns and to offer the
proper context in which to view both prices and earnings.
Factors in the cost of gasoline
In order to understand the higher costs of gasoline and other motor
fuels, we need to consider them in the context of the world energy supply
and demand situation.
We currently import more than 60 percent of the crude oil and
petroleum products we consume. American refiners pay the world price
for crude and distributors pay the world price for imported petroleum
products. It is important to understand that oil companies do not set the
price of crude oil. Crude oil is bought and sold in international markets,
and the price paid for a barrel of crude oil reflects the market conditions
of the day. Whether a barrel is produced in Texas or Saudi Arabia or
elsewhere, it is sold on the world market, which is comprised of
hundreds of thousands of buyers and sellers of crude oil from around the
world.
There is a fragile balance between the world's supply and demand
for crude oil. Because of this tight market, any disruption of oil supply -
or even the threat of a disruption - can push prices upward as buyers and
sellers in the worldwide marketplace look to secure supplies for their
customers.
It is well recognized that the market for crude oil has tightened.
World oil demand reached unprecedented levels in 2005 and continues to
grow due to strong economic growth, particularly in China and the
United States. EIA reports that global oil demand in 2004 grew by 3.2
percent - the strongest growth since 1978 - and grew 1.4 percent in 2005
to nearly 83.6 million barrels a day. EIA projects growth for 2006 at 1.8
percent. By comparison, world demand between 1993 and 2003 grew at
an average rate of 1.6 percent. EIA, in its Annual Energy Outlook (April
2006) estimates world oil consumption to be 85.2 million barrels per day,
which is about 100,000 barrels a day less than estimated average 2006
production.
World oil spare production capacity - crude that can be brought
online quickly during a supply emergency or during surges in demand -
is at its lowest level in 30 years and is a critical factor to observe.
Current spare capacity is equal to only about 1 percent of world demand.
Accordingly, the world's oil production has lagged, forcing suppliers to
struggle to keep up with the strong growth in demand.
The delicate supply/demand balance in the global crude oil market
makes this market extremely sensitive to political and economic
uncertainty, unusual weather conditions, and other factors. Over the past
several years, we have seen how the market has reacted to such diverse
developments as dollar depreciation, cold winters, the post-war
insurgency in Iraq, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, the Venezuelan oil
workers' strike in 2002-2003, uncertainty in the Russian oil patch,
ongoing ethnic and civil strife in Nigeria's key oil producing region, and
decisions taken by OPEC, as well as here in Washington, D.C..
This year has been described by some as the "worst political-risk
year" for energy supplies since 1973, the year of the oil embargo. Recent
weeks have seen increasing concern about potential supply interruptions
from political turmoil, conflicts, and uncertainty in such countries as
Bolivia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
Additional factors in the increased fuel prices include the end of the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) oxygen requirement on May 5, and the
phase-out by some refiners of the gasoline additive MTBE. According to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), refiners are
maximizing their effort to switch to ethanol, but they must deal with
logistical challenges in its transport. Unlike MTBE, ethanol cannot be
shipped through pipelines and must be carried by barge, railcar or tanker
truck. As the market is currently structured, ethanol is considerably
more expensive than gasoline, and imports face a 54 cent per gallon
tariff. The oil and gas industry, however, is the largest consumer of
ethanol and will continue to play a key role in facilitating and expanding
our nation's use of ethanol as a key component of our nation's
transportation fuels mix.
How U.S. oil and natural gas companies are responding to current energy
challenges
U.S. oil and natural gas companies have been working hard to
provide additional supplies to the marketplace, while, at the same time,
meeting stringent new environmental requirements:
<bullet> Domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico continues to
recover from the damage incurred by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, 22
percent of the oil production and 13 percent of the natural gas
production from the Gulf remains shut in. Nevertheless, drilling
activity remains at a high level and has helped offset this
reduction. As of May 5, 1,624 drilling rigs were at work in the
U.S., the highest level in 20 years.
<bullet> Crude oil inventories have been building and are at record
levels. For the week ending April 28, crude stocks were 346.9 million
barrels, or 12 million barrels above the level of a year ago.
Inventories must be built ahead of heavy summer demand.
<bullet> Refineries were operating at 86.7 percent of capacity during
March. Some refineries are undergoing routine maintenance that
had to be delayed because of the hurricanes. Moreover, the
industry is still recovering from the hurricanes' extensive
damage. Through March, roughly 5 percent of refining capacity
was not yet fully operational. When this is taken into
consideration, the refinery utilization rate was actually higher
than in March 2005, at 90.8 percent versus 90.2 percent. One
refinery returned to normal operations of more than 400,000
barrels per day in late April after seven months of repairs
following Hurricane Katrina. Two others are not yet fully
operational and represent a combined capacity of 247,000 barrels
per day or 3.3 percent of total U.S. refinery capacity. As of the
week ending April 21, refineries were operating at 90.1 percent
of capacity, only the fourth time that refineries were operating
above 90 percent since Hurricane Rita.
<bullet> Despite the logistical challenges in blending ethanol in
gasoline, the industry anticipates no problems in meeting the 4 billion
gallon Renewable Fuels Standard for 2006. In fact, in many
regions of the country, consumers are already driving on a
mixture of gasoline and 5.7 percent to 10 percent ethanol.
<bullet> Refiners are completing the third year of a three-year
schedule to eliminate 90 percent of the sulfur in gasoline. This already has
enabled automobile manufacturers to begin equipping new
passenger cars and light trucks with the advanced technology
necessary to comply with the stringent Tier 2 emissions
standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
As a result, it now takes 33 vehicles running on low-sulfur
gasoline today to equal the pollution emissions of just a single
1970 vehicle.
<bullet> Finally, refiners are reducing the maximum amount of sulfur
allowed in on-road diesel fuel by 97 percent to enable the
production of substantially cleaner new diesel engines. When the
current on-road heavy-duty vehicle fleet has been fully replaced
by 2030, the combination of the new fuel and new diesel engines
should have eliminated 90 percent of the pollution that today's
trucks and buses produce.
Importance of increased energy efficiency
API supports increased energy efficiency in all sectors of the
economy, including transportation, as an essential part of efforts to meet
U.S. energy challenges.
An important reason why hydrocarbons have been the choice of
consumers worldwide is due to the fact that they contain nearly twice the
energy per gallon as many other energy sources. Thanks to advances in
technology and market forces, our hydrocarbon-based economy is
getting more and more energy efficient. In 1970, the United States used
about 1.4 barrels of oil for each thousand dollars of real GDP. By 2000,
that had fallen almost in half to about seven-tenths of a barrel. And, by
2025, our nation is projected to consume only about one-half a barrel of
oil for each thousand dollars of GDP.
An example of how technology increases energy efficiency is the use
of cogeneration to save energy in refineries and other industrial facilities.
Cogeneration is the simultaneous generation of heat and electricity, can
be more than twice as efficient as conventional generation, and is
increasingly being implemented by refiners to help power their facilities.
In some instances, excess electricity is generated at the refinery, which
can be sold off-site for use by schools, hospitals and many other
facilities.
Cogeneration is an important tool helping oil companies become
more energy efficient. To demonstrate their commitment to continued
improvement in aggregate energy efficiency, API member refiners have
voluntarily agreed to a 10 percent improvement between 2002 and 2012
as part of API's Climate Challenge Program. That program is
contributing to a national goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
18 percent by 2012. The most recent reporting cycle indicates that API
members are on track to achieve their 10 percent improvement goal.
These efforts have already produced ongoing daily energy savings equal
to that needed to power 475,000 cars or heat 450,000 homes with natural
gas.
However, while increased energy efficiency is a critical component
of a meaningful U.S. energy policy, it is not, and can not be, the only
component. The U.S. energy Information Administration projects that
by 2030, total U.S. energy demand will increase by 41 percent - even
with a 39 percent increase in energy efficiency.
Anti-competitive pricing
Some are again accusing the industry of "price gouging." Our
industry has been repeatedly investigated over many decades by the
Federal Trade Commission, other federal agencies, and state attorneys-
general. Of the more than 30 investigations, none have ever found our
companies to have engaged in anti-competitive behavior to drive up fuel
prices, and we are confident current reviews will arrive at the same
conclusion.
Some allege that recent oil company mergers have caused higher
crude oil and gasoline prices. But the price of crude oil is the
consequence of thousands upon thousands of transactional decisions
made on the world market every day. No one company or group of
companies has control over that price. In terms of market power, large
international oil companies own less than 10 percent of the world's oil
resources. According to the Federal Trade Commission's August 2004
report, The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and
Antitrust Enforcement, "recent large mergers among major oil companies
have had little impact on concentration in world crude oil production and
reserves." And, as noted by the FTC in its June 2005 report, Gasoline
Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand, and Competition, "The
world price of crude oil is the most important factor in the price of
gasoline. Over the last 20 years, changes in crude oil prices have
explained 85 percent of the changes in the price of gasoline in the U.S."
We are concerned about the adverse impact of the proposed Oil and
Gas Industry Act of 2006 (S. 2557) recently introduced by Senator
Specter. Section 2 of that proposed act would amend the Clayton Act to
make it illegal to refuse to sell or to export or divert petroleum products
or natural gas supplies with the intention of increasing prices or creating
a shortage in a geographic market. In evaluating whether a marketer has
illegal intent, a court must consider whether the cost of the products has
increased, and if the defendant has obtained a higher price in the market
to which the product has been exported or diverted.
The bill has the potential of interfering with legitimate business
decisions that are made by individuals in the oil and natural gas industry.
Unilateral decisions to move supplies from one area to another based on
supply and demand issues could be challenged under this provision.
Moreover, the bill makes it illegal to "intend" to take certain actions even
if the entity does not have the ability to impact supplies or prices and
there is no showing of an actual or likely anticompetitive effect. This is
contrary to traditional antitrust analysis. In addition, Section 2 is
ambiguous and contains a variety of key terms such as "divert" that have
not been defined. As a result, there could be significant questions related
to compliance and enforcement. This uncertainty could adversely affect
legitimate business decisions related to supply and ultimately have an
adverse impact on consumers. Finally, the bill does not identify who has
standing to enforce the provisions of the bill.
If enacted, Section 2 could have a chilling affect on the oil and gas
industry, make it more difficult for the industry to meet the fuel needs of
U.S. consumers, and prevent the industry from responding quickly to
emergencies such as those that occurred with Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.
Fuel transitions
Complicating the overall U.S. fuel supply/demand situation are
numerous contributing factors. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
eliminated the reformulated gasoline (RFG) oxygen requirement, and
also set a new renewable fuel standard, requiring that the industry use 4
billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006 - increasing to 7.5 billion
gallons in 2012 and increased amounts thereafter. In addition, ultra-low
sulfur diesel (15 ppm sulfur) will be introduced starting June 1.
Eliminating the RFG oxygen requirement is a change in the law that
the industry has long supported as one that will add to refiners' flexibility
to produce gasoline and allow those who so choose to eliminate the use
of MTBE in gasoline. Similarly, the introduction of ultra-low sulfur
diesel, despite the $8 billion in costs incurred by the nation's refiners,
will have major benefits and is strongly supported by the U.S. oil and
natural gas industry. However, both of these are major fuels changes and
present significant challenges to fuel providers. Our companies are
dedicated to ensuring that these transitions go smoothly as possible and
are making the substantial investments required to complete these
transitions.
API believes that, to be successful, fuel transitions should be based
on the free and unfettered functioning of fuel markets. Market
mechanisms are most effective in providing companies with appropriate
indicators and in ensuring a rapid response to changes in market
conditions or transitional problems that may occur. Changes to these
market indicators by government - such as calling for waivers from
clean fuel regulations in light of concerns about possible volatility in fuel
prices - will only cause market uncertainty and send confusing
information to markets in transition. There are already mechanisms in
place to deal with true market supply disruptions, and we urge the
government to use appropriate caution in exercising this existing
authority.
Operating in a free marketplace, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry
has the technical expertise and decades of experience in successfully
handling fuel specification transitions. Our companies have repeatedly
demonstrated their capability for making these transitions on the national
level in dealing with RFG, low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel and in
meeting so-called "boutique fuels" requirements at the state level.
Since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did not provide for a national,
ordered phase-out of MTBE, individual companies made individual
decisions on how best to deal with the end of the RFG oxygen mandate
and the use of oxygenates. Companies took into account various factors
such as customer preference, state laws, pipeline decisions, distribution
system capabilities, and information from government agencies such as
EIA.
U.S. oil and natural gas companies have the expertise, experience,
and resources required to make the fuel transitions that are required -
provided fuel markets are allowed to function freely. We think a valuable
role for the government is to help create as clear and transparent a picture
as possible of what is occurring in the marketplace during this summer's
upcoming transitions. In this vein, we strongly support continued efforts
by EIA to monitor the supply and demand dynamics of the market, and
provide timely updates to their initial study. API and its members are
very willing to cooperate in any such effort.
Boutique Fuels
While the patchwork of localized "boutique fuels" is not principally
responsible for the recent higher gasoline prices, the proliferation of
these fuels in recent years has presented significant challenges to U.S.
refiners and resulted in an inflexible fuel system. (See the attached map
of boutique fuels.)
Boutique fuels contribute to the tight supplies and price volatility so
decried by consumers. A classic example of the disadvantage of boutique
fuels is in the Atlanta area, which has a one-of-a-kind gasoline blend in
the summer. Most gasoline on the major pipelines that service Atlanta
cannot be used to address any supply shortage in that market. Refiners
and suppliers have made the refinery and distribution system investments
to handle the Atlanta gasoline. However, if a serious infrastructure
problem occurs in the refineries, the pipelines, or the terminals that
supply this area with gasoline, the boutique fuel involved could lead to
serious supply disruptions.
Of utmost importance in our business is the reliability of supply.
Fuel providers need the flexibility to get fuel to where it is most needed
and to quickly adjust to changes in demand. Additionally, marketers need
some assurance that, if they do not have access to a particular supplier or
terminal, they will be able to go elsewhere for product. However, a rigid
system of state-specific boutique fuels reduces the reliability of supply
and increases the risk of spot shortages and price volatility.
Our industry has worked long and hard to discourage the spread of
boutique fuels. Some success was realized when the Energy Policy Act of 2005
included a provision requiring EPA to publish a list of fuels identified in state implementation plans, with states barred from adopting new formulations
unless they were to replace one fuel on the list with another on the list.
These provisions clearly indicated that policy-makers were finally
recognizing the harmful effects of widespread adoption of boutique fuels.
API supports the boutique fuels provisions in the Energy Policy Act
as they should help address the issue by limiting the number of fuels that
states may adopt. In addition, EPA and DOE are directed to undertake
two studies. The first is due to Congress August 8, 2006 and is a study
about the effects of SIP-adopted fuels programs on air quality, the
number of fuel blends, fuel availability, fungibility and cost.
The second study on "Fuel System Harmonization" is due June 1,
2008. This report is to contain recommendations for legislative and
administrative actions that may be taken to improve air quality, reduce
costs to consumers and producers and increase supply liquidity. DOE
and EPA are directed to consult with Governors, automobile
manufacturers, state and local air pollution regulators, public health
officials, motor fuel producers and distributors, and the public. Last
week, EPA announced that it has begun a dialogue with Governors to
discuss boutique fuels, and we believe this is an important step in
Congress's desired consultation process. API looks forward to providing
input to this process.
The results of these required studies should provide guidance to
Congress as to whether further steps should be taken regarding boutique
fuels.
Ethanol and Boutique Fuels
Some are erroneously claiming that our industry is "opposed to
ethanol" and is doing all it can to discourage its use. We believe that
America needs all the energy resources it can obtain, and that ethanol is
one of those resources. Our industry supports the use of ethanol as a
valued gasoline additive. In our view, ethanol is here to stay, and it is a
very important part of the nation's gasoline pool. In fact, in many regions
of the country, consumers are already driving on a mixture of gasoline
with 5.7 percent to 10 percent ethanol.
However, we need to keep in mind that no energy alternative is a
panacea. Each has its plusses and minuses, but they can each play an
important role. For example, based on various studies, the energy savings
from corn-based ethanol are moderate - 3 to 20 percent - because
production from corn requires significant energy input. And, Dow Jones
News Service reported on May 1 that Warren Staley, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Cargill, Inc., estimated that, even if 100
percent of the U.S. corn crop were used to produce ethanol, it would only
replace about 20 percent of motor fuel.
Some ethanol proponents are focused almost exclusively on E-85
fuel, which consists of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. While
the industry does not object to E-85, so long as it meets technical
specifications and is of reliable quality, a sole national focus on growing
ethanol volumes through E-85 is a risk-laden approach to achieving
significant growth in ethanol.
A couple of points are worth noting in that regard:
<bullet> Of the 169,000 retail gasoline marketing outlets, only 600
are currently equipped to distribute E-85, and these are concentrated
principally in the upper Midwest where the corn crop grows; and
<bullet> Currently, there are about 6 million flex-fuel vehicles
(FFVs) on the road (3 percent of the fleet) and, even if that number
increases by 1 million per year over the next several years, the
percent share of the fleet would still be small. For example, 10
million FFVs in 2010 would be 4 percent of the fleet; 15 million
in 2015 would be between 5 and 6 percent. It is important to
understand that the 97 percent of the fleet today not designed to
operate on fuels containing more than 10 percent ethanol could
well incur damage by using higher ethanol blends - a fact rarely
mentioned by "E-85 only" proponents.
Industry is concerned that, were government and key opinion leaders
to place the entire focus for success in introducing ethanol on the number
of new E-85 outlets, it will be the football equivalent of throwing a Hail
Mary pass as the last play of the game -- and the odds for success will be
equally as long.
Our industry's prescription for success with ethanol is to concentrate
on ethanol integration into the full gasoline pool and to permit E-85 to
grow in those locations where it meets the test of the commercial and
regulatory marketplace.
We also think that individual states should not force the use of
ethanol by devising their own blend of gasoline/ethanol mandates. The
last thing our nation needs now is an expansion of the boutique fuels
patchwork of state-by-state laws by mandating ethanol use at different
concentrations and/or under different terms. Integrating ethanol into the
gasoline marketplace is too important - and presents too many
challenges - to be approached in an individual, state-by-state manner. In
order to meet consumer fuel needs, we want to produce more, refine
more, and distribute more - but state ethanol mandates would make this
difficult. Ethanol cannot be moved by common carrier pipeline, as is
more than 70 percent of U.S. oil products, and requires a long supply
chain to serve consumers. That means a longer reaction time when
problems occur. State ethanol mandates would significantly add to that
reaction time. We oppose this patchwork approach, whose adverse
impacts are felt most by individual gasoline consumers.
What we do support is the uniform national plan enacted last year
that will integrate more ethanol into the nation's gasoline pool at
concentrations of up to the maximum permissible 10 percent per gallon,
which can be utilized in the entire U.S. automotive fleet without vehicle
modifications.
Earnings
There is considerable misunderstanding about the oil and natural gas
industry's earnings and how they compare with other industries. The oil
and natural gas industry is among the world's largest industries. Its
revenues are large, but so are its costs of providing consumers with the
energy they need. Included are the costs of finding and producing oil and
natural gas and the costs of refining, distributing and marketing it.
It should not be forgotten that the energy Americans consume today
is brought to us by investments made years or even decades ago. Today's
oil and natural gas industry earnings are invested in new technology, new
production, and environmental and product quality improvements to
meet tomorrow's energy needs. Oil & Gas Journal estimates that the
industry's total U.S. reinvestment in 2006 will reach $124.1 billion,
compared with $115 billion in 2005 and $102.4 billion in 2004. This
represents an increase of 21 percent in just two years. Oil & Gas Journal
also estimates that exploration and production spending in the U.S. will
grow 11.8 percent this year and that total upstream oil and gas spending
will reach nearly $88.9 billion. A single deepwater production platform
can cost more than $1 billion.
Moreover, since 1992, the five largest U.S. oil and natural gas
companies have reinvested more than their total net income. Between
1992 and 2005, the industry invested more than $1 trillion - on six
continents - in a range of long-term energy initiatives: from new
exploration and expanding production and refining capacity to applying
industry leading technology. In fact, over this period, our cumulative
capital and exploration expenditures exceeded our cumulative earnings.
Figures on earnings from investment show clearly that the oil and
natural gas industry is in line with other industries. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration reports that in 2004 (the latest available
data), the return on investment - specifically, the net income divided by
net investment in place - was 18.9 percent for the oil and gas industry
and 17.4 percent for the S&P Industrials. From 2000 to 2004, the average
was 13 percent for the oil and gas industry and 12.5 for the S&P
Industrials. And from 1995 to 2004, oil and gas realized 10 percent
compared to 13.9 for the S&P Industrials.
Furthermore, the industry's future investments are not focused solely
on traditional hydrocarbon projects. It is important to note that - from
2000 to 2005 - the oil and natural gas industry invested $98 billion in
emerging energy technologies, including renewables, in North America
alone - this investment represents 73 percent of the total $135 billion
spent by all U.S. companies and the federal government. For example,
one oil company is among the world's largest producers of photovoltaic
solar cells; another oil company is the world's largest developer of
geothermal energy; and the oil and gas industry is the largest producer
and user of hydrogen.
It also requires billions more dollars to maintain the delivery system
necessary to ensure a reliable supply of energy and to make sure it gets
where it needs to go: to industry customers. Americans' energy use is
expected to grow by one-third in the next 25 years. The industry is
committed to making the reinvestments that are critical to ensuring our
nation has a stable and reliable supply of energy today and tomorrow.
The industry's earnings are very much in line with other industries -
and often they are lower. This fact is not well understood, in part,
because the reports typically focus on only half the story - the total
earnings reported. Earnings reflect the size of an industry, but they're not
necessarily a good reflection of financial performance. Earnings per
dollar of sales (measured as net income divided by sales) provide a good
way to measure how industries perform compared to other industries. It
is a figure that is the most widely understood and relevant to consumers
interested in knowing how much companies earn for every gallon of
gasoline sold.
Last year, the oil and natural gas industry earned 8.5 cents for every
dollar of sales compared to an average of 7.7 cents for all U.S. industry.
Over the last five years (2001-2005), the oil and gas industry's earnings
averaged 5.9 cents compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.6
cents.
It is also important to understand that those benefiting from healthy
oil and natural gas industry earnings include numerous private and
government pension plans, including 401K plans, as well as many
thousands of individual American investors. While shares are owned by
individual investors; firms, and mutual funds, pension plans own 41
percent of oil and natural gas company stock. To protect the interest of
their shareholders and help meet future energy demand, companies are
investing heavily in finding and producing new supplies and in new
refinery capacity.
Windfall profits tax
The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is not earning "windfall
profits." As explained in the previous section, the industry's earnings
have been very much in line with those of other industries, and often are
lower.
A "windfall profits" tax (WPT) discourages new domestic oil
production, and makes it more attractive to produce foreign energy
resources - thereby increasing our dependence on imported oil. The
Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that, between 1980
and 1986, the WPT reduced domestic oil production by as much as 1.26
billion barrels. In all, the CRS estimated that the WPT caused domestic
oil production to fall between 1 percent and 5 percent, and caused oil
imports to rise between 3 percent and 13 percent (1980-86).
Adopting such a tax, even one that exempts new domestic
investment, would set a precedent that could have a chilling effect on
investment in U.S. energy development, since investors would be
concerned that the tax eventually could be imposed on revenues from
new domestic production as well.
The WPT in the 1980s, combined with subsequent low oil prices, led
to 20 years in which the domestic oil and gas industry was not able to
attract sufficient capital for investment, which is contributing to the tight
supply markets of today. According to the CRS, before the WPT was
repealed in 1988, it generated about $38 billion in net revenues ($80
billion in gross revenues)-money that could have been used by the
industry to invest in new energy production and infrastructure. The
National Petroleum Council projects that producers will have to invest
nearly $1.2 trillion through 2025 to fund U.S. and Canadian natural gas
exploration and production activities. Investments of this magnitude
require long-term fiscal stability.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the energy
sector sustained between $18 billion and $31 billion in capital losses
from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These costs will be in addition to the
new capital investments that will be required of the oil and gas industry
to meet future U.S. energy demand.
The recent increase in crude oil prices should encourage greater
production from existing U.S. resources and promising new, but costly,
alternative sources of energy. Those increased supplies could help to
reduce energy costs in the long run. A WPT could reverse that trend
toward expanded production of new resources, by making many of those
high-cost alternatives non-economic to produce in the United States. For
example, a company that invests in the development of oil from shale
could make little or no profit, and still pay a significant windfall profit
tax.
Domestic oil and gas companies, which are already heavily taxed
relative to their foreign competitors, must compete for foreign
investment opportunities with those competitors. The WPT would
increase this already substantial tax burden and reduce the ability of
domestic companies to compete for those foreign investment
opportunities needed to diversify our nation's energy supply and, in turn,
support the employment of U.S. personnel in jobs related to those
activities both here and abroad.
Almost all large oil and gas companies are publicly-traded entities,
whose shares are owned by millions of investors through their 401(k)s,
retirement plans and pension funds. Taxing away the earnings of those
companies negatively impacts the ability of hard-working Americans to
achieve a more financially secure future. Moreover, taxes, not unlike
amounts paid for raw materials and employee salaries, are a cost of doing
business and are ultimately reflected either in the price paid by
consumers for a company's products (e.g., gasoline and heating oil) or in
reduced returns to shareholders.
Fuel prices: what can be done?
In attempting to meet the fuels challenges we face, it is important to
do no harm. The worst thing Congress could do now would be to repeat
the mistakes of the past by overriding the structures of the free
marketplace. Imposing new controls, allocation schemes, new taxes on
industry, or other obstacles will only serve to make the situation much
worse.
Because the market remains healthy and competitive, it is imperative
that it be permitted to continue functioning as freely of artificial
restraints as possible. As we have consistently maintained, the answer to
our energy situation is to increase supply, reduce demand, and expand
and diversify infrastructure. The nation also needs to increase energy
efficiency in all sectors of the economy, including transportation.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 signals a first step in a much-needed
effort to enhance energy security and ensure the reliable delivery of
affordable energy to consumers. Nevertheless, much remains to be done.
We can no longer afford to place off limits vast areas of the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and offshore Alaska.
Similarly, we cannot afford to deny Americans consumers the benefits
that will come from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
from improving and expediting approval processes for developing the
substantial resources on federal lands in the Mountain West.
In fact, we do have an abundance of competitive domestic oil and
gas resources in the U.S. According to the latest published estimates,
there are 112 billion barrels of oil and 656 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of
natural gas remaining to be discovered in the United States. Consider that
112 billion barrels are enough oil to power more than 60 million cars for
60 years and heat more than 25 million homes for 60 years. And 656 Tcf
is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years.
Much of these oil and gas resources - 78 percent of the remaining to
be discovered oil and 62 percent of the gas - are expected to be found
beneath federal lands and coastal waters. Federal restrictions on leasing
put significant volumes of these resources off limits, while post-lease
restrictions on operations effectively preclude development of both
federal and non-federal resources. Addressing these restrictions is
critical.
And, while we must focus on producing more energy here at home,
we do not have the luxury of ignoring the global energy situation. In the
world of energy, the U.S. operates in a global marketplace. What others
do in that market matters greatly.
For this country to secure energy for our economy, government
policies must create a level playing field for U.S. companies to ensure
international supply competitiveness. With the net effect of current U.S.
policy serving to decrease U.S. oil and gas production and to increase our
reliance on imports, this international competitiveness point is vital. In
fact, it is a matter of national security.
Ten of the 12 largest oil companies in the world are controlled by
foreign governments, and only one of the two investor-owned companies
in the top 12 - ExxonMobil - is American. Based on potential oil and
gas reserves - resources essential for future operations - only one of the
16 largest oil companies in the world is headquartered in the U.S. Most
of the others are national oil companies owned by foreign governments.
Nearly 80 percent of the world's reserves are owned by these national oil
companies, and a mere 6 percent are owned by investor-owned
companies.
While our nation is going through challenging times at the gasoline
pump right now, it is important to understand how we operate in a global
commodity business, and that these same problems are being
experienced worldwide. It is critically important to note that the oil and
gas price changes over the last two decades are in line with, and in some
cases lag behind, other commodities. Thus, oil and gas price trends are
not anomalies.
Refineries
In considering the U.S. refining situation, it is also important to
remember that the oil and natural gas industry operates in a global
marketplace. Many oil and gas companies are global companies, whose
U.S. investment decisions compete not only with decisions as to how to
allocate capital investments in the U.S. among various sectors of the
industry, but also with competing demands and investment needs
overseas. In a global marketplace, companies will make the best
economic investment decisions in order to bring affordable petroleum
products to consumers. Imports may be the more economical option than
new U.S. refineries, but that is a decision to be left to the global
marketplace. Government policies should encourage, not interfere with,
the global marketplace.
While domestic refiners have strived to increase the efficiency,
utilization and capacity of existing refineries, these efforts have not
enabled the U.S. refining industry to keep up with growing demand.
Imports have been helping to meet the growing U.S. demand, although
announced capacity additions through 2011 will exceed historic demand
increases. We have been importing an average of about 10 percent of our
gasoline nationally for the past three years into PADD 1 (East Coast)
where the harbors have facilitated imports.
During the 1990s, the oil and natural gas industry earned relatively
poor rates of return on its investments. This was especially true in the
refining sector, which was hard hit with the need for new investment in
technology and equipment to produce cleaner-burning fuels, as well as
additional emissions control technology on the refineries themselves, to
meet clean air standards set by the Clean Air Act of 1990. This Act had a
major impact on the operation of refineries in the United States and the
return on investment realized at the time.
Technological advancements have helped refineries produce more
from existing facilities than they did in the past. In addition, the
elimination of subsidies under government regulations after 1981 led to
the closure of many smaller, less efficient refineries throughout the
1980s and 1990s. Those refineries left standing did a better job of
bringing product to market for less.
The last two years have been extremely challenging for consumers
and refiners. The industry has been working very hard to meet the needs
of consumers. In 2004, the refinery system set records for production of
gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2005, about 30 percent of the U.S. refining
industry was shut down at one point as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. The industry is resourceful and quickly imported record amounts of
gasoline and diesel fuel to augment this production to meet all-time high
consumer demand and limit supply disruptions.
Massive investments at refineries will be required in the next 10
years to expand refinery capacity to meet growing demand and to
comply with environmental regulations. Domestic refining capacity has
increased over the last decade to about 17 million barrels per day and
several capacity expansion projects are currently underway. Though the
actual number of refineries has decreased, actual refining capacity has
been growing.
While no new refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976,
expanding and upgrading existing refineries is an ongoing process. The
U.S. refining industry has been expanding a little more than 1 percent per
year over the past decade - the equivalent of 12 new 200,000-barrels-
per-day refineries. And it continues to grow.
Based on publicly available data on announced refinery capacity
expansion plans, over 1.3 million barrels per day of additional refinery
capacity projects are either planned or under strong consideration for the
years 2006 to 2011. Such expansions will boost domestic refining
capacity to nearly 18.5 million barrels per day - near the all-time high for
U.S. operable refinery capacity. (This aforementioned information covers
only expansion plans announced to the public; additional plans may be
under initial consideration or kept confidential.)
Some recent examples of refinery capacity expansion plans
mentioned in publicly available information and individual company
press releases include:
<bullet> ConocoPhillips plans to invest $4 billion to $5 billion by
2011 for expansion and upgrade projects in nine refineries to increase
its U.S. refining capacity and improve utilization. An overall
capacity increase of 230,000 barrels per day is planned, with
40,000 barrels per day of added crude capacity to its Los Angeles
refinery.
<bullet> Marathon Petroleum Company is evaluating a $2.2 billion
investment to increase the capacity of its Garyville, Louisiana
refinery by 180,000 barrels per day to a total of 425,000 barrels
per day.
<bullet> Sunoco plans to invest $1.8 billion over the next three years
in its refineries, with an emphasis on increasing capacity by 11 percent
to one million barrels per day.
<bullet> Valero plans to increase its North American refining capacity
by 400,000 barrels per day - the equivalent of two mid-sized
refineries - by 2009 at a cost of $5 billion.
<bullet> Motiva (a Shell and Saudi Refining joint venture) completed
initial project scoping and process design for a potential 325,000
barrels-per-day/ $3.5 billion expansion project being considered
at its Port Arthur, Texas refinery.
Increasing capacity at existing refineries can be a challenge for a
number of reasons. These challenges are typically even more difficult
when building new refineries. A new refinery location must have access
to crude and product pipelines and other utilities to obtain the multitude
of required permits, gain community acceptance, and attract the
significant capital investments to design, permit, and construct. Take the
effort to build a new refinery in Arizona, for example: the project has
been under development for more than a decade, the site for its location
was moved, and, while EPA issued its air permit last year, the project has
not been able to attract the financial capital necessary to start
construction.
Some obstacles to additional capacity expansion or new refineries
include:
<bullet> Huge capital investments, often running into the tens to
hundreds of millions of dollars for existing refineries ($9,000-$12,000 per
daily barrel to expand), and $2 billion to $3 billion or more for a
new refinery ($17,000 per daily barrel to build new);
<bullet> The return on capital investment for petroleum refining and
marketing was 7.7 percent between 1995 and 2004, which is
below the average return of 13.9 percent for the S&P Industrials,
according to the U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, it takes
several years to realize a return on a refinery investment.
<bullet> The permitting process required to construct new refineries
or modify existing facilities is very complex and time-consuming,
involving federal, state, and local permitting authorities;
<bullet> The combination of regulations to reformulate fuels and those
aimed at reducing emissions from refinery operations make the
refining industry one of the most heavily regulated industries in
the U.S.;
<bullet> The refining industry has spent more than $47 billion over
the last decade to comply with environmental and fuels regulations -
nondiscretionary expenditures that generally yield little or no
return on investment. Moreover, by 2010, the U.S. refining
industry will have invested upwards of $20 billion to comply
with new clean fuel regulations. All this investment results in
severely reduced funding available for discretionary capacity
expansion projects.
<bullet> Public opposition to siting a new refinery in almost any
community in the U.S. is highly likely, an obstacle difficult to
overcome.
In order to further increase U.S. refining capacity, government
policies are needed to create a climate more conducive to investments in
refining capacity. Many of the steps the federal government could take to
help the refinery capacity situation are covered in the December 2004
National Petroleum Council (NPC) study, Observations on Petroleum
Product Supply - A Supplement to the NPC Reports "U.S. Petroleum
Product Supply - Inventory Dynamics, 1998" and 'U.S. Petroleum
Refining - Assuring the Adequacy and Affordability of Cleaner Fuels,
2000."
The NPC study suggested that the federal government should take
steps to streamline the permitting process to ensure the timely review of
federal, state and local permits to expand capacity at existing refineries.
For example, new-source review (NSR) requirements of the Clean Air
Act need to be reformed to clarify what triggers these reviews. Some
refineries may be able to increase capacity with relatively minor
adjustments, but are unsure if the entire facility's permit review would be
triggered - a burdensome and time-consuming process.
The best long-term solution is investment toward finding new
supplies and continuing to improve efficiency when producing and using
energy. Decisions about how much capacity is needed and where it is
needed are best left to the marketplace. There is spare global refining
capacity, and it is important to remember that the oil and natural gas
industry operates in a global market. It is important that government
policies not interfere with the global market.
Conclusion
The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is doing all it can to produce
the fuel supply needed to meet consumer energy needs. However, the
industry cannot meet U.S. energy challenges alone. Our nation's energy
policy needs to focus on increasing supplies; encouraging energy
efficiency in all sectors of the economy, including transportation; and
promoting responsible development of alternative and non-conventional
sources of energy.
Congress needs to allow the oil and gas industry to invest today's
earnings in meeting tomorrow's energy needs. To do otherwise will
threaten our energy future. Congress can help by opening up more of the
resource-intensive areas in our nation that are off-limits to new
production. Because the market remains healthy and competitive, it is
imperative that it be permitted to continue functioning as freely of
artificial restraints as possible. That is the most efficient way to provide
affordable fuel to meet U.S. consumer needs.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We now want to hear from you, Mr. Dinneen.
Your statement is in the record, and you are recognized for 7 minutes.
MR. DINNEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. This
is indeed an important and timely hearing, and I am pleased to be here to
discuss the unprecedented growth in the domestic ethanol industry and
the role that ethanol has played in helping refiners cost effectively
replace MTBE in those areas where it is still being used.
Today's ethanol industry consists of 97 biorefineries located in 19
different States with the capacity to process more than 1.7 billion bushels
of grain into nearly 4.5 billion gallons of high-octane, clean-burning
motor fuel and 9 million metric tons of livestock and poultry feed. It is a
dynamic and growing industry that is revitalizing rural America,
reducing emissions in our Nation's cities, and lowering our dependence
on imported petroleum.
Mr. Chairman, in large part because of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, the U.S. ethanol industry is today the fastest growing energy
resource in the world. With your leadership and the tremendous support
of members of the committee like Mr. Shimkus, the Congress last year
enacted an historic renewable fuels standard requiring the use of at least
7 1/2 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. That provision signaled
a clarion call to the ethanol industry and the financial community. The
demand for ethanol and biodiesel was no longer uncertain, allowing the
renewable fuels industry to grow with confidence. And grow we have.
There are currently 35 plants under construction. Twenty-one of
those have broken ground just since last August, when President Bush
signed EPAct into law. With existing biorefineries that are expanding,
the industry expects more than 2.2 billion gallons of new production
capacity to be in operation within the next 12 to 18 months, 500 million
gallons by July 4th, another 900 million gallons by Christmas, and it will
just continue to grow after that.
As the industry grows, it is changing as well. We are embracing new
technologies. Each new plant that opens up is using the newest most cost
effective and energy efficient technologies, and that will continue to be
the case as well. Because we are expanding at such an unprecedented
rate, we are actually exceeding the RFS requirement of 2006 by
25 percent. The RFS requires just 4 billion gallons of ethanol to be used
this year, but we will produce and sell more than 5 billion gallons this
year.
Ethanol supply is not a problem. Because we have grown so rapidly,
we have been able to meet even higher demand for ethanol than required
by the RFS, as refiners have chosen to remove MTBE from gasoline.
With increased productions, increased imports, and some market
reallocation of ethanol, refiners have now largely succeeded in
transitioning away from MTBE to ethanol. Again, ethanol supply has
not been a problem in meeting the increased demand from MTBE
replacement.
Getting ethanol to where it needs to be has also not been a problem.
While ethanol is not shipped today on pipelines, the industry has created
a virtual pipeline through aggressive use of rail, barge, and trucks to
move ethanol quickly anywhere it needs to go. Indeed, by not moving
our product on the pipeline, and adding to gasoline supplies at the
terminal gate, consumers may ultimately benefit because the pipelines
will have more capacity to move more gasoline to those areas.
Refineries made the decision to remove MTBE from gasoline. No
provision of the Clean Air Act or the energy bill compelled them to do it.
But having made that decision, I give them great credit for working with
our industry and the gasoline distribution system to assure that adequate
infrastructure exists to make the transition successful. While there were
very temporary challenges in a few locations, created by EPA regulations
prohibiting commingling of RFG and RBOB, those minor transitional
issues were addressed and the switch from MTBE to ethanol is now
largely complete. The system works.
Some have suggested that repealing the secondary tariff on imported
ethanol is necessary to increase supplies and reduce gasoline prices. But,
as noted, there is no shortage of ethanol. In part, because imports are
already coming into the market. The U.S. imported 130 million gallons
last year and looks to import even more this year. The secondary tariff is
not a barrier to entry.
In fact, most ethanol does come into the country today duty free
under preferential trade agreements such as the Caribbean Basin
Initiative. Moreover, incremental increases in ethanol supply would
have no impact on gasoline prices. Removing the tariff would have an
impact on the investment community, however, sending a mixed and
chilling signal to the financial community just as ethanol, including
cellulosic ethanol, is beginning to take flight.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, I
appreciate your leadership on last year's energy bill, and I look forward
to continuing to work with you and our refiner and gasoline marketing
customers to continue to provide high-quality, cost-effective motor fuels
across the Nation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bob Dinneen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB DINNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My
name is Bob Dinneen and I am president of the Renewable Fuels
Association, the national trade association representing the U.S. ethanol
industry.
This is an important and timely hearing, and I am pleased to be here
to discuss the unprecedented growth in the domestic ethanol industry,
and the attendant economic, energy and environmental benefits resulting
from that growth.
Ethanol has become a ubiquitous component of the U.S. motor fuel
market. Ethanol is blended in more than 40% of the nation's fuel, and is
sold virtually from coast to coast and border to border. As refiners have
made the decision to remove MTBE from gasoline, ethanol has been
there to replace the lost octane and volume of MTBE, without sacrificing
the air quality benefits of the RFG program or increasing consumer costs.
The transition from MTBE to ethanol is now largely complete, and is a
testament to what can be accomplished when oil refiners, gasoline
marketers and ethanol producers work together for the benefit of
consumers.
Background
Today's ethanol industry consists of 97 biorefineries located in 19
different states with the capacity to process more than 1.7 billion bushels
of grain into nearly 4.5 billion gallons of high octane, clean burning
motor fuel and 9 million metric tons of livestock and poultry feed. It is a
dynamic and growing industry that is revitalizing rural America,
reducing emissions in our nation's cities, and lowering our dependence
on imported petroleum.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The 4 billion gallons of ethanol produced and sold in the U.S. last
year contributed significantly to the nation's economic, environmental
and energy security. According to an analysis completed for the RFA ,
the 4 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2005 resulted in the
following impacts:
<bullet> Added $32 Billion to gross output;
<bullet> Created 153,725 jobs in all sectors of the economy;
<bullet> Increased economic activity and new jobs from ethanol
increased household income by $5.7 Billion, money that flows directly into
consumers' pockets;
<bullet> Contributed $1.9 Billion of tax revenue for the Federal
government and $1.6 Billion for State and Local governments;
and,
<bullet> Reduced oil imports by 170 million barrels of oil, valued at
$8.7 Billion.
In addition, because the crops used in the production of ethanol
absorb carbon dioxide, the 4 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2005
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 8 million tons. That's the
equivalent of taking well over a million vehicles off the road.
Energy Policy Act Has Stimulated Significant New Ethanol
Production
Mr. Chairman, in large part because of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct), the U.S. ethanol industry is today the fastest growing
energy resource in the world. With your leadership, and the tremendous
support of members of the Committee, the Congress last year enacted an
historic Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring the use of at least 7.5
billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. That provision signaled a
clarion call to the ethanol industry and the financial community that
demand for ethanol and biodiesel was no longer uncertain, allowing the
renewable fuels industry to grow with confidence.
Indeed, there are currently 35 plants under construction. Twenty-one
of those have broken ground just since last August when President Bush
signed EPAct into law. With existing biorefineries that are expanding,
the industry expects more than 2.2 billion gallons of new production
capacity to be in operation within the next 12 to 18 months. The
following is our best estimate of when this new production will come on
stream.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
This preceding chart reflects eight plants and three expansions we
believe will be complete before July, representing more than 500 million
gallons of production capacity; and another 16 plants and 2 expansion
that will be complete before the end of the year, adding about 900
million gallons more. This new 1.4 billion gallons of new capacity
represents a 32% increase in production, a phenomenal rate of growth,
particularly when viewed in light of the 20-plus percent growth the
industry has already achieved in each of the past several years.
Rapidly Increasing Demand
While ethanol supply is growing exponentially, ethanol demand is
increasing as well. Indeed, ethanol demand in 2006 is significantly
higher than that required by EPAct. The reason for that is refiners have
chosen to eliminate the use of MTBE in many of the reformulated
gasoline areas where it has not already been removed. Those areas
include the Mid-Atlantic, New England and Texas. The Energy
Information Administration believes as much as 130,000 barrels per day
of ethanol will be needed to meet the demand created by refiner
decisions to replace MTBE.
Some have questioned the ability of the ethanol industry to meet
such rapidly increased demand. But given the tremendous growth in
ethanol production capacity cited above, most analysts now agree there
will be sufficient ethanol supplies. For example, Valero Energy CEO
William Klesse recently stated, "[t]he US will have enough ethanol to
blend into gasoline during the current spike in demand as companies
transition away from the oxygenate MTBE."
In addition to increased production, ethanol supplies will flow from
existing conventional gasoline markets to MTBE replacement markets
where it is needed more.
The market will also encourage increased imports in the short-term.
Approximately 130 million gallons of ethanol were imported in 2005,
and even higher imports are expected this year. Twenty-five million
gallons of ethanol were imported in February alone.
Approximately 115 million gallons of ethanol per month are required
to meet mid-Atlantic and Northeast ethanol demand as MTBE is
removed from gasoline. Currently, there is about 95 million gallons of
ethanol in working inventory at terminals in this area. That equates to 25
days of demand on hand in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic region.
Ethanol supply is NOT a problem.
Some have suggested repealing the secondary tariff on imported
ethanol is necessary to increase supplies. But, as noted above, there is no
shortage of ethanol. Moreover, the secondary tariff is not a barrier to
entry. The secondary tariff merely offsets the tax incentive oil
companies receive for blending ethanol, regardless of its source.
Eliminating the secondary tariff would only result in U.S. taxpayers
subsidizing already subsidized foreign ethanol. At a time when
Congress is contemplating reduced domestic farm programs, it is neither
wise nor necessary to begin subsidizing foreign ethanol and foreign sugar
growers. Finally, eliminating the tariff now, as the financial markets are
contemplating significant investments in U.S. ethanol, including
cellulosic ethanol, would send a chilling signal to those markets at a
critical time and potentially discourage further investment in this
promising technology.
The Transportation, Distribution and Blending Infrastructure will
be Ready.
The ethanol industry has worked diligently with our refiner
customers, gasoline marketers, terminal operators and the fuel
distribution network to assure a successful transition from MTBE to
ethanol in these areas.
Over the past several years, the ethanol industry has worked to
expand a "Virtual Pipeline" through aggressive use of the rail system,
barge and truck traffic. As a result, we can move product quickly to
those areas where it is needed. Many ethanol plants have the capability
to load unit trains of ethanol for shipment to ethanol terminals in key
markets. We are also working closely with terminal operators and
refiners to identify ethanol storage facilities and install blending
equipment.
Sewaren, NJ is expected to be the primary gathering point for
ethanol for East Coast markets in 2006 because it has both unit rail car
capacity and marine access. Ethanol will be trucked to serve New York
and New Jersey, and product will flow out by barge to Providence,
Boston and Baltimore. Additional terminal capacity exists in Albany,
Philadelphia, Newark, Paulsboro, Carteret, Perth Amboy, Norfolk, and
Richmond.
Great credit must be given to the petroleum industry for the effort
that is being made to assure success. Examples of some of the
investments being made to accommodate the switch from MTBE to
ethanol in key markets include the following:
<bullet> Unit Train unloading facilities are either being built or
planned for Providence, RI, Linden, NJ, Baltimore, MD, and Dallas, TX.
Already, a unit train breakout facility is in operation in Albany,
NY.
<bullet> Barge receiving capability is either in place or being built
in Philadelphia, Baltimore and Houston.
<bullet> Transloading (rail to truck) capability is being developed
as a transitional step for Richmond, Washington and Dallas. More
permanent rail terminals are being developed for these areas.
There is no question that the dramatically accelerated removal of
MTBE challenged the marketplace. The EPA requirement to completely
drain MTBE-RFG tanks and clean them before loading Reformulated
Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) created some difficulties in
a few locations. But the problems were very short-lived and the
transition is now largely complete. As one industry analyst observed
recently, "The very fact that these companies are on the record as
discontinuing MTBE and replacing it with ethanol tells us one very
important fact - they are prepared."
New Technologies
The only thing more astonishing than the growth in the ethanol
industry is the technological revolution happening at every biorefinery
and every ethanol construction site across the country. Plants today are
using such innovations as no-heat fermentation, corn fractionization and
corn oil extraction. With today's natural gas prices, plants are also
looking toward new energy sources, including methane digesters and
biomass gasification. In short, the ethanol industry is unrecognizable
from what it was just five years ago, and it will be unrecognizable again
five years from now.
To continue this technological revolution, however, continued
government support will be critically important. DOE's biomass and
biorefinery systems research and development program has been
essential to developing new technologies. Competitively awarded grants
provided by this program have played a very important role in
developing new technology.
Recently, DOE informed the renewable fuels industry that it was
canceling research contracts. Many of the grants provide technologically
promising projects that would help move the industry forward. The RFA
encourages Congress to continue to provide additional funds for
competitive solicitations.
New Feedstocks
To date, the ethanol industry has grown almost exclusively from
grain processing. In the future, ethanol will be produced from other
feedstocks, such as cellulose. Cellulose is the main component of plant
cell walls and is the most common organic compound on earth.
However, it is more difficult to break down cellulose and convert it into
usable sugars for ethanol. Yet, making ethanol from cellulose
dramatically expands the types and amount of available material for
ethanol production. This includes many materials now regarded as
wastes requiring disposal, as well as corn stalks, rice straw and wood
chips or "energy crops" of fast-growing trees and grasses. Cellulosic
ethanol production will augment, not replace, grain-based ethanol, but
ultimately exponentially expand potential ethanol supplies.
Many companies are working to commercialize cellulosic ethanol
production. Indeed, there is not an ethanol biorefinery in production
today that does not have a very aggressive cellulose ethanol research
program. The reason for this is that they all have cellulose already
coming into the plant. If they can process that material into ethanol, they
will have a significant marketplace advantage.
Many companies are working to commercialize cellulosic ethanol.
Iogen, Inc., a Canadian enzyme company, has been producing cellulosic
ethanol from wheat straw since 2004 at a one million gallon plant in
Ontario. The company is planning to begin construction of a commercial
facility in the U.S. during the summer of 2007. Abengoa Bioenergy
Corp., which operates four biorefineries in the U.S. today, has begun
construction of a grain and cellulose ethanol plant in Spain. The
company plans to bring that technology to the U.S. as soon as the
technology is proven successful. Numerous other companies are moving
toward commercialization and I am confident cellulosic ethanol will be a
reality quite soon.
Conclusion
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush acknowledged the
nation "is addicted to oil" and pledged to greatly reduce our oil imports
by increasing the production and use of domestic renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly put this
nation on a new path toward greater energy diversity and national
security through the RFS. And as the ethanol industry continues to grow,
through new technologies and new feedstocks, we will move even closer
to realizing the President's vision of a more sustainable energy future for
all Americans. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We now want to hear from Mr. Slaughter, who
is representing the refiners.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
the invitation to appear.
The state of the gasoline market today reflects supply and demand,
and the arithmetic is not complicated. What is happening is what the
textbooks say should happen. With domestic demand for refined
products continuing to accelerate, outpacing our ability to meet those
needs with domestic supplies, coupled with the ever-increasing global
demand for these same products, market volatility will continue.
Although this situation is unsatisfactory, it can only be alleviated
and addressed with increased supply. Recent EIA data do suggest
improvements in the gasoline supply picture. Gasoline inventories are
up for the second straight week, while demand is down. Refinery
utilization rose to 90.2 percent due to the end of widespread maintenance
resulting from last year's hurricane aftermath. Refiners have also
completed both the seasonal product turnaround, and among some, the
transition from MTBE to ethanol use and RFG. This should eliminate
some of the causes for uncertainty in the market place going forward.
We continue to be concerned, however, about crude price levels, our
feedstock, which have increased the cost of refiners' raw material by
40 percent over last year. Regardless of the 2006 demand growth rate,
which EIA now puts at 8.9 percent, total demand for gasoline and other
products is strong, reflecting continued U.S. economic growth. In short,
economic growth in the U.S. and around the world is the major culprit
behind today's energy prices and the market situation.
The only things that could significantly affect this strong demand
situation are things we don't wish to invite: recession, depression, or a
strong shock to the U.S. or world economy due to a calamity like last
year's hurricanes or 9/11. These facts lead NPRA to the conclusion that
government and industry should act to prepare for continued strong
economic growth, both nationally and globally, leading to increasing
demand for energy, particularly transportation fuels.
This means continued vigorous competition for available
international crude and oil product supplies, particularly gasoline and
diesel. U.S. demand for both crude and product will continue to
increase, but demand in other countries, especially Asia, will increase at
a faster rate. This means that the United States will face strong
competition for available supplies from lean and hungry new players in
the marketplace.
The U.S. refining industry is committed to continued heavy
investments in projects to increase domestic refining capacity, increase
the yield of most desirable products, like gasoline and diesel, per barrel
of crude refined, increase the ability of domestic refineries to handle a
broader range of crudes, including heavier and sour crudes, as well as
crude from oil sands and other nonconventional sources, and continue
and expand environmental improvement through production of cleaner
fuels and facility improvements and the development and
implementation of new technologies.
The U.S. industry has increased domestic refining capacity by
2 million barrels per day in the past 12 years. This is the equivalent of
adding almost one moderate-sized refinery each year. This capacity
increase was achieved at the same time the industry was also investing
billions of dollars to comply with new environmental requirements in the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
I would also point out that mergers and acquisitions in the industry
have increased refining capacity. Without such consolidation, some of
the individual refineries involved might not have been economically
viable. A close examination of mergers and acquisitions indicates that
purchased or merged refineries continue to operate and have often been
expanded, in Valero's case, adding almost 400,000 barrels a day to the
Nation's refining capacity.
Refiners have announced new plans for about 1.4 million barrels per
day of additional U.S. refining capacity, most of which will come on line
towards the end of this decade. That is an 8 percent increase in U.S.
refining capacity. Some analysts believe that that 1.4 million barrel a
day figure is a conservative estimate.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to end today by talking about some
suggestions we have for policy changes that might be advantageous to
the U.S. energy situation.
One, we think it is wise to move ahead with permit streamlining and
other ways to eliminate barriers to refinery additions and new refineries.
Congress, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed an expensive
provision for refinery investments. We would recommend that Congress
take a look at that approach, perhaps extending the current effect of it to
apply it to the needs of new refineries as a way to stimulate new refining
investment.
We are in favor of passage, and we hope House passage will come as
soon as possible, of this committee's refinery bill, which has already
been considered once, and I understand will be brought back shortly.
We do believe you should look at CAFE and tariffs for potential
benefits. We think that all tariffs should be looked at, and we think that
the ethanol tariff should be looked at. I would say that my good friend,
Mr. Dinneen, has just painted a picture of an industry that to me doesn't
really seem to need a mandate and a tax credit, State tax incentives, and a
tariff barrier, and I welcome your investigation of that need.
We hope that Congress will pay more attention to the supply impacts
of new environmental requirements. In the past, Congress has not done
that. The impact is that I think we have less refining capacity in the U.S.
because we have not been able to make capacity increases, because the
investments for environmental measures have crowded out capital that
otherwise might have been put into capacity increases.
You have got to remember that every barrel of gasoline that is not
produced in the United States, diesel too, is going to have to be replaced
by imports because we require more than we can refine here. The
competition for those imports of refined products, like gasoline and
diesel, is going to heat up just the way the competition for crude has
heated up in recent years. You need to remember that when Congress is
considering new environmental legislation.
And in closing, I would say that we would hope that everyone would
look at the importance of keeping refining an attractive business to invest
in. We have a broad community of companies in the refining industry
today, some of the biggest in the world, small regional refiners, and big
independents. We need to keep the refining industry an attractive
investment for companies so we can keep this healthy, vibrant, and
competitive industry that we have today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Slaughter.
[The prepared statement of Bob Slaughter follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB SLAUGHTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION
Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the
Energy & Commerce Committee, NPRA, the National Petrochemical &
Refiners Association, appreciates the opportunity to present its views on
the current gasoline market and the role of the domestic refining
industry. I am Bob Slaughter, NPRA's President. Our testimony today
will concentrate on factors directly impacting the current and projected
gasoline supply and the specifications which refiners have been or are
obligated to achieve. As you know, NPRA is a national trade association
with 450 members, including those who own or operate virtually all U.S.
refining capacity, as well as most of the nation's petrochemical
manufacturers with processes similar to those of refiners.
INTRODUCTION
We may have reached a point in history at which the future welfare
of our nation depends on maintaining a stable supply of transportation
fuels and other forms of energy at reasonable prices. It very well could
also depend upon achieving better mutual understanding between the
domestic energy industry (petroleum, natural gas, and refined products)
and the public-a community greatly influenced by the deeds and words
of Congress.
The state of the gasoline market today reflects supply and demand,
and the arithmetic is not complicated. What is happening is what the
textbooks say should happen. With domestic demand for refined
products accelerating and outpacing our ability to meet those needs with
domestic supplies, coupled with the ever-increasing global demand for
these same products, market volatility will continue. Although this
situation is unsatisfactory, it can only be alleviated with increased
supply. In the meantime, policy makers must resist turning the clock
backwards to the failed policies of the past. Experience with market
interference in the 1970s and 1980s such as price constraints, allocation
controls, and punitive taxes demonstrate not only the failure of these
programs, but also their adverse impact on both fuel supplies and
consumers.
To summarize our message, NPRA urges policymakers in Congress
and the Administration to encourage domestic production of an abundant
supply of petroleum, oil products, and natural gas for U.S. consumers.
Rather than engaging in a fruitless search for questionable quick-fix
solutions, or even worse, taking actions that could be harmful, we urge
Congress, the Administration, and the public to exercise continued
patience with the free market system as the nation adjusts to a volatile
global energy market. The nation's refiners are working hard to meet
rising demand while complying with extensive regulatory controls that
affect both our facilities and the products we manufacture.
Throughout this statement, NPRA will outline and discuss key
factors that provide perspective on the current and future situation the
nation confronts regarding the supply of and demand for refined
petroleum products.
REFINED PRODUCT MARKET FUNDAMENTALS
Any discussion of the domestic refining industry must begin with a
description of three fundamental facts that guide refined product markets.
These fundamentals are that: 1) the cost of crude oil is the primary driver
of the cost of refined product; 2) the balance between supply of and
demand for refined products is extremely tight, and; 3) free-market
pricing balances the system to the maximum benefit of consumers.
In June of 2005 the U.S. Federal Trade Commission released a
landmark study titled: "Gasoline Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply,
Demand and Competition." This study determined that "Worldwide
supply, demand, and competition for crude oil are the most important
factors in the national average price of gasoline in the U.S." and "the
world price of crude oil is the most important factor in the price of
gasoline. Over the last 20 years, changes in crude oil prices have
explained 85 percent of the changes in the price of gasoline in the U.S."
As the chart below clearly demonstrates, the price of crude oil leads the
price of wholesale and retail gasoline.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Source: EIA
In addition to the cost of crude oil, the tight balance between
refining capacity and refined product demand must be taken into account
when to understand price changes. Refiners have been steadily expanding
capacity at facilities in order to keep pace with ever-growing demand.
Over the past twelve years U.S. refining capacity has increased by over 2
million barrels/day (b/d), the rough equivalent of a new average-size
refinery every year. In spite of this growth, refinery utilization rates
remain extraordinarily high, often approaching 98% during the summer
months. These high rates of utilization reflect the thin margin between
supply and demand, which causes even moderate disruptions in the
system to be reflected in significant price changes. In addition, the major
event of 2005, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina's disruption of key U.S.
refined product pipeline service and the destruction of significant
portions of Gulf Coast refining assets, caused a temporary but
considerable spike in transportation fuel prices.
In spite of the serious damage these storms inflicted on the domestic
refining industry, no significant, long-lived transportation fuel shortage
occurred during this period. The rapid return to service of significant
portions of the transportation fuels industry may be attributed to several
factors: quick action by the federal government to waive temporarily
regulatory requirements and release crude oil from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve; the efforts of the dedicated employees of the
industry, as well as their employers, who managed to return significant
assets to service in a short time; and importantly, higher prices.
Increased prices, which averaged over $3.00/gallon nationwide for a
brief period, moderated demand and attracted a record amount of refined
product imports. As demand declined, imports entered the fuel system,
while facilities in areas unaffected by the disaster ramped-up production
to provide products for the affected areas. Subsequently, prices
moderated and returned to pre-storm levels by the end of November.
Without an increase in price, there would have been little incentive
to attract increased amounts of refined products to the United States, or
to run refining facilities outside of the affected area at higher utilization
rates. Without an increase in prices, long-lived and wide-spread fuel
shortages may have occurred. In short, the market worked, to the benefit
of consumers and the national economy.
DOMESTIC REFINING CAPACITY: WORKING TO MEET
DEMAND AND IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT
148 refineries currently operate in the United States, producing
record volumes of some of the cleanest transportation fuels in the world.
These refineries, located in 33 states, have a combined capacity of over
17 million barrels per day (b/d) and, as previously stated, often operate at
extremely high utilization rates, which approach 98% during the peak
driving season. These figures are far above the 82% average utilization
rate of other manufacturers. Despite these significant efforts, U.S.
product demand continues to outstrip domestic supply. Imports now
account for 10% of the gasoline used by U.S. consumers. Regionally,
this figure is higher, as in the case of the Northeast, where imported
products account for over 20% of total supply. In light of the strong
demand for gasoline and other petroleum products, domestic refiners
have worked hard to expand existing facilities. Over the past ten years,
domestic refining capacity has increased substantially, by an average of
177,000 barrels per day (b/d) of production each year. In simpler terms,
this means that the U.S. refining industry has added the equivalent of one
new, larger than average refinery, each year for the past decade.
Looking forward, the industry has announced publicly that over 1.4
million b/d in new capacity is slated to come online in the next few
years. Some estimates project a possible increase of nearly 1.7 million
b/d of capacity over the same time frame. With these expansions, total
domestic capacity will reach an all time high as shown in Attachment I.
It remains doubtful, however, that these expansions will be sufficient to
meet expected U.S. demand growth, and the nation's continued
dependence on imports of finished product and blendstocks will
continue.
Capacity expansions have occurred and will continue despite
difficult and time-consuming obstacles, including complex permitting
requirements and reviews, uncertainties involving the New Source
Review program, increasingly stringent environmental requirements, and
the difficulties of attracting sufficient investment in one of the most
capital-intensive industries. NPRA continues to believe that encouraging
the growth of domestic refining capacity is a vital component of U.S.
energy policy.
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS HAVE RESULTED IN
INCREASED CAPACITY AND COMPETITION
Much has been made of the fact that a new grassroots refinery has
not been built in the United States in over thirty years. There are
compelling reasons why: obstacles to permitting and constructing such a
facility include enormous start-up capital requirements, environmental
regulations, a history of low refining industry profitability, and the "Not
In My Backyard" (NIMBY) public attitude. Equally important, costs to
construct a new grassroots refinery would require an investment
averaging $17,000 per daily barrel of capacity and, at a minimum, would
take ten years to complete. On the other hand, capacity expansions at
existing facilities cost in the range of $9,000 to $12,000 per daily barrel
and can be completed in 3 to 4 years. In short, expansions can help meet
demand more quickly and cost effectively than construction of a new,
green-field refinery complex. This means more fuel for consumers in a
shorter time period than a hypothetical new refinery could provide.
Significantly, while the industry has not constructed new grassroots
facilities, improved management techniques and technological advances
allow existing facilities to produce ever greater amounts of refined
product. As previously mentioned, refiners have added significant
capacity at existing sites. In 1981, the average refinery in the United
States had approximately 57,000 b/d of crude oil distillation capacity.
Today, the average refinery has a capacity of over 110,000 b/d. Due to
high capital requirements and increasing environmental restrictions, the
industry closed small, inefficient facilities and has relied on economies
of scale to save on construction costs and bring new capacity on line
more quickly through expansion at existing sites.
In addition, refiners have also made substantial investments in
technologically advanced process units that have increased the yield of
gasoline and other valuable "light end" products from the same amount
of raw crude input. Further, similar investments have been made in units
designed to process a wider slate of crude oil, enabling the production of
light products from heavier and sour crude oil feedstocks. Lacking these
mergers and acquisitions, some of the individual refineries now operating
might not have remained economically viable and the capacity
expansions simply could not have been accomplished. One such
example is Sunoco's refinery complex in the metropolitan Philadelphia
area which now has over 550,000 barrels/day of capacity. If Sunoco
were unable to operate these facilities as a synergistic unit, this
production might not be available for consumers. Phillips Petroleum's
(now ConocoPhillips) acquisition of the Tosco refinery system increased
capacity and maintained refinery viability on a nation-wide basis, as did
Tosco's initial purchase of underperforming facilities. Additionally,
Valero Energy Corporation has increased the productive capacity of the
refineries it has acquired by an aggregate of nearly 400,000 barrels per
day over the past several years and plans more extensive expansions in
the future. An examination of other mergers and acquisitions tells the
same story: refineries have been kept operating and have often been
expanded as the result of mergers and acquisitions.
REFINED PRODUCT PRICING: CRUDE OIL & COMPETITION
Two important factors must be kept in mind when examining the
price of refined products. First, the cost of crude oil is the single greatest
driver of petroleum product prices. In June of 2005 the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission released a landmark study titled: "Gasoline Price
Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand and Competition." This
study determined that "Worldwide supply, demand, and competition for
crude oil are the most important factors in the national average price of
gasoline in the U.S." and "the world price of crude oil is the most
important factor in the price of gasoline. Over the last 20 years, changes
in crude oil prices have explained 85 percent of the changes in the price
of gasoline in the U.S." According to EIA data, crude oil constitutes
55% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, refining 22%, taxes 19% and
distribution and marketing 4%. Secondly, the refining industry is
robustly competitive. Some critics of the industry argue that recent
mergers have reduced competitiveness and led to an increase in fuel
prices. This assertion is simply wrong. The U.S. refining industry is
highly competitive. Fifty-four refining companies, hundreds of
wholesale and marketing companies, and more than 165,000 retail
outlets compete in the U.S. market. The largest U.S. refiner accounts for
just 13% of the nation's total capacity, and large integrated companies
own and operate only about 10% of retail outlets. (For comparison,
Archer Daniel Midland, the largest producer of fuel ethanol in the U.S.,
controls nearly 25% of the U.S. ethanol market.) No one company, or
group of companies, sets gasoline prices. Rather, the laws of supply and
demand drive competitive behavior and determine pricing in the U.S.
refining industry.
REFINERS REJECT AND CONDEMN IMPROPER PRICING
PRACTICES
The tight gasoline markets of the past several years have led to
dozens of investigations of the refining industry at the state and federal
levels. In each case, the industry has been cleared of wrongdoing.
Today, as then, allegations of refiner price-fixing, price-gouging, and
other illegal pricing practices are patently false.
Most recently, the Attorney General of Nebraska appointed a task
force to investigate prices in that state. In a report issued in January
2006, the task force found that "hurricanes in fall 2005 functioned
similarly to OPEC supply restrictions, producing higher prices, lower
output, and elevated profits." Referencing price movements in recent
years the report notes that, "increases in the price of a barrel of oil
accounted for 62.5 percent of the rise in gasoline prices between June
2004 and October 2005. Declines in refinery capacity utilization and
increases in the share of oil imported accounted for the rest of the
difference." Additionally, the task force concluded that similar studies at
the federal and state level, "have not found violations of law, and they
generally have found competitive markets affected by worldwide
conditions."
Another study, conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of
Florida, examined price increases in that state in 2004 and found that the
major factors affecting prices in that state were: "consumer demand for
gasoline," "refinery capacity," "refinery utilization," "inventories,"
"supply issues," and "lagged response in gasoline imports." Importantly,
the study found no evidence of anticompetitive behavior.
These reports repeat the findings of numerous others, including a 9-
month FTC investigation into the causes of price spikes in local markets
in the Midwest during the spring and summer of 2000. At the conclusion
of that investigation FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky (a recognized expert
in antitrust law) stated, "There were many causes for the extraordinary
price spikes in Midwest markets. Importantly, there is no evidence that
the price increases were a result of conspiracy or any other antitrust
violation. Indeed, most of the causes were beyond the immediate control
of the oil companies."
NPRA regrets that the results of these investigations, and the
findings of those now being requested, have not been and most likely
will not be announced with the same enthusiasm and media attention
given to news of their initiation.
ETHANOL & MTBE: A CASE STUDY IN POLICY IMPACTS
Recently, refiners undertook and completed annual turnarounds to
prepare for the changeover from wintertime to summertime fuel blends.
An unexpected complication for this year's efforts was the need for
additional maintenance at facilities damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, or in the case of one major facility, an accident. In addition, there
was a need for deferred maintenance at those facilities originally
scheduled for repair work during late summer/early fall of 2005, but
which operated at higher rates of utilization and continued to produce
fuel for consumers in the aftermath of these storms, while other refineries
were shut for storm-related repairs.
While these events could not have been predicted and both industry
and government worked diligently to minimize their impacts, the fact
remains that both direct actions and overt inaction by the federal
government can impact and complicate the supply picture. The results of
these policy decisions can and do influence marketplace conditions and
volatility. For example, select provisions from the Energy Policy Act of
2005 created marketplace conditions that placed increased strain on the
nation's transportation fuels supply.
Although The Energy Policy Act of 2005 eliminated the 2%
oxygenate requirement for federal RFG, the act did not provide defective
product limited liability relief for MTBE. Further, the rules
implementing the removal of the 2% oxygenate requirement were
published by EPA just this week, leaving refiners in regulatory limbo
regarding RFG and the 2% oxygenate requirement. Refiners were
thereby forced to make decisions regarding the transition from the
production of wintertime to summertime fuels (required by federal
environmental law) in the February/March 2006 timeframe. This
situation evidently encouraged many refiners to move ahead quickly to
remove MTBE from the fuel supply, to ensure that summertime 2006
RFG would still contain 2% oxygenate to ensure compliance with EPA
regulations. This rapid MTBE removal/ethanol switch had been
predicted by many industry observers, and Congress was informed on
multiple occasions that the failure to adopt MTBE limited liability could
impact supply. The result was considerable (but clearly anticipated)
pressure on ethanol supply and fuel distribution infrastructure. It is with
some irony that we note that those who demanded that MTBE be banned
and removed from gasoline as soon as possible are now questioning the
actions of the refining industry as it attempts as smooth as possible a
transition to summertime RFG while complying with the renewable fuels
(ethanol) mandate also enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2006.
This substantial increase in demand for ethanol due to MTBE
replacement and the mandate caused prices for the blendstock to rise
rapidly. At the same time, the logistical challenges of changing from
gasoline blended with MTBE to gasoline blended with ethanol (as well
as transporting the ethanol to areas for the first time) resulted in unique
challenges for a few wholesalers and retailers. Refiners, as well other
participants in the transportation fuels industry, worked very hard to
minimize these impacts, but they occurred nonetheless. The recent
market disruptions were very limited and addressed in short order, and
the system is currently adjusting to significantly reduced MTBE use.
The experience demonstrates, however, that Congress, in spite of being
informed by industry and outside experts and observers, often fails to
consider fully the fuel supply impacts of legislation and implementing
regulations.
OTHER SUPPLY IMPACTS OF REGULATIONS
Other significant government intervention and regulations, especially
environmental requirements, have had a major impact on fuel supplies.
Unlike most industries, refiners comply with regulations for both their
product fuels and for their facilities. In essence, the industry is impacted
doubly by many environmental programs and faces numerous other
regulatory burdens simultaneously as illustrated by the attached Fuels
Timeline (see Attachment II). While refiners support and encourage
continued environmental progress, NPRA believes that policymakers
have tended to overlook and take for granted the supply side of the
environmental-energy equation. It is imperative, in our opinion, that
determining the impact on supply must be fully embedded in the policy-
making process. In working with policymakers on improvements to
fuels and facilities, NPRA has often commented that industry needs time,
flexibility or more realistic standards to minimize negative impacts on
fuel supply. Policymakers, however, often opt to promulgate regulations
that are "technology forcing," constructed with limited and often
theoretical "margins of safety," and requiring implementation in the
shortest time possible-all without adequate attention to fuel supply
impacts.
NPRA characterizes this current environmental agenda as a
"regulatory blizzard," consisting of about a dozen new federal programs
from 2006 - 2012 (see Attachment III). The majority of these
regulations will have a direct impact on supply. Unfortunately,
regulators have not properly sequenced or coordinated the
implementation of these requirements, literally stacking them one on top
of the other. Current fuel markets reflect, in many aspects, the
confluence and impacts of these multiple fuel and stationary source
requirements.
TAKING FUEL SUPPLY FOR GRANTED
NPRA had developed several supply-oriented recommendations to
increase supply as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was debated.
Specifically, the Association recommended that Congress repeal the 2%
oxygenation requirement for federal RFG; avoid a federal ban or
mandatory phase-out of MTBE; resist calls for an ethanol mandate;
extend limited product liability protection to MTBE; avoid unnecessary
changes in fuel specifications; and take steps to increase natural gas
production and supply. Unfortunately, political considerations resulted
in the exclusion of most recommendations as part of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.
Our recommendations were supported by two landmark refining
studies issued by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an advisory
group to the Department of Energy. The NPC issued a report on the state
of the refining industry in 2000, urging policymakers to pay special
attention to the timing and sequencing of any changes in product
specifications. Failing such action, the report cautioned that adverse fuel
supply ramifications could result. Unfortunately, this warning has been
almost totally ignored, resulting in the market volatility we have
experienced over the past few years.
On June 22, 2004, former Energy Secretary Abraham asked the NPC
to update and expand its refining study and a report was released
December 2004. The June 22, 2004 NPC report included the following
recommendations: immediate implementation of comprehensive New
Source Review reform; revision of the NAAQS compliance deadlines
and procedures to take full advantage of emission reduction benefits
from current clean fuels and engine programs; caution in implementation
of the ultra low sulfur diesel regulations; limited liability protection
against defective product claims for MTBE; further study of the boutique
fuels issue and approval of new fuels only when cost effective relative to
other emission reduction options; regulations based on sound science,
cost effectiveness, and energy impacts; streamlined permitting; and
several other proposals. Few of the NPC recommendations have been
implemented; frankly speaking, policymakers and opinion leaders have
almost totally ignored the findings of these important reports.
CONGRESS SHOULD RESIST CHANGES IN CURRENT FUEL
SPECIFICATIONS
As illustrated by the NPRA Regulatory Blizzard and Fuels Timeline
cited previously, refiners face numerous challenges and fuel specification
deadlines. Further complicating this picture by adding new programs, or
even eliminating existing ones, will not benefit consumers. Last minute
changes will increase uncertainty and upset expectations based on
current law.
NPRA OPPOSES FURTHER REDUCTIONS OF BOUTIQUE
FUELS
Current calls for the reduction of "boutique fuels," for example, may
not provide the supply-relief that many advocates think. NPRA believes
that any attempt to limit the number of viable fuels in regions or nation-
wide may be counter-productive, and certainly no such change would
have a positive impact now or during this summer. Boutique fuels
programs in many cases represent a local area's attempt to address its
own air quality needs in a more cost-effective way than with RFG.
While boutique fuels are often blamed for episodic price variations
during limited supply disruptions in specific regions, their overall impact
on local economics is a net positive when compared to a constant
requirement for RFG.
Historically, the primary driver that led local areas to create
boutique fuels was to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. When considering fuel
controls, such areas often sought to avoid RFG, either due to concerns
about 1) cost, or 2) use MTBE and/or ethanol, or both. Areas that may
need VOC (hydrocarbon) emissions reductions to achieve ozone
attainment have been likely to favor lower RVP controlled conventional
gasoline (CG) vs. RFG since low RVP CG is more cost effective. Areas
that require NOx emissions reductions to achieve ozone attainment are
likely to favor CG as well because both CG and RFG will return similar
NOx emission reduction benefits with the implementation of the federal
Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program.
Congress passed significant provisions affecting boutique fuels just
last year. They have not yet been fully implemented. Clean Air Act
section 211(c)(4)(C) was amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005
requiring a joint effort of EPA and DOE to review motor fuel control
choices by states, and further requiring both agencies consider the
regional supply implications of such requests (see section 1541 of P.L.
109-58). Before granting a waiver of federal preemption, the
Administrator of EPA is required, after consultation with the Secretary of
Energy and after notice and comment, to find that the fuel control choice
will not cause fuel supply or distribution interruptions, or have a
significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected area or
contiguous areas. NPRA strongly supports this important focus on
supply-side impacts. Congress should allow time for implementation of
this new system before contemplating any changes.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes another provision
addressing boutique fuels. Under this provision, EPA may not approve a
motor fuel in a new SIP if it increases the number of approved fuels as of
September 1, 2004, and unless EPA finds, after review and comment,
that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution disruptions or have
an adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected area or in
contiguous areas, and unless the fuel was already in use in the same
PADD (with the single exception of summer 7.0 psi RVP conventional
gasoline). By November 2005, EPA was to publish a list in the Federal
Register of motor fuels in all SIPs as of September 1, 2004, by state and
PADD for public review and comment. Additionally, the Act requires a
report by August 2006 of a joint EPA/DOE study on boutique fuels,
including effects on air quality, fuel availability and fungibility. These
provisions have not yet been implemented.
Congress should avoid further confusion and potential disruption in
the fuels market and rely on the scheduled joint EPA/DOE study on
boutique fuels as a basis for any future legislative initiatives on this
subject. In short, NPRA supports further study of the boutique fuels
phenomenon as outlined in last year's energy bill, and urges Congress to
resist imposition of any additional motor fuel specification changes.
Further changes in motor fuel specifications in the 2004 - 2010
timeframe may very well result in additional, unwarranted supply
constraints to a situation which already provides significant challenges
due to the import of, Tier 2 gasoline sulfur regulations, ultra-low sulfur
diesel regulations, revised mobile source air toxic rules, and the impact
of revised ozone and particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and others (see Attachment III).
Certain actions could be taken by Congress to address the
proliferation of fuel formulas without mandating specification changes.
Key drivers for future boutique fuel proliferation are the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Some areas will doubtless seek to add
fuel controls as they develop State Implementation Plans to demonstrate
attainment. Many are looking at additional unique requirements for local
areas, especially where stationary source options are limited or can't be
implemented quickly. Thus, states look to short-term, localized fuel
controls to meet excessively compressed NAAQS attainment deadlines.
These deadlines are not aligned with federal controls, either existing or in
the early stages of implementation (Tier 2 Gasoline & Vehicle standards,
Heavy Duty Highway and Non-road Diesel Sulfur standards, etc.). This
situation not only prevents states from counting real and significant
emission reductions in the time required for compliance, but also adds
considerable and unnecessary cost to the overall NAAQS program.
States and local areas need more time to demonstrate attainment or
credit for existing regulatory requirements that will deliver emission
reductions over time. Congress should direct that states be allowed
credit for emission reductions through 2020 resulting from federal fuel
control programs already in place. If this is done, much of the interest in
and perceived need for states to enact new motor fuel controls will be
alleviated.
Further, it is evident that variations in motor fuels may be reduced
with implementation of current regulatory programs. For example, EPA
published the Mobile Source Air Toxics Phase 2 proposal (71 FR 15804;
3/29/06). The primary feature is a proposed reduction in the average
annual benzene content in all gasoline (conventional gasoline plus RFG)
to 0.62 vol%. This would eliminate a current toxics control distinction
between RFG and CG. Furthermore, the recent removal of the oxygen
content requirement for federal RFG reduces the difference between
winter RFG and winter CG and between summer RFG and summer 7.0
psi RVP CG. In addition, the average sulfur content of RFG and CG is
identical because of the federal Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur program.
Therefore, differences between RFG and CG are diminishing, which
should reduce the attractiveness of new boutique fuels as alternatives to
RFG.
In sum, NPRA does not support legislation to address boutique fuels
that changes existing specifications. A new legislative menu of motor
fuel choices, which NPRA does not support, should in any case
recognize investments already made by the petroleum industry to
produce boutique fuels and comply with existing mandates. Failure to
consider and balance supply implications, as well as air quality impacts,
risks making the current supply situation worse.
EPA SHOULD PROMULGATE RFS STANDARDS THIS YEAR/
CONGRESS SHOULD PREEMPT STATE ETHANOL
MANDATES
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes a renewable content
requirement for motor vehicle fuels, the Renewable Fuels Standard
(RFS) provision. The RFS will be administered by EPA and require the
increased use of ethanol, biodiesel or other renewable fuels in motor
fuels. It is an obligation for gasoline refiners, blenders, and importers.
EPA published a Direct Final Rule with a limited set of RFS standards
for 2006 that included collective compliance, not individual refinery
compliance. This Direct Final Rule was effective on February 28, 2006.
NPRA advocates a program that is understandable, allows
unambiguous enforcement, promotes adequate flexibility for refiners and
gasoline importers, and is developed with full recognition of its impact
on energy supplies. The comprehensive RFS final rule, effective in
2007, should be in place as early as possible before January 1, 2007.
Meeting this timetable may be difficult because the Agency has not yet
released a proposal for public comment.
Congress set limits on the proliferation of new fuels in the 2005
Energy Policy Act. Unfortunately, new state ethanol, biodiesel or
renewable fuel mandates can evade Congressional efforts to limit the
number of fuels. These programs should be preempted by the federal
Renewable Fuel Standard pending the same energy supply impact
analysis required for changes in local gasoline and diesel standards.
Congress and the Administration should not grant a free pass to new
ethanol and biodiesel mandates that proliferate fuel requirements and
negatively impact supply.
OTHER RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS
Congress can and should take appropriate action to help refiners meet
the transportation fuel needs of the American public. Regardless of
industry profitability, the simple fact remains that supply and demand for
refined products are in an extremely tight balance. The refining industry
is still working to recover fully from the impact of Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina. Additionally, several upcoming regulatory requirements should
be carefully monitored for adverse supply impacts. Necessary and
prudent actions include the following:
<bullet> Make increasing the nation's supply of oil, oil products and
natural gas a number one public policy priority. Now, and for
many years in the past, increasing oil and gas supply has often
been only a secondary concern of policymakers. Oil and gas
supply concerns have played second fiddle to whatever policy goal
seemed politically popular at the time. As discussed above, the
2000 NPC study of the refining industry urged policymakers to pay
special attention to the timing and sequencing of any changes in
product specifications. Failing such action, the report cautioned
that adverse fuel supply ramifications may result. We repeat that
this warning has been widely disregarded.
<bullet> Resist tinkering with market forces, including imposition of
"windfall profits" taxes, LIFO repeal or elimination of foreign
tax provisions. Market interference that may initially be
politically popular leads to market inefficiencies and unnecessary
costs. Policymakers must resist turning the clock backwards to the
failed policies of the past. Experience with price constraints and
allocation controls in the 1970s demonstrates the failure of price
regulation, which adversely impacted both fuel supply and
consumer cost. The state of Hawaii has just cancelled its less than
one-year old gasoline price regulation because it led to higher
prices and supply uncertainty. A windfall profits tax would
discourage investment in refineries, which is needed to expand
domestic production capacity and produce cleaner fuels.
<bullet> Remove barriers to increased supplies of domestic oil and gas
resources. Refineries and other important onshore facilities have
been welcome in limited areas throughout the country, including
the Gulf Coast. However, policymakers have restricted access to
much-needed offshore oil and natural gas supplies in the eastern
Gulf and off the shores of California and the East Coast. These
areas must follow the example of Louisiana and many other states
in sharing their energy resources with the rest of the nation. This
additional supply is sorely needed.
<bullet> Expand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy
Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to
five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining
investment. Consider allowing expensing under the current
language to take place as the investment is made rather than when
the equipment is actually placed in service. Alternatively, the
percentage expensed could be increased as per the original
legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.
<bullet> Review permitting procedures for new refinery construction
and refinery capacity additions. Seek ways to encourage state
authorities to recognize the national interest in increased domestic
refining capacity by reducing the time needed to permit expansions
and other refinery projects.
<bullet> Keep a close eye on several upcoming regulatory programs
that could have significant impacts on gasoline and diesel
supply. They are:
<bullet> Design and implementation of the credit trading
program for the ethanol mandate (RFS) contained in the
recent Energy Act. This mechanism is vital to ensure
smooth implementation without adverse effects on
gasoline supply. Refiners have been working closely with
EPA to accomplish this key task.
<bullet> Implementation of the ultra low sulfur diesel highway
diesel regulation. The refining industry has made large
investments to meet the severe reductions in diesel sulfur
that take effect in June. We remain concerned about
industry's ability to produce the necessary volumes and
the distribution system's ability to deliver this material
at the required 15 ppm level at retail. If not resolved,
these problems could affect America's critical diesel
supply. Industry is working closely with EPA on this
issue, but time left to solve this problem is growing very
short.
<bullet> Phase II of the MSAT (mobile source air toxics) rule for
gasoline. Many refiners are concerned that the
proposed regulation could be overly stringent and
impact gasoline supply. We hope that EPA will finalize
a rule that protects the environment and avoids reducing
gasoline supply while protecting the environment.
<bullet> Implementation of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS
standard. The current implementation schedule set by
EPA has established ozone attainment deadlines for
parts of the country that will be impossible to meet. EPA
has not made needed changes that would provide
realistic attainment dates. The result is that areas will
be required to place sweeping new controls on both
stationary and mobile sources in a vain effort to attain
the unattainable deadlines. The CAIR rule and ULSD
diesel program will provide significant reductions to
emissions within these areas when implemented. These
reductions will not come soon enough to be considered
unless the current unrealistic schedule is revised. If not,
the result will be additional fuel and stationary source
controls which will have an adverse impact on fuel
supply and could adversely affect U.S. refining capacity.
This issue needs immediate attention.
NPRA's members are dedicated to working cooperatively with
government at all levels to ensure an adequate supply of transportation
fuels at reasonable prices. But we feel obliged to remind policymakers
that action must also be taken to improve energy policy in order to
increase supply and strengthen the nation's refining infrastructure. We
look forward to answering the Committee's questions.
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And since I was the only one here, I was about
ready to move several bills. But I am going to run and vote and come
back, and Mr. Shimkus will continue the hearing. I apologize there are
not more Members here, but many are watching on TV, and I am sure
they will be here for the question period.
Mr. Becker, welcome to the committee and you are recognized for 7
minutes.
MR. BECKER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. I am Bill Becker, Executive Director of STAPPA and
ALAPCO, the two national associations of State and local clean air
agencies. We commend you for convening this hearing.
I am going to focus my testimony on State and local clean fuel
programs, often referred to as boutique fuels. According to EPA, areas
in 12 States currently use a total of 7 distinct fuels for boutique purposes.
We do not dispute the serious nature of today's high fuel prices, or the
potential supply disruptions that could occur as a result of a natural
disaster or other extraordinary circumstance. However, we are very
concerned that boutique fuels have been wrongly targeted as the cause,
especially given last summer's changes under the Energy Policy Act.
And we disagree with assertions that these programs are responsible for
the significant fuel price increases and could potentially compound fuel
supply disruptions.
We believe that any further curtailment of State and local authorities
to pursue such programs could unnecessarily jeopardize public health
and clean air. We therefore urge that Congress not further limit our
ability to adopt boutique fuel programs.
Just to put this issue in context, air pollution poses a very serious
public health problem. Notwithstanding decades of diligent efforts, at
least 160 million people, more than half of our population, still live in
areas of the Nation with unhealthful levels of ozone, fine particulate
matter, or both.
So why do States and localities adopt boutique fuel programs? The
simple answer is to achieve air pollution emissions reductions beyond
those provided by conventional fuels. According to GAO, for example,
State boutique fuel programs have reduced smog forming emissions by
up to 25 percent over conventional gasoline.
EPA has acknowledged the importance of fuel programs to States,
concluding, "Fuel controls can provide significant, cost-effective
emission reductions of VOCs and NOx. Further, such fuel controls can
often be implemented quickly and once implemented produce benefits
immediately."
We believe States and localities have used their boutique fuels
authority sparingly. In fact, most areas that have adopted boutique fuel
programs did so at the urging of the fuel suppliers, because the industry
preferred the less expensive boutique fuel programs over the uniform
Federal Reformulated Gasoline program.
According to EPA, boutique fuels deliver substantial air quality and
public health benefits at minimal cost, ranging from three-tenths of a
penny to three cents per gallon. When compared to today's average
national price for a typical gallon of regular gasoline, around $2.90 per
gallon, boutique fuels cost literally a fraction of 1 percent of the cost of
gasoline.
What is clear is that gas prices are escalating for reasons unrelated
to clean air protection. Moreover, gas prices have increased at the same
rate nationwide, not just in areas with cleaner fuel. Even within the same
neighborhood, the price of a gallon of gas can vary by an amount far
greater than the cost attributed to boutique fuel.
To the extent there is concern over the potential for boutique fuels
to exacerbate a future fuel supply disruption, Congress addressed this issue
just last summer under EPAct by providing the EPA with statutory
authority to temporarily waive fuel requirements during supply
emergencies. This authority was used almost immediately thereafter
following the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Congress and the President have also taken other recent actions to
further address any remaining concerns related to boutique fuels.
Congress included in EPAct a provision rescinding their RFG oxygenate
requirement that various States had expressed an interest in avoiding. In
addition, EPAct included a provision eliminating the possibility of any
future increase in the number of boutique fuel types. EPAct further
called upon the EPA and DOE to undertake a study of the effects of State
and local boutique fuels. And, finally, just last week, the EPA
Administrator launched a Presidential Task Force comprised of the
Nation's Governors to review boutique fuels across the country and
make recommendations.
In summary, we believe the ability of States and localities to adopt
boutique fuel programs is an essential regulatory tool for controlling air
pollution. There is no evidence that boutique fuels contribute to high
gasoline prices, and there are safeguards in place that allow EPA to
respond swiftly and effectively should fuel supply disruption ever
become an issue. In addition, several of the key reasons areas have
pursued boutique fuels in the past have been otherwise addressed, and in
no case can the number of types of boutique fuels expand.
Add to this the fact that EPA has yet to report to Congress on the
results of its boutique fuel study under EPAct, and further, that the
President's boutique fuel task force has just convened, in light of all of
this, we urge the Congress not to further limit the ability of States and
localities to adopt boutique fuel programs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of S. William Becker follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF S. WILLIAM BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATORS/ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
OFFICIALS
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
Bill Becker, Executive Director of STAPPA - the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators - and ALAPCO - the Association
of Local Air Pollution Control Officials - the two national associations
of clean air agencies in 54 states and territories and over 165 major
metropolitan areas across the United States. The members of STAPPA
and ALAPCO have primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for
implementing our nation's air pollution control laws and regulations and,
even more importantly, for achieving and sustaining clean, healthful air
throughout the country.
Our associations commend you for convening this hearing to explore
fuel supply problems and escalating fuel prices. These are certainly very
important and timely issues and we understand the desire of this
Committee, and that of your colleagues, to take swift action to address
them. We are pleased to have this opportunity to provide our
perspectives, particularly regarding state and local clean fuel programs,
often referred to as "boutique fuels." To be clear, a boutique fuel is one
developed and included by a state or local area in an EPA-approved State
Implementation Plan to reduce motor vehicle emissions and improve air
quality. Authority for these programs is provided under Section
211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, areas in 12 states
currently use a total of seven distinct types of boutique fuels.
We are especially concerned by assertions that there has been a
"proliferation" of boutique fuel programs and that these programs are
responsible for fuel price increases and could potentially compound fuel
supply disruptions should they occur. Although we do not dispute the
serious nature of today's high fuel prices and potential supply
disruptions, we believe boutique fuels have been wrongly targeted as the
cause, and that further curtailment of state and local authorities to pursue
such programs could unnecessarily jeopardize public health and clean
air. Accordingly, we strongly urge that Congress not further limit the
ability of states and localities to adopt boutique fuel programs.
It is important to consider this in the appropriate context. Perhaps
the most complex air quality problem our nation faces is achievement
and maintenance of the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Notwithstanding decades of diligent effort, at least 160
million Americans - more than half our population - still live in areas
with unhealthful levels of 8-hour ozone, fine particulate matter or both.
The health and environmental impacts associated with elevated
levels of ozone are serious, including aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung disease, permanent lung damage, reduced lung function, irritation of
the respiratory system and cardiovascular symptoms. Although even
healthy individuals can be at risk from exposure to elevated levels of
ozone, children, seniors and those with compromised respiratory systems
are especially vulnerable.
Pollution from airborne particulate matter also plagues our nation.
In fact, fine particles pose the greatest health risk of any air pollutant,
resulting in thousands of premature deaths each year. These fine
particles are also responsible for a variety of other adverse health
impacts, including aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, damage to lung tissue, impaired breathing and respiratory
symptoms, irregular heart beat, heart attacks and lung cancer.
There is widespread agreement that cleaner fuels have been, and will
continue to be, critical to reducing air pollution and protecting public
health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated,
"Fuel controls can provide significant, cost effective emission reductions
of VOCs and NOx. Further, such fuel controls can often be implemented
quickly and, once implemented, produce benefits immediately, typically
reducing emissions from each vehicle in the fleet with no need for
vehicle fleet turnover. This fleet-wide impact distinguishes fuels control
from most other mobile source emission control options available to state
and local areas." In a June 2005 report, the Government Accountability
Office reported that state boutique fuel programs have reduced smog-
forming emissions by up to 25 percent over conventional gasoline.
The Clean Air Act gives primary authority for regulating the
environmental impacts of fuels to EPA, preempting states and localities
from controlling or prohibiting any characteristic component of a motor
vehicle fuel or fuel additive. However, recognizing that there may be
extenuating circumstances warranting a state or local fuel program, in
Section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act, Congress provides two specific
exceptions to the otherwise general preemption - if the EPA
Administrator finds that a special state or local fuel standard is necessary
to attain the NAAQS because 1) no other measures exist to bring about
timely attainment or 2) other measures exist, but are unreasonable or
impracticable. It is important to note that in either case, EPA approval is
required.
Also noteworthy is the fact that over the years states have availed
themselves of these limited exceptions very judiciously to address
specific local air quality problems, resulting in just seven distinct types
of boutique fuels nationwide. States pursue boutique fuels for various
reasons. For instance, some are not eligible to opt into the federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program and, therefore, adopt a boutique
fuel in order to obtain cleaner-than-conventional gasoline in a particular
area. Others, who are eligible to voluntarily opt into federal RFG, have
elected to pursue a low-volatility boutique fuel instead, as a less
expensive alternative to RFG. It is especially significant that in a
number of instances, a state or local area seeking to reduce smog-
forming emissions pursued a boutique fuel over opting into the federal
RFG program at the urging of the fuel suppliers. Although federal RFG
would have reduced not only ozone precursors, but toxic air pollutants as
well, fuel suppliers argued instead for a low-volatility boutique fuel (i.e.,
one with a low Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) with more limited air
quality benefits and a lower price tag. Thus, fuel suppliers were "willing
partners" in advancing boutique fuel programs over the uniform federal
RFG program.
According to EPA, "boutique fuels deliver substantial air quality and
public health benefits at minimal costs - ranging from 0.3 to 3 cents per
gallon." When compared to today's average national price for a typical
gallon of regular gasoline - $2.90 per gallon - boutique fuels cost
literally a fraction of 1 percent of the cost of gasoline. So what does
account for a typical gallon of gasoline? According to the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Energy Information Administration,
over half (55 percent) is for domestic and foreign crude oil. About 22
percent is for refining (processing the crude to make gasoline, diesel fuel
and other products for sale to refiners). Almost 20 percent goes for taxes
or fees that are paid to the federal, state or local governments, while 4
percent is for distribution and marketing, including shipping by pipeline,
storage at terminals and delivery by trucks to retail stations.
There is no question that gasoline prices are high and climbing.
However, gas prices are escalating for reasons unrelated to clean air
protections. Moreover, gas prices have increased at the same rate
nationwide, not just in areas with cleaner fuel. In fact, even within the
same neighborhood, the price of a gallon of gas can vary by an amount
far greater than the cost attributed to a boutique fuel. For example, this
week, for a gallon of regular gas, the price differential between two gas
stations supplied by the same fuel company, located just blocks away
from each other in Arlington, Virginia, was 20 cents.
To the extent there is concern over the potential for boutique fuels to
exacerbate a future fuel supply disruption caused by a natural disaster or
unexpected circumstance, such as a pipeline break or refinery shutdown,
this concern should be allayed by EPA's statutory authority to grant
waivers. Last summer, Congress added to this authority by including a
provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) specifically
authorizing the EPA Administrator to temporarily waive fuel
requirements during supply emergencies. This authority was used almost
immediately thereafter, following the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.
Congress and the President have also taken other recent actions to
further address any remaining concerns related to boutique fuels.
Congress included in EPAct a provision rescinding the RFG
oxygenate requirement that various states had expressed interest in
avoiding. Prior to EPAct, RFG was required to contain 2 percent oxygen
by weight - a requirement that was often fulfilled by blending in the
controversial fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. The
elimination of this requirement will likely obviate the need for states to
develop special fuel blends to avoid MTBE.
Also included in EPAct is a provision restricting the number of
boutique fuels to the total number of fuels approved by EPA as part of a
State Implementation Plan as of September 1, 2004, thus eliminating the
possibility of any future increase in fuel types.
EPAct further calls upon EPA and DOE to undertake a study of the
effects of state and local boutique fuels on air quality, the number of fuel
blends, fuel availability, fuel fungibility and fuel costs. The results of
this study are to be reported to Congress later this year, together with any
recommended regulatory and legislative changes.
Some boutique fuel programs require a lower fuel sulfur content.
However, recent implementation of EPA's landmark national low-sulfur
gasoline regulation, as well as implementation by the agency later this
year of national low-sulfur diesel fuel, should allow for local low-sulfur
boutique fuel requirements to be phased out.
And, finally, just last week, the EPA Administrator launched a
Presidential Task Force, comprised of the nation's Governors, to review
boutique fuels across the country. EPA has established an ambitious
schedule to provide the President with a final report within six to eight
weeks.
As states and localities work toward achieving the goal of clean,
healthful air nationwide, it is critical that they preserve key regulatory
tools for consideration and possible implementation in the future. The
ability to adopt a boutique fuel program as part of a comprehensive clean
air plan is one such tool. There is no evidence that boutique fuels
contribute to high gasoline prices and there are safeguards in place that
allow EPA to respond swiftly and effectively should fuel supply
disruption ever become an issue. In addition, several of the key reasons
areas have pursued boutique fuels in the past have been otherwise
addressed and, in no case can the number of types of boutique fuels
expand. Add to this the fact that EPA has yet to report to Congress on
the results of its boutique fuels study under EPAct and, further, that the
President has convened a special task force to study this issue and make
recommendations. In light of all this, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge that
Congress not further limit the ability of states and localities to adopt
boutique fuel programs.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
appreciate this opportunity to present STAPPA and ALAPCO's views
and would be pleased to answer your questions.
MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Paul Reid, President of Reid
Petroleum Corporation. Sir, your full statement is in the record and you
have 7 minutes.
MR. REID. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Paul Reid, I serve as President of Reid
Petroleum Corporation based in Lockport, New York, near Buffalo. I
appear before the committee representing SIGMA and NACS.
We have one primary message to deliver today; that is, there are no
short-term fixes to dramatically reduce gasoline prices or significantly
increase gasoline supplies. Therefore, we urge Congress and this
committee to focus attention on options that we think will benefit
consumers in the long term. In addition, we feel it is important for this
committee to understand that the overwhelming majority of retail motor
fuel outlets are owned and/or operated by independent marketers like
myself. Independent marketers do not refine gasoline or diesel fuel.
Therefore, we have long supported policies that expand supplies and
promote a competitive market.
Gasoline supplies are currently tight, but adequate to meet consumer
demand, in our opinion. To significantly increase gasoline supplies,
given steadily increasing demand, either domestic producers must refine
more or the Nation must import more. In that regard, SIGMA and
NACS believe that Federal regulatory reforms will be necessary to assure
that additional domestic refining capacity comes on line as quickly as
possible.
In the spring of 2006, the upward pressure on gasoline prices has
been exacerbated by several factors. Chief among those are higher crude
oil prices, but also EPA's Tier 2 gasoline specs became effective, the
phase out of MTBE occurred, and the increased price of ethanol. In fact,
the price of ethanol has more than doubled in the past year.
Historically, ethanol prices tracked gasoline prices rather closely.
Currently, however, spot ethanol prices are approximately 50 cents per
gallon over regular gasoline, currently contributing to rising gasoline
prices.
I feel compelled to point out there is one factor that has not
contributed to higher gasoline prices; that is increased retailer margins.
Rising wholesale and retail gasoline prices generally do not translate into
higher profit margins for gasoline retailers. In fact, the opposite is true.
My company's recent experience provides a perfect example of what
may be a counterintuitive fact.
In February 2006, our average wholesale price for 87 grade regular
unleaded gasoline cost $2.40 cents per gallon, including taxes, and our
average retail price for this same grade was $2.52 cents per gallon,
providing our company a gross margin of 12 cents per gallon. Compare
that gross margin to April 24, 2006, when our wholesale cost was $2.97
per gallon, including taxes, and our retail price was $3.03 per gallon,
providing us a 6 cents per gallon gross profit.
As you can see, my company was doing better; we were better off
when the price was lower in February at $2.52 per gallon than we were
in late April, when the price was $3.03 per gallon.
The only near-term step SIGMA and NACS recommends that
Congress undertake to exert downward pressure on retail gasoline prices
is to temporarily suspend duty on imported ethanol. Such a tariff
suspension will attract additional ethanol supplies to those markets where
it is most needed, such as the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, and California.
We believe such actions will put downward pressure on ethanol prices.
We want to thank this committee, particularly Chairman Barton and
Mr. Blunt, for authoring the boutique fuels and fuel waiver amendment
that ultimately became Section 1651 of EPAct. The enactment of your
amendment has slowed the balkanization of the gasoline and diesel fuel
markets and, hopefully, has started us on a path towards a better
harmonization of fuel specifications.
SIGMA and NACS recommends this committee consider
improvements to Section 1541 of EPAct. First, we urge Congress to
adopt an amendment to the EPAct boutique fuels cap to gradually reduce
the number of boutique fuels in use across the Nation.
Second, we encourage Congress to address the proliferation of State
alternative boutique fuel mandates, such as ethanol and biodiesel
mandates.
Third, we urge Congress to consider amending the fuel specification
emergency supply waiver authority granted to EPA to include a hold
harmless provision for States.
As a final comment, SIGMA and NACS are very concerned about
recent legislative proposals to mandate the use of E-85. Some
independent marketers already sell E-85, and I expect many more will do
so in the future. We recommend that Congress rely on market-based
mechanisms to encourage the use of E-85, rather than a command and
control mandate that requires retailers to sell this fuel.
SIGMA and NACS appreciates the opportunity to present this
testimony, and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Paul D. Reid follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL D. REID, PRESIDENT, REID PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONVENIENCE STORES AND SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE
MARKETERS OF AMERICA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member Dingell,
and members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this important
hearing. My name is Paul Reid. I am the President of Reid Petroleum
Corporation in Lockport, New York. My company owns 65 motor fuel
outlets in Upstate New York and Northwest Pennsylvania and supplies
gasoline and diesel fuel to 85 additional retail outlets in that area under
long-term supply contracts.
I appear before the Committee representing the Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National
Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). I serve as Chairman of
SIGMA's Legislative Committee and my company also is an active
member of NACS. Together, SIGMA and NACS members sell
approximately 80 percent of the gasoline and diesel fuel purchased by
motorists in the United States each year.
SIGMA is an association of more than 240 independent motor fuel
marketers operating in all 50 states. Last year, SIGMA members sold
more than 58 billion gallons of motor fuel, representing more than 30
percent of all motor fuels sold in the United States in 2005. SIGMA
members supply more than 35,000 retail outlets across the nation and
employ more than 350,000 workers nationwide.
NACS is an international trade association composed of more than
2,200 retail member companies operating more than 100,000 stores. The
convenience store industry as a whole sold 143.5 billion gallons of motor
fuel in 2005 and employs 1.5 million workers across the nation.
In the United States, there are more than 160,000 retail outlets that
sell motor fuel. Of these, less than 5 percent are owned and operated by
a major integrated oil company. The overwhelming majority are
independent marketers like me. As such, we do not refine gasoline or
diesel fuel. Rather, we purchase fuels from producers and importers and
sell these fuels to consumers. Because of our dependence on others in
the supply chain, SIGMA and NACS members always seek policies that
maximize both the overall amount of gasoline and diesel fuel supplies
and the number of competing suppliers of these fuels. Independent
marketers survive as the most cost-competitive segment of the motor
fuels marketing industry because of ample supplies and diverse sources
of supply. Without either, we would cease to be a competitive force in
the market.
Gasoline supplies across the United States are tight, prices have been
high, and the Energy Information Administration named 2006 the "Year
of the Fuel Spec." My testimony today will focus on each of these issues
in turn and recommend policy solutions. It is very important to note,
however, that there are no short-term fixes to any of these issues. The
gasoline issues we collectively face are complex, have been building for
at least two decades, and will not be resolved overnight. Therefore, we
urge Congress and this Committee to focus your attention on options that
will benefit consumers in the long-term.
Gasoline Supply
You have heard ample testimony from other witnesses at this hearing
on the current state of gasoline supply. Gasoline supplies currently are
tight, but adequate to meet consumer demand. There is not, in SIGMA's
and NACS' opinion, a significant current shortfall in gasoline supplies.
As a result, we have not supported recent calls for EPA to use the fuel
specification waiver authority granted to the Agency under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). EPAct authorized such waivers to respond
to "extreme and unusual fuel supply circumstances." Such
circumstances existed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but they do not
exist today.
This year, overall gasoline supplies have been constrained by several
factors. First, the final phase-in of EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
standards took effect at the first of the year. It is more difficult for
producers to make low sulfur gasoline and the gasoline yield from a
barrel of oil is reduced when sulfur is removed. In addition, European
refiners do not typically produce gasoline with the U.S. sulfur level,
cutting off a possible source of supply relief. Second, in significant part
because Congress did not enact MTBE liability protection as part of the
Energy Policy Act last year, MTBE is being phased out as a gasoline
additive this Spring. The removal of MTBE from the gasoline pool
alone reduces overall supplies by approximately two percent. At the
same time, many producers are replacing MTBE with ethanol to gain
octane. In those areas of the country where reformulated gasoline (RFG)
is required, the addition of ethanol to RFG requires a gasoline blendstock
with lower volatility, further reducing a producer's gasoline yield from a
barrel of crude.
Thus, at a time when the public and many in Congress are calling for
policies to increase domestic refining capacity and gasoline production,
in reality the nation's existing statutes and regulations are working
against supply maximization.
SIGMA and NACS believe that the unfortunate reality is that little
can be done in the short-term to increase gasoline supplies. The existing
domestic refineries are running at or near full capacity. To significantly
increase gasoline supplies, either domestic producers must make more or
the nation must import more. Some of the major domestic refiners have,
over the past six months, announced close to 2 million barrels per day of
capacity expansion at existing refineries. SIGMA and NACS welcome
these announcements, but believe that federal regulatory reforms -- such
as streamlined refinery permitting and new source review reform, as
advanced by Chairman Barton and Senator Inhofe -- will be necessary to
assure that this additional capacity comes on line as quickly as possible.
Otherwise, we will have no choice but to continue to look overseas for
our gasoline to meet increasing demand.
Gasoline Prices
Gasoline prices across the nation have approached or surpassed
$3.00 per gallon over the past several weeks. It is important to
remember that increased gasoline prices in the Spring of each year are
not a new phenomenon. Since 2000, each Spring gasoline prices have
risen an average of more than 30 cents per gallon because of the
transition to more expensive "Summer" blends with enhanced ozone
controls and in anticipation of the higher gasoline demand of the
Summer driving season.
In the Spring of 2006, the upward pressure on gasoline prices has
been exacerbated by several additional factors. First, crude oil prices
have reached and stayed above $70 per barrel for an extended period of
time. This time last year, crude oil was trading for about $50 per barrel.
Currently, more than 50 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline flows
directly from the price of the crude used to make the gasoline. Second,
as noted above, gasoline supplies have been tight because of new sulfur
regulations and the phase-out of MTBE, coupled with its replacement by
ethanol.
Third, the price of ethanol has more than doubled over the past year.
This would be inexplicable but for the fact that Congress itself created
this market last year with a mandate requiring its use in ever-increasing
quantities, tax credits to encourage its use, and import tariffs to protect
domestic producers. Historically, ethanol prices tracked gasoline prices
fairly closely. Currently, however, spot ethanol prices are approximately
50 cents per gallon over regular gasoline. While ethanol typically
comprises 10 percent or less of a gallon of gasoline (more for E85
blends), rising ethanol prices clearly have contributed to rising gasoline
prices.
Finally, there is one factor that SIGMA and NACS assert has not
been a predominate factor in increasing gasoline prices -- increased
retailer margins. As former NACS Chairman Bill Douglass testified
before this Committee during your post-Katrina hearings last year,
increasing wholesale and retail gasoline prices do not translate into
higher margins for gasoline retailers. In fact, the opposite is true. As
wholesale gasoline prices rise, as they have for most of the past two
months, retailer margins are reduced. In some cases, wholesale prices
rise so rapidly that retailers actually have a negative margin on every
gallon of gasoline they sell.
My company's experience over the past two months has been
consistent with Mr. Douglass' testimony last year. On February 1, 2006,
my average wholesale 87 octane regular gasoline cost was $2.40,
including taxes, and my average retail price for this same grade was
$2.52. As a result, my gross margin -- from which I must pay my
employees, my rent, my utilities, my credit card fees, and all other
operating costs -- was 12 cents per gallon. Compare that gross margin to
April 24, 2006, when my wholesale cost was $2.97 per gallon, including
taxes, and my retail price was $3.03 per gallon, giving me a 6 cents per
gallon gross profit. Once my expenses are deducted, my company was
actually making more money on gasoline sales in February at $2.52 per
gallon than we were in late April at $3.03 per gallon. I strongly suspect
that my experience over the past two months is reflective of the
experiences of nearly every gasoline retailer across the nation.
Again, there are no immediate public policy measures that this
Committee and this Congress can take to reduce retail gasoline prices.
The only near-term step SIGMA and NACS recommend that Congress
undertake to exert downward pressure on retail gasoline prices would be
to suspend temporarily the duty on imported ethanol. Ethanol prices
have doubled over the past year. The market clearly is signaling high
demand and a shortage in supply. Such a tariff suspension will attract
additional ethanol supplies to those markets where it is most needed --
the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, and California. Such developments will
put downward pressure on ethanol prices.
Gasoline Specifications
SIGMA and NACS want to thank this Committee, particularly
Chairman Barton and Mr. Blunt, for authoring the boutique fuels and
fuel waiver amendment that ultimately became Section 1541 of EPAct.
For several years, we have appeared before this Committee and others in
Congress warning of the negative supply, fungibility, and price impacts
of boutique fuels. The enactment of your amendment has slowed the
balkanization of the gasoline and diesel fuel markets and, hopefully, has
started us on a path toward more harmonized fuel specifications. In
addition, we congratulate you for your foresight in pushing for statutory
authority for EPA to waive temporarily certain fuel specifications during
unforeseeable supply emergencies -- authority that EPA exercised
judiciously in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
As noted, the Energy Information Administration dubbed 2006 "The
Year of the Fuel Specification." In addition to the Federal gasoline
sulfur program and the phase out of MTBE I mentioned earlier, there are
several different new fuel programs that will hit the industry, and
consumers, in 2006. First, EPAct's renewable fuel standard takes effect
this year and mandates that at least 4 billion gallons of ethanol and
biodiesel be used by the nation's refiners and importers. Second, EPA's
ultra low sulfur diesel fuel program will begin in June of this year.
Finally, EPA has proposed a new mobile source air toxics regulation to
reduce the benzene content of gasoline. Together, all of these programs
have combined to produce a year in which fuel specifications will change
dramatically -- posing challenges for refiners, the motor fuel distribution
system, retailers, and consumers. These environmental controls do
impose costs on industry -- costs that industry will inevitably seek to add
to our selling price if competition permits us to do so.
The EPAct boutique fuel restrictions were a common-sense approach
to the proliferation of boutique fuels. These provisions preserve
environmental protections by providing states with ample authority to
adopt cleaner fuels if a state's air quality concerns warrant these fuels.
But EPAct also seeks to impose order on this process by directing states
towards existing fuels already in use in their region to restore fungibility,
avert supply shortages, and reduce wholesale and retail price spikes.
Federal coordination of, and guidance to the states on, gasoline and
diesel fuel specifications was long overdue.
SIGMA and NACS do recommend that this Committee consider
improvements to Section 1541 of EPAct. First, we urge Congress to
adopt an amendment to the EPAct boutique fuels cap to gradually reduce
the number of boutique fuels in use across the nation. The current cap
does not reduce the number of boutique fuels -- it merely freezes their
number at 2004 levels. The adoption of a mechanism to gradually lower
this cap over time would complete the work started by Congress in
EPAct.
Second, we encourage Congress to address the proliferation of state
alternative boutique fuel mandates, such as ethanol and biodiesel
mandates. These alternative fuel mandates are not covered by EPAct's
boutique fuels cap, but they should be. The same policy goals that led
Congress to adopt the EPAct boutique fuels cap -- increased supply,
increased fungibility, and decreased price volatility -- are being
undermined by a new set of state fuel mandates. The ethanol and
biodiesel industries have been granted by Congress a guaranteed demand
for their product through EPAct's Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
SIGMA and NACS urge Congress to expand the EPAct boutique fuel
cap to cover these new state mandates.
Third, we urge Congress to consider amending the fuel specification
emergency supply waiver authority granted to EPA to include a "hold
harmless" provision for states. After Katrina, we learned from several
marketers that states were hesitant to waive state fuel specifications out
of concern that at some point in the future EPA might force the states to
offset the modest emissions increases that might occur during the short
emergency waiver periods with further emissions controls on other
sources. While the states' concerns may seem unnecessary -- why would
EPA grant flexibility in response to a natural disaster with one hand
while taking it away with the other? -- such situations are not
uncommon. Such a "hold harmless" provision would prevent state
hesitation in following EPA's emergency supply waivers and hasten the
recovery of adequate fuel supplies after events like Katrina and Rita.
Finally, SIGMA and NACS are concerned about proposals on both
sides of Capitol Hill to mandate a quick reduction in the number of fuels
in use across the nation. Such so-called "fuel slate" proposals are, in our
opinion, premature. EPAct directed DOE and EPA to study whether
such a reduction in the number of fuels can be accomplished without
reducing gasoline and diesel fuel supplies significantly. A report on this
study is due to be delivered to Congress by mid-August 2006. SIGMA
and NACS believe that enacting a fuel slate before the conclusions of
this report are received is unwise and, perhaps, unnecessary. Everyone's
aim is to increase supplies and reduce price volatility. If EPA and DOE
conclude that a fuel slate will have the opposite effect in their study, then
it clearly is not a step that many in Congress will want to take. As a
result, we suggest that Congress consider carefully whether the adoption
of a fuel slate is appropriate at the current time. Once the study's
recommendations have been received, if the increased supply,
environmental benefits, and product fungibility merits of a fuel slate are
evident, then Congress can act at a future date.
Alternative Fuels
In recent months, both the President and Congress have increased
their focus on the alternative fuels market as a way to reduce our
dependence on petroleum products. Currently, discussions have centered
on the product E85, comprised of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent
gasoline. Members of SIGMA and NACS follow closely the
development of new fuels because we operate a major portion of the
refueling infrastructure for the American motorist. However, we are very
concerned about proposals that would establish an alternative fuels
mandate and caution Congress against such action.
In general, it would be premature for Congress to consider yet
another alternative fuels mandate when the regulations to implement the
renewable fuels standard of EPAct have not yet been written. We urge
Congress to give the industry and the market the necessary time to adjust
to new regulatory requirements and to take time to assess the market
effects of such requirements before moving forward with additional
mandates. Taking action without fully understanding the potential market
effects of those actions would be irresponsible.
With regard to E85 specifically, there are many facts that must be
understood about the market viability of this product. First, E85 is truly
an alternative fuel that can only be used in specially designed, flexible-
fuel vehicles and less than five percent of the current motor vehicle fleet
is comprised of these vehicles. While this percentage may rise in the
future based on long-term plans of motor vehicle manufacturers and
motorists' behavior, there is no guarantee that consumer demand for
these vehicles will remain constant or increase in the future. If demand
does increase, the number of retailers offering E85 will likewise increase,
consistent with market demand and without a government mandate.
Second, the costs of infrastructure development for widespread
marketing of E85 will be significant. Because of E85's corrosive
properties, retailers selling E85 must dedicate a separate underground
storage tank (UST) and dispenser system to the product. The most cost-
effective option is to install a new UST and dispenser system, which can
cost between $50,000 and $200,000 per location, depending upon the
market in question. Since the majority (approximately 70 percent) of
motor fuels retailers are small businesses with 10 or fewer stores, such
costs cannot be easily absorbed. Furthermore, many facilities do not
have the physical space/real estate to install an additional UST system.
Since many facilities have only two gasoline USTs, one for regular
unleaded and one for premium (mid-grade is provided by blending the
two), a retailer would have to replace an existing UST system to
accommodate E85, thereby greatly reducing the availability of gasoline.
Such conversions will make economic sense to retailers once demand
reaches a critical level, but forced conversions will serve only to penalize
retailers who netted only 1-2 cents per gallon in pretax net profit in 2005.
Third, while the domestic ethanol industry is increasing its
production to satisfy both the renewable fuels standard (RFS) established
in the EPAct and to replace the fuel additive MTBE, it is uncertain if this
increase will be sufficient to meet current or future demand. In fact, the
industry is already diverting supplies traditionally used in conventional
gasoline markets to satisfy the demand in reformulated gasoline markets,
an indication that supplies are not sufficiently plentiful to completely
satisfy national demand. These distribution efforts are further
complicated by the state renewable fuel mandates mentioned above,
which lock supplies within geographic borders. In addition, EPA has not
yet finalized rules to implement the RFS and the market effects of this
program will not be known for years to come. Therefore, given the
supply and distribution difficulties currently being experienced, as well
as the uncertainty surrounding the newly enacted RFS, it would be
irresponsible to enact yet another requirement for the use of ethanol,
especially for a fuel that is not in strong demand, such as E85.
Fourth, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, E85 contains
approximately 75 percent of the energy provided by regular unleaded
gasoline. As a result, E85 offers motorists lower fuel economy and fewer
"miles per dollar." For marketers to offer E85 at a price competitive with
regular gasoline, E85 must be priced at a level that reflects this decreased
energy content. Given that recent wholesale ethanol prices have matched
or exceeded those for gasoline, it has not been practical for E85 retailers
in most markets to price their E85 below regular unleaded without losing
substantial money on every gallon sold. Consequently, marketers of E85
have reported 70-80 percent reductions in sales volumes when E85 is
priced equal to or above regular unleaded.
Consequently, rather than pushing E85 to market via federal
mandate, SIGMA and NACS would encourage Congress to consider
alternative policy directions that would increase the production of E85
fuel and flexible fuel vehicles, reduce infrastructure enhancement costs
to accommodate the product, improve consumer awareness and
acceptance of E85, and increase consumer demand. This would be a
much more market-oriented and consumer-friendly approach towards an
alternative fuels market.
* * *
SIGMA and NACS appreciate the opportunity to present this
testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
MR. SHIMKUS. I would now like to recognize Mr. Shea, President
and CEO of Buckeye Partners. Sir, your full statement is in the record
and you have 7 minutes.
MR. SHEA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Shea, I
am President and CEO of Buckeye Partners, LP, one of the largest
independent refined petroleum product pipeline systems in the U.S. I am
appearing today on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipelines and the Oil
Pipeline Members of API. I will summarize my testimony, and thank
you for including my full statement in the committee's hearing record.
Over the coming months, a combination of trends will affect the
functioning of oil pipelines in fulfilling their role in petroleum supply.
First, long-term growth continues in the diversity of fuel types shippers
seek to transport by pipeline. Growth in so-called boutique fuels.
Second, this summer, the transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels
begins.
Third, almost simultaneously, the Nation is entering a period of
phaseout in the use of the oxygenate MTBE and the rapid growth in the
use of ethanol as a gasoline fuel additive.
Finally, we shouldn't forget that experts predict a continuation of a
trend in stronger and more frequent hurricanes, which could knock out
the electric power on which key oil pipelines depend for operation.
These elements in combination present a challenge to the petroleum
supply system that the committee should monitor closely.
Before discussing these trends, let me briefly describe the role of oil
pipelines in the supply of petroleum fuels. Oil pipelines provide about
two-thirds of the petroleum transportation in the U.S. Pipelines are the
primary method of bulk transportation of petroleum over medium to long
distances.
Pipeline transportation has the dual advantages of efficiency and
safety. About 17 percent of the annual ton-miles of our Nation's freight
are carried by petroleum pipelines at a cost of about 2 percent of the total
U.S. freight bill. Deaths and injuries from petroleum pipeline
transportation are rare, and the environmental impact of pipeline
transportation is less than any of its alternatives.
The Federal government regulates the rates charged by interstate oil
pipelines. In fact, oil pipelines are the only part of the petroleum supply
system that is under Federal rates regulation. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission administers the Interstate Commerce Act to
ensure that interstate oil pipelines function as common carriers and
charge no more than the rates filed with FERC, which are typically
limited to a few cents per gallon.
Oil pipelines provide transportation services to their customers.
These customers determine what to ship, where to ship and when to ship.
The decision on how much to ship of each commodity and which
destination is made by our shipper customers, not by the pipeline
operator.
Now, I would like to discuss the trends the committee should
monitor over the coming months that could affect the role of oil pipelines
in petroleum supply.
First is boutique fuels. The proliferation of the types and grades of
petroleum products pipelines must carry continues. Capacity of long
haul pipelines as well as many regional pipelines actually declines as the
number of products handled increases. These unique products need more
system space in both the pipeline and in tanks, so a combination of
increased total volume moved and the operational effects of grade
proliferation have used up what was excess capacity for product in the
early 1990s.
Federal policies and State and local bans on the use of MTBE have
led shippers to phase out MTBE as a fuel additive. As a result, the
transition is underway to ethanol as a gasoline additive to meet local air
quality specifications. Ethanol is not easily transported via pipelines, and
as a result, nonpipeline transportation modes are being called upon to
supply significantly larger amounts of ethanol than previously required.
Solutions that will address or could address what pipelines carry ethanol
are under active study by the industry and others, but at the present time,
modes of transportation other than pipelines will carry this still relatively
small but growing volume of ethanol in the U.S. fuel mix.
Another transition that will take place this summer will bring 15
parts per million sulfur diesel fuel, ULSD, into the U.S. fuel distribution
infrastructure under rules adopted by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Pipeline operators will continue to carry ULSD in pipeline
systems in batch mode with higher sulfur fuels, including heating oil and
high sulfur diesel up to 5,000 ppm and jet fuel up to 3,000 ppm sulfur.
Experience shows that sulfur contamination of ULSD increases at
successively distant points in the pipeline system and especially after
transfers through tankage into other pipelines. Recognizing these
problems, EPA has agreed to a transition period and an extension until
October 15, 2006, the time by which fuels sold at the retail station must
meet the 15 ppm requirement.
AOPL and API welcome the EPA's decision. Affected oil pipeline
operators are now making the investments and preparing for the
transition period that will begin in June. We will use this period to gain
actual experience in transporting ULSD and use that experience to solve
problems that may arise.
Experts tell us that we are in a period of significant risk of major
hurricanes affecting the U.S. Gulf Coast, where refining centers and
pipelines are vulnerable to storm damage and loss of electric power. In
2005, we all had plenty of experience with the disruption such hurricanes
can cause.
Lessons of that experience are, first, restoration of the grid
electric power is critical to the resumption of pipeline service and should
receive the highest priority during these events. The Federal government
should be doing everything in its power to assist the electric utility
industry generally and utilities individually to harden facilities to overcome
threats and recover rapidly when power is lost.
Secondly, the decision by the EPA to act quickly to waive
temporarily area-specific fuel requirements under the Clean Air Act
allowed the petroleum distribution system to make the most effective use
of existing supplies.
Oil pipelines are another component of the U.S. energy infrastructure
that will require expansion in coming years to meet the needs of
consumers. A supportive public policy will be required to ensure that oil
pipeline expansions are made when needed. Elements of such a policy
should include coordinated Federal, State, and local permitting to allow
operators to comply with environmental regulations and requirements in
a timely way.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should continue the
recent trend to market based and adequately indexed oil pipeline rate
treatment and needs to act promptly on requests for rates that support
specific expansion projects.
AOPL looks forward to working closely with this committee, the
FERC, and the DOT to ensure that the oil pipeline industry is able to
meet the challenges of the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Shea.
[The prepared statement of William H. Shea follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SHEA, PRESIDENT & CEO,
BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF OIL
PIPELINES
The principal points in this testimony are as follows:
Over the coming months, a combination of trends will affect the
functioning of oil pipelines in fulfilling their role in petroleum supply.
<bullet> First, a long-term growth continues in the diversity of fuel
types shippers seek to transport by pipeline -so-called "boutique"
fuels. Proliferation of boutique fuels tends to reduce available
pipeline capacity.
<bullet> Second, this summer, the nation is entering a period of phase
out in use of the oxygenate MTBE and rapid growth in the use of
ethanol as a gasoline fuel additive. Properties of ethanol sharply
limit the ability of the current pipeline system to carry ethanol
fuel mixtures, so other modes of petroleum transportation must
be relied on to deliver the growing volumes of ethanol that will
be needed.
<bullet> Third, almost simultaneously, an historic transition to ultra
low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuels begins. EPA has agreed to a transition
period and an extension until October 15, 2006, the time by
which fuel sold at retail must meet the 15 ppm ULSD
requirement. AOPL and API welcome EPA's decision. The
transition is needed to allow operators to gain needed experience
with ULSD in their systems. Operators are now making the
investments and preparing for the transition period that will
begin in June.
<bullet> And finally, we should not forget that experts predict a
continuation of a trend in stronger and more frequent hurricanes,
which can knock out the electric power on which key oil
pipelines and oil refineries depend for operation. The federal
government should be doing everything in its power to assist the
electric utility industry generally and utilities individually to
harden facilities to overcome threats and recover rapidly where
power is lost despite all best efforts.
These elements in combination present a challenge to the petroleum
supply system that the Committee should monitor closely.
Oil pipelines are another component of the U.S. energy infrastructure
that will require expansion in coming years to meet the needs of
consumers. Needed expansions would be facilitated by coordinated
federal, state and local permitting to allow operators to comply with
environmental requirements in a timely way. FERC continue market-
based and adequately-indexed oil pipeline rate treatment ands needs to
act promptly on oil pipeline rate requests made to support specific
expansion projects.
Introduction
My name is Bill Shea. I am President and CEO of Buckeye Partners,
LP, one of the largest independent refined petroleum products pipeline
systems in the United States in terms of volumes delivered, with
approximately 5,350 miles of pipeline. Buckeye also owns and operates
44 refined petroleum products terminals with an aggregate storage
capacity of approximately 17.2 million barrels in Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania,
and operates and maintains approximately 2,000 miles of pipeline under
agreements with major oil and chemical companies.
I am appearing today on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines
and the oil pipeline members of API. AOPL is a 501 (c) (6) non-profit
trade association of interstate oil pipelines, which includes pipeline
transporters of crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied gases and
anhydrous ammonia. Our Association's 49 members transport about 85
percent of the crude oil and refined petroleum products delivered by
pipelines. AOPL members include pipelines that transport crude oil
from production and import points to refineries and pipelines that
transport the refined products produced in those refineries to end users
and distributors (retailers, wholesalers, airports, railroads, etc.). AOPL's
membership is comprised of domestic U.S. oil pipeline companies and
Canadian oil pipeline companies. API represents over 400 companies
involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry, including
exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing.
Together, these two organizations represent the vast majority of the U.S.
pipeline transporters of petroleum products.
My testimony will cover the role played by oil pipelines in petroleum
supply, describe government oversight of that role and sketch the
challenges faced by the industry in providing for our nation's petroleum
transportation needs, with emphasis on the coming months.
The Role of Oil Pipelines in the U.S.
Oil pipelines provide about 2/3 of the petroleum transportation in the
U.S., measured in barrel miles. Unlike natural gas, which can only be
transported by pipeline, alternatives to petroleum pipeline transportation
exist and include tankers, barges, rail and trucks. However, each of these
alternatives has significant limitations, and, as a result, pipelines are the
primary method of bulk transportation of petroleum over medium to long
distances. It is difficult to imagine how our transportation network,
which is 95% powered by petroleum, could operate without oil pipelines.
Pipeline transportation has dual advantages of efficiency and safety.
About 17% of the annual ton-miles of our nation's freight are carried by
petroleum pipelines, at a cost of about 2% of the total U.S. freight bill.
Pipelines share with tanker vessels the safest record in petroleum
transportation, safer than barge, rail or truck. Deaths and injuries from
petroleum pipeline transportation are rare. The environmental impact of
pipeline transportation is less than any of its alternatives. Oil pipelines
deliver petroleum safely to nearly every region of the U.S. for a few
pennies per gallon. A typical rate to transport petroleum product from
the Gulf Coast to the Southeast is about 2 cents per gallon, to the
Northeast is about 3 cents per gallon and to Chicago is about 2.5 cents
per gallon.
Economic Regulation of Oil Pipelines
The federal government regulates the economics of interstate oil
pipelines - in fact oil pipelines are the only part of the petroleum supply
system that is under federal economic regulation.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administers the
provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to ensure that interstate oil
pipelines:
<bullet> Function as common carrier providers of transportation to any
qualified shipper;
<bullet> Charge no more than publicly available rates filed in advance
with the FERC, which are typically limited to a few cents per
gallon;
<bullet> Assign space on the pipeline based on monthly nominations
from all interested shippers and prorate access to that space
among all applicants in a posted, non-discriminatory way when
the line is full;
<bullet> Exercise no undue discrimination among shippers;
<bullet> Maintain confidentiality of shipper records and not share
information of any shipper with any other shipper; and
<bullet> File annual reports on pipeline company income and cost data
with the FERC that are available to the public.
Oil pipelines provide transportation services and charge fees that do
not fluctuate with the price of the products that are transported. Because
oil pipelines do not own the products that they transport, they do not
benefit from any product price increases. In fact, refined products
pipelines are generally adversely impacted by high commodity prices, as
higher prices increase power costs and lower consumption levels. Even
when an oil pipeline is an affiliate of a major integrated oil company, the
Interstate Commerce Act and FERC oversight establish a wall between
the pipeline portion of the firm and the owners' other operations.
Oil Pipeline Rates
Typical oil pipeline rates range from 1 to 5 cents per gallon and are
independent of the value of the oil being transported. Thus the revenue
received by the oil pipeline is the same few cents per gallon, regardless
of the sale price of that gallon, whether that sale price is $1.00, $2.00,
$3.00 or more.
Oil pipeline rates are posted in FERC-filed tariffs that normally take
effect after 30 days and are subject to protest during that period. Oil
pipeline rate changes are justified using one of four rate mechanisms:
indexation, a settlement rate agreed to by all affected shippers, market-
basis or cost-of-service. In calendar years 2003 and 2004, there were
1096 oil pipeline tariff rate filings. Of those, 937 (88%) were index-
based, and 159 were justified on another basis. Of the 159 others,
roughly 49% were market-based, 30% were settlement rates, 14%
resulted from pervious settlements and 7% were cost of service based.
Most oil pipeline tariffs cover a specific group of products. For
instance, a "Products Tariff" would apply the same tariff rate to gasoline,
diesel, jet fuel and kerosene product shipments between the same points.
For instance, Colonial's tariff defines "Petroleum Products" to mean
"gasolines and petroleum oil distillates", which would include jet fuel,
diesel fuel and heating oil. There are also crude oil tariffs, propane
tariffs, etc.
Pipeline tariffs do not change frequently and, unlike commodity
prices, are not adjusted as a result of short-term market circumstances.
Because nearly 90% of tariffs are indexed, most adjustments are done on
an annual basis and occur on July 1 of each year when the new FERC
index takes effect. Even market based rate changes occur infrequently,
with some changes actually reducing rate to meet competitive market
conditions.
Pipelines also file rules and regulations tariffs that set forth the
pipeline's conditions of service. These filings explain such things as the
pipeline's tendering process, minimum batch size, allocation policy and
product specifications. Such rules and regulations must be administered
in a non-discriminatory manner. A system of checks and balances on oil
pipeline behavior operates through the ability of any shipper to protest
any alleged deviation from FERC requirements.
Oil pipelines are providers of transportation services for generally
fixed fees for our customers, who determine what to ship, where to ship
or when to ship. The decision on how much to ship of each commodity
and to which destination is made by our shipper customers. Pipelines
then ship multiple products on a regular cycle of products. Normal
practice is to provide transportation for all products to all destinations on
a regular cycle.
Oil Pipeline Revenues
The oil pipeline business is volume driven, and the incentive for
pipelines from both a revenue and customer relations standpoint is to
transport as much product as possible. Any inference that oil pipeline
operators are purposely contributing to product shortages by reducing or
shutting down capacity to cause higher product prices is simply false. In
fact, the oil pipeline industry's drive to transport more volumes
contributes to market liquidity, which on the margin should contribute to
more competition and lower prices. The extraordinary efforts of our
member companies to return their systems to service as fast as possible
in 2005 in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita provide ample
evidence of the pipeline industry's motivation and commitment to
business continuity and recognition of the critically important role played
by pipelines in enabling adequate supplies of petroleum products to reach
destination markets.
The oil pipeline industry is not a large generator of revenue by
comparison with other sectors of U.S. industry, including other sectors of
the energy industry. For 2004 (the most recent data available) the entire
FERC-regulated oil pipeline industry received gross revenue of $8.0
billion to deliver 13.4 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum
products for its various customers. A single company's revenue in many
other sectors of the economy would far exceed the oil pipeline industry's
revenue as a whole.
Oil pipeline industry structure
Pipeline ownership is diverse, with several forms of ownership as
detailed below:
<bullet> Major integrated oil companies (for example: ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company, Marathon Pipe Line LLC, Chevron Pipeline
Company, Shell Pipeline Company);
<bullet> Joint venture pipelines owned by shippers and other pipeline
companies (for example: Colonial, Explorer, Trans-Alaska
Pipeline, Capline); and
<bullet> Independents engaged primarily in oil pipeline transportation
(Buckeye, TEPPCO, KinderMorgan, Enbridge, Plains All
American).
A substantial percentage of the pipelines are independently owned
and operated, with the current trend towards increased independent
ownership of oil pipeline assets. Major integrated oil company
ownership of oil pipelines has been steadily decreasing in recent years,
with major oil companies now representing a minority of oil pipeline
asset ownership.
Current pipeline-related issues in petroleum supply
Over the coming months, a combination of trends will affect the
functioning of oil pipelines in fulfilling their role in petroleum supply.
<bullet> First, a long-term growth continues in the diversity of fuel
types shippers seek to transport by pipeline - growth in so-called
boutique fuels.
<bullet> Second, the nation is entering a period of phase out in use
of the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether and rapid growth in the use
of ethanol as a gasoline fuel additive.
<bullet> Third, this summer, an historic transition to ultra low
sulfur diesel fuels begins
<bullet> And finally, we should not forget that experts predict a
continuation of a trend in stronger and more frequent hurricanes,
which can knock out the electric power on which key oil
pipelines and oil refineries depend for operation.
These elements in combination present a challenge to the petroleum
supply system that the Committee should monitor closely. I'd like to
briefly discuss each in turn.
Boutique fuels
The proliferation of types and grades of refined petroleum products
shippers ask pipelines to carry continues. This growth in so-called "
boutique" fuels puts increasing pressure on pipeline operations and by
itself has absorbed storage and transmission capacity. Pipeline
companies ship petroleum products in batches, with each batch distinct.
Before 1970, when most of the US pipeline system was designed, a
pipeline operator typically moved of the order of 10 distinct products.
The Clean Air Act of 1990, as implemented by EPA and various states,
ultimately led to the numerous kinds of gasoline in demand today.
Gasoline is only part of the story. Fuels oils must also be segregated
based on sulfur content (an EPA requirement) and dyed for specific
markets (tax collection and EPA requirements). Jet fuel also requires
segregated batches to meet different military and domestic aviation
specifications. Typical large refined products pipelines today have of the
order of 50 products regularly moving on each system over a shipping
cycle. However, those same pipelines also have as many as a total of
100 - 120 product grades for which they may occasionally provide
transportation services. Overall, the federal government requirements
drive the majority of segregated batches, followed by customer
specifications, and individual state or city requirements.
Capacity in long-haul pipelines, as well as many regional pipelines,
declines as the number of products handled increases. The unique
products need more system space in both the pipeline and in tanks, so a
combination of increased total volume moved and the operational effects
of boutique fuels proliferation have used up what was excess capacity for
product in the early 1990s. For example, some tanks must be completely
emptied of one seasonal product before the next seasonal product can be
stored, or specialized products may only use a portion of a tank, taking
that tank out of service while that segregated product is moving through
or temporarily stored. These factors reduce overall capacity.
Capacity is also reduced from the mixing that occurs at the interface
of adjacent product grade batches during any transportation. This
volume can sometimes be mixed into one or both of the adjacent batches
and still meet the product specifications. At other times this trans-mix
must be removed from the pipeline system prior to delivery to the
customer. Thus, less than 100% of some products reach their
destination. If the product is unique and is transported in a large
pipeline, this downgrade can be significant.
Ethanol and MTBE
Federal policies and state and local bans on the use in gasoline of
the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether have led shippers to phase out
MTBE as a fuel additive. As a result, a transition is underway to the use
of ethanol as a gasoline additive to meet local air quality specifications.
This transition produces complications for gasoline supply by pipeline.
The U.S. industry has blended ethanol in gasoline for decades. However,
a significant challenge to use of ethanol is that it is not easily
transportable through existing pipeline systems. As a result, ethanol is
commonly transported by means other than pipeline (truck, barge or rail)
to terminals at the end of a pipeline and mixed with gasoline before final
delivery for consumption. These non-pipeline transportation modes are
being called upon to supply significantly larger amounts of ethanol than
previously required. Ethanol is not easily transported via pipelines for
several reasons. First, ethanol has a tremendous affinity to absorb water.
Water accumulation in pipelines is a normal occurrence. In most cases
water enters the system through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can
be dissolved in fuels during refinery processes. Transportation by
pipeline may result in sufficient water absorption to render ethanol
unusable as a transportation fuel. If a gasoline-ethanol mixture is shipped
in a pipeline, the water may strip some of the ethanol out, resulting in
sub-octane fuel. Once an ethanol blend phase-separates it is extremely
difficult and usually impossible to re-blend. In many cases the ethanol-
water bottoms must be disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste
regulations.
Second, ethanol can dissolve and carry impurities that are present
inside multi-product pipeline systems, making it harmful to motor
vehicle engines when blended in gasoline.
Finally, ethanol is corrosive and may adversely affect pipeline parts.
There is some evidence that ethanol in high concentrations can lead to
internal stress corrosion cracking of the pipeline walls, which is hard to
detect and manage. This may be accelerated at weld joints or "hard
spots" where the steel metallurgy has been altered.
Solutions that will address problems with pipelines carrying ethanol
are under active study by the industry and others, but at the present time,
modes of transportation other than pipelines will carry the still relatively
small but growing volumes of ethanol in the US fuel mix.
Ultra low sulfur diesel
Another transition that will take place this summer will bring
significant volumes of 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur -- ultra low
sulfur -- diesel fuel (ULSD) into the US fuel distribution infrastructure
under rules adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Products
pipeline operators will continue to carry ULSD in pipeline systems in
batch mode with higher sulfur fuels, including heating oil and exempted
high sulfur diesel up to 5000 ppm sulfur and jet fuel up to 3000 ppm
sulfur. The potential for contamination of ULSD during pipeline
transportation requires attention and has been the subject of much study
and investment in the oil pipeline industry. Inability to deliver on-
specification ULSD product could lead to significant supply issues in
some markets when EPA requirements go into effect. Diesel fuel is the
nation's primary commercial fuel for getting goods to market -- trucks,
trains and coastal marine vessels all rely on diesel fuel to operate. The
ability of specific pipelines to deliver ULSD is impacted by the sulfur
level of tendered product, system configuration, and the difficulty, given
the lack of operating experience, of preventing ULSD contamination.
The experience we have shows that sulfur contamination of ULSD
increases at successively distant points in the pipeline system, and
especially after transfers through tankage and to other pipelines.
The oil pipeline industry is aligned with the rest of the petroleum
industry in supporting the 15 ppm maximum sulfur standard for motor
fuels that the President has recommended and the EPA has promulgated.
We have no doubt that this standard is achievable. Petroleum products
pipeline operators will ultimately be able to handle and deliver on-
specification ULSD in routine operations.
However, currently operators lack sufficient experience moving
ULSD to guarantee that ULSD can be delivered to all markets on
specification in the time frames contemplated by the EPA. Limited
experience by pipeline operators to date with ULSD shows that it will
require significant effort and investment to prevent sulfur contamination
of ULSD in pipeline systems that of necessity must transport other high
sulfur products as well. Moreover, this experience is currently not
extensive enough to allow the causes of such contamination to be
sufficiently characterized to be able to effectively eliminate it in the short
term.
The oil pipeline industry is confident that the problems we currently
see with sulfur contamination can be solved, given real experience
transporting ULSD in our systems and adequate time to implement the
indicated changes to our systems. However, without the benefit of the
knowledge that comes from actual experience with ULSD, we can not
know what actions are needed to solve these problems.
Accordingly, AOPL asked EPA to allow flexibility in the supply and
distribution system early in the program. Early flexibility will enable
product to be supplied while the system resolves technical and
operational difficulties that are likely to arise. For instance, at a
minimum, storage tanks and other system assets must be flushed.
Beyond that, the new fuel regulations will require new operating
protocols throughout the system that cannot be perfected in advance of
real world experience with 15 ppm diesel. Flexibility is reasonable when
the nation is implementing an unprecedented and substantial change in
its fuels regulations. It is essential when the nation's fuel supply is at
issue.
In response, EPA agreed, to establish a transition period and during
the transition period, to raise to 22 ppm the specification for compliant
ULSD at retail. EPA also extended for 6 weeks, until October 15, 2006,
the time by which fuel sold at retail must meet the 15 ppm requirement to
within the agreed testing tolerance. AOPL welcomes EPA's decision to
implement a six-week extension to the time period for the distribution
system to transition to 15 ppm fuel.
Affected oil pipeline operators are now making the investments and
preparing for the transition period that will begin in June. We are
preparing to react quickly to experience during the transition period with
transportation of actual volumes of ULSD.
More Hurricanes like Katrina and Rita
Finally, experts tell us that we are in a period of significant risk
of major hurricanes affecting the US Gulf Coast where refining centers and
pipelines are vulnerable to storm damage and loss of electric power. In
2005 we all had plenty of experience with the disruptions such
hurricanes can cause. In the aftermath of the disruptions caused by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the following conclusions about petroleum
supply that are relevant are fairly clear:
<bullet> Restoration of grid electric power is critical to the
resumption of pipeline service and should receive the highest priority during
these events. The federal government should be doing
everything in its power to assist the electric utility industry
generally and utilities individually to enhance the ability of
utilities to overcome threats and recover rapidly where power is
lost despite all best efforts.
<bullet> EPA needs to act quickly and decisively to waive area
specific
fuel requirements under the Clean Air Act in the widest possible
area during emergencies. This allows the petroleum distribution
system to make the most effective use of existing supplies.
Following EPA's decisions in 2005, several refined petroleum
product pipelines serving the Midwest immediately began
receiving nominations of alternative gasolines to move north and
east. This was an important action that was taken in a timely
manner.
<bullet> Hoarding and panic buying exacerbate petroleum fuel
shortages.
Officials need to be active early and continuously to discourage,
to the extent possible, these reactions. In addition, dissemination
of false information by the media can make hoarding and panic
buying worse and generally has a negative impact on markets.
Oil Pipeline Capacity
While the cost of transporting oil by pipeline has a minimal impact
on consumer prices, access to adequate pipeline capacity can make a
substantial difference in consumer prices. As the aftermath of hurricanes
Katrina and Rita demonstrated, when adequate pipeline capacity is not
available, shortages, price increases and price volatility for petroleum
consumers is the result. Even before hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we saw
what happens when pipelines are not available, for example, in Arizona
in 2003 and in the Midwest in 2002 when key pipelines were out of
service.
The U.S. oil pipeline infrastructure is a large system created over
many years. Volumes moving on those pipelines grow only in response
to increases in oil demand, that is, a few percent a year. Volumes
seeking a pipeline can sometimes also increase or decrease due to
changes in supply patterns, such as refinery closures, new crude supplies
and other significant changes. Additions to capacity often present large
hurdles to individual companies in terms of capital requirements and
perhaps more importantly, acquisition of right of way and required
permitting. The current system, constructed principally in the 1950s and
1960s with excess capacity for that time, is quite close to full capacity at
today's levels of domestic petroleum consumption, and pipelines have
had to adjust to a just-in-time inventory mentality, boutique fuels and to
seasonal fuel switches that put additional strain on the system.
Recently, demand for petroleum products has been increasing, and
that trend is expected to continue. In recent years, capacity for some
pipelines has become constrained, particularly during the summer
driving and winter heating seasons. These constraints, which affect both
gasoline and distillates, will become more protracted as consumer
demand continues to grow. Although alternative transportation such as
long-distance trucking is an option for shippers in certain markets, those
alternatives are typically less attractive than reliable, efficient, cost-
effective pipeline service. Apart from the benefits to shippers and
refiners, expansion of pipelines would provide increased stability and
reliability to the nation's overall energy supply. As demonstrated by the
effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it has become increasingly clear
that the nation's energy supplies are subject to disruptions that can pose
serious upsets to the national economy and security. The availability of
additional pipeline capacity would provide healthy redundancy to the
system and thus an additional measure of protection from disruptions that
could otherwise lead to product price spikes and spot outages similar to
those witnessed during and after the hurricanes. Pipeline expansion will
involve right-of-way acquisition, permitting and capital investment
issues, all of which could be affected by federal actions.
Oil pipelines are another component of the U.S. energy infrastructure
that will require expansion in coming years to meet the needs of
consumers. A supportive public policy will be required to ensure that oil
pipeline expansions are made when needed. Elements of such a policy
should include coordinated federal, state and local permitting to allow
operators to comply with environmental requirements in a timely way.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should continue the recent
trend to market-based and adequately-indexed oil pipeline rate treatment.
Finally, FERC needs to act promptly on oil pipeline rate requests made
to support specific expansion projects.
Summary
To summarize, the amount charged to transport oil by pipeline is
limited by either regulation or market forces and is quite small in relation
to the value of oil itself. The cost of transporting oil and petroleum
products by pipeline has a minimal, if any, impact on consumer prices of
petroleum products. In coming months, a number of factors affecting oil
pipeline operations and related to fuel specifications deserve the attention
of public policymakers. These include the continuing growth in boutique
fuels and the transition to ethanol and ultra low sulfur diesel, as well as
the need to prepare for more hurricanes in the US Gulf Coast. The oil
pipeline industry is focused on these issues and is preparing to address
them appropriately.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our plans and views on these
important issues with you. I will be glad to try to answer any of your
questions, and AOPL and API would be pleased to work with the
Committee on any follow up from this hearing.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We now want to hear from Mr. Conley, with
the truckers.
MR. CONLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. My name is John Conley, and I am President of National
Tank Truck Carriers. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing and for your kind invitation to my association to
attend.
National Tank Truck Carriers is a trade association comprised of
approximately 200 trucking companies, the majority of which specialize
in bulk transportation of hazardous products, such as gasoline, diesel
fuel, and ethanol throughout continental North America. The interest of
our membership in this matter is substantial. The National Tank Truck
Carriers is affiliated with the American Trucking Associations.
The Nation's tank truck industry is a key link in the distribution
chain that provides our economy and our citizens the petroleum products
that allow us to maintain and improve our mobile quality of life. To
borrow from a well-known saying, "If your car has gasoline, your farm
tractor has diesel fuel, and your home is warmed by fuel oil, a tank truck
brought it."
NTTC was asked to discuss what impact increased use of ethanol is
having on my industry's availability to continue providing gasoline and
other products to service stations. The short answer is that it has
presented additional distribution challenges, but the tank truck industry
does have the capacity and the management skills to meet those
challenges.
The increased movement of ethanol has added to the logistical
balancing act our fleets already have to do to meet the almost irrational
petroleum smorgasbord of what products can be delivered to any
political jurisdiction on any given day. These changes often take place
during periods when seasonal peaks are in demand. A consistent
national fuel policy for the country would make the distribution of these
products less cumbersome and less costly.
The increased demand for the transportation of ethanol at a time
when our trucks are operating at capacity has exasperated the situation.
However, I am again stating with confidence that our drivers and fleets
will meet the demand. As Mr. Shea observed, ethanol does not move by
pipeline. Our trucks are picking up ethanol directly from suppliers or
transloading the product from railcars or barges. We are able to load
much faster from barges, contrary to those instances where we have
found our drivers sometimes have to wait in long lines to transfer from
railcars.
In trucking, time is money, and time waiting is money not well spent.
I am sure we will be able to work with our rail partners to devise quicker
ethanol transfer procedures. Obviously, as rivers freeze and the
inevitable rail dislocations occur, more demand will exist for tank truck
transportation from ethanol producers to our blending facilities.
At this point, I would like to anticipate two questions and state that
National Tank Truck Carriers would not support increasing hours of
service or raising weight limits in existing trailers as short-term solutions
to gasoline delivery disruptions. In our industry, everything takes a
second seat to safety.
As tank truck carriers, we do not set the price of fuel or determine
what fuels will be produced. However, we are impacted by the almost
daily changes in these two key factors. It is not uncommon for our
drivers to be sitting in line at one terminal only to be contacted by
dispatch and told to travel to another location because price at the
terminal has dropped. This shopping for gas is another unproductive use
of tank truck industry manpower and equipment, but it is a fact of life. It
is controlled by our customers.
As supplies of various blends ebb and flow from one site to another,
our trucks also chase supply. We are finding that those trucks often have
to go longer distances to load ethanol or other products because of supply
and demand changes by producers and retailers.
While ultra low sulfur diesel is not a subject of this hearing,
widespread introduction of that latest new fuel will further restrict
driving equipment capacity, especially if ULSD shippers or retailers
decide we will have to provide dedicated equipment.
I want to briefly describe how we transport ethanol gasoline and
other petroleum products. Trailers for these products are built to
specifications developed by the Department of Transportation. Our
drivers must hold a commercial driver's license with a hazardous
material endorsement and a cargo tank endorsement. To qualify for the
HM endorsement, the drivers must undergo a background check,
including fingerprinting. Rethinking the whole approach to HM
endorsements would enable us to hire drivers and put them to work more
quickly. I know that is an issue for another day, yet I feel it is worthy of
your attention.
Tank trailers used to haul gasoline also can and are being used to
transport ethanol. In the most productive situation, a carrier can haul
ethanol into a petroleum trailer terminal and haul gasoline back from the
terminal to a retailer. Hopefully, we will get to the point where we can
see a more efficient utilization of our fleets in this way.
In other cases, carriers are diverting trailers and drivers from
gasoline service to handle ethanol transportation. But, again, we are
meeting that demand as well.
We even have some carriers who do not transport gasoline, but have
become involved in ethanol. This potential additional capacity is one
factor that makes me confident in saying we will meet the distribution
challenges we face today.
Thank you for your attention and, for me, the personal honor of
appearing before you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Conley.
[The prepared statement of John Conley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN CONLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TANK
TRUCK CARRIERS, INC.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
Good morning. My name is John Conley, and I am the president of
the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC). I want to begin by thanking
you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for your kind invitation
to my association to participate.
National Tank Truck Carriers is a trade association comprised of
approximately 200 trucking companies, the majority of which specialize
in bulk transportation of hazardous products, such as gasoline, diesel
fuel, and ethanol throughout continental North America. The interest of
our membership in this matter is substantial. In addition to the common
carriers NTTC represents, petroleum products also are hauled by private
truck fleets operated by the major oil companies and by petroleum
marketers. NTTC is affiliated with the American Trucking Associations.
The Nation's tank truck industry is a key link in the distribution
chain that provides our economy and our citizens the petroleum products
that allow us to maintain and improve our mobile quality of life. To
borrow from a well knowing saying, "If your car has gasoline, your farm
tractor has diesel fuel, and your home is warmed by fuel oil, a tank truck
brought it."
NTTC was asked to discuss what impact increased use of ethanol is
having on my industry's ability to continue providing gasoline and other
products to service stations. The short answer is that it has presented
additional distribution challenges but that the tank truck industry does
have the capacity and management skills to meet those challenges.
The increased movement of ethanol has added to the logistical
balancing act our fleets already have to do to try to meet the almost
irrational petroleum smorgasbord of what products can be delivered to
what political jurisdiction on what day. These changes often take place
during periods of seasonal peaks in demand. Our entire petroleum
distribution system would be less cumbersome and less costly if this
county had a realistic and consistent national fuel policy. The addition of
increased demand for ethanol transportation at a time when our trucks
are being used to capacity has exacerbated the situation. However, I
again state with confidence that our drivers and fleets will meet the
demand.
As this committee is aware, ethanol does not move by pipeline. Our
trucks are picking ethanol up directly from suppliers or are transloading
the product from railcars or barges. We are able to load quicker from
barges and have found that our drivers do sometimes have to wait in long
lines to transfer from railcars. In trucking, time is money and time
waiting is money not well spent. I am sure we will be able to work with
our rail partners to devise quicker ethanol transfer procedures.
Obviously, as rivers freeze and the inevitable rail dislocations occur,
more demand will exist for tank truck transportation from ethanol
producer to blending facilities.
At this point I would like to anticipate two questions and state that
National Tank Truck Carriers would not support increasing hours of
service or raising weight limits in existing trailers as short-term solutions
to gasoline delivery disruptions. In our industry, everything takes a
second seat to safety.
As tank truck carriers, we do not set the price of fuel or determine
what fuels will be produced. However, we are impacted by the almost
daily changes in these two key factors. It is not uncommon for our
drivers to be sitting in line at one terminal only to be contacted by
dispatch and told to travel to another location because price at that
terminal has dropped. This "shopping for gas" is another unproductive
use of tank truck industry manpower and equipment, but it is a fact of
life.
As supplies of various blends ebb and flow from one site to another,
our trucks also chase supply. We are finding that those trucks often have
to go longer distances to load ethanol or other products because of supply
and demand changes by producers and retailers. While Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel (ULSD) is not a subject of this hearing, widespread introduction
of that latest new fuel will further restrict driver and equipment capacity,
especially if ULSD shippers or retailers decide that we will have to
provide "dedicated" equipment.
I would like to briefly describe how we transport ethanol, gasoline
and other petroleum products. Trailers for these products are built to
specifications developed by the Department of Transportation. Our
drivers must hold a Commercial Driver's License with a hazardous
materials endorsement and a cargo tank endorsement. To qualify for the
HM endorsement, the drivers must undergo a background check and
fingerprinting. Rethinking the whole approach to HM endorsements
would enable us to hire drivers and put them to work more quickly. I
know that is an issue for another day.
Tank trailers used to haul gasoline also can and are being used to
transport ethanol. In the most productive situation, a carrier can haul
ethanol into a petroleum terminal and haul gasoline back from that
terminal to a retailer. Hopefully, we will get to the point where we will
see more efficient utilization of our fleets in this way. In other cases,
carriers are diverting trailers and drivers from gasoline service to handle
ethanol transportation.
We even have some carriers who do not transport gasoline that have
become involved in hauling ethanol. This potential additional capacity is
one factor that makes me confident in saying we will meet the
distribution challenges we face today.
Thank you for your attention and the personal honor of appearing
before you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The Chair is going to recognize himself for the
first 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Dinneen, it is obvious that you have got a success story on your
hands in your industry, which is a good thing for America and a good
thing for the many people that work in the ethanol industry. I am
supportive of ethanol, but I am somewhat puzzled, and I share some of
Mr. Slaughter's concerns.
Given that the United States is now the world's largest producer of
ethanol, we have a mandate for, I think, 7.8 billion gallons over time,
why do we still have to have the tariff protection on imports and the
subsidy on domestic production?
MR. DINNEEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we still have a long way
to go before we can have the kind of domestic renewable energy that we
want to have. We want to have continued investment in this industry. I
think the notion about the tariff, as I indicated, is sort of built upon a
series of false premises. It is a solution in search of a problem. Because
the tariff today is not a barrier to entry. You have ethanol coming into
this country through various preferential trade agreements, NAFTA, the
Andean Free Trade Agreement, and most assuredly the CBI. A lot of
ethanol comes in duty free already. If the marketplace needed additional
imports, it could come in duty free through the CBI today. You don't see
a real ramp up in CBI demand.
Even in Brazil, however, we are importing directly from Brazil, and
they have built a heck of a program down there through 35 years of tax
credits, of production mandates, of requirements for use, infrastructure
development, debt forgiveness, export enhancement, all of which makes
sense because that country today is pretty much energy independent.
They don't need our incentives as well.
All the tariff does is offset the benefit that refiners get when they
blend ethanol to the source, in effect, asking Brazilians to pay the benefit
of the tax incentive up front.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I am still puzzled. Now, I may not have
the latest numbers, but I show that imports last year from the CBI in
thousands of barrels was 1,882,000 barrels, and the allowed importation
for the CBI this year is 6,507, which would be 6.5 million, and that there
were no tariffs paid on those last year because they are under the ceiling,
and that the only country that actually paid the tariff was Brazil, which
we imported 688,000 barrels from Brazil, and they paid almost
$16 million.
It would seem to me when you look at the price for ethanol, and
again, this is 3 months old, so it may have changed, but in March of this
year, March the 5th, the spot price for ethanol on the New York market
was a little over $2.50 a gallon. That same day the price for gasoline on
that same market was about $1.90.
If gasoline prices are higher than ethanol prices, and only one nation
was paying the tariff last year, and the ceiling from the Caribbean Basin
Initiative is over 6 million barrels this year, why would it not be
acceptable, if for nothing else, as a symbolic gesture, to reduce the tariff
or suspend it for a year or 2 years? I just don't understand that.
MR. DINNEEN. A couple of points. First of all, the spot market
pricing, I mean it has gone up because demand has been rising.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What is the price for ethanol?
MR. DINNEEN. Today, the spot market price is $2.90.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And what is gasoline price?
MR. DINNEEN. $2.38.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So it is over the gasoline price?
MR. DINNEEN. But, Mr. Chairman, that is without the incentive.
Remember, gasoline companies are going to get a 51 cent tax incentive
when they blend that ethanol. So net the tax incentive, the price is
comparable. It is $2.39 versus $2.38.
But the important point, Mr. Chairman, is the spot market price is
almost irrelevant to how ethanol is sold in this country. Ninety percent
of the ethanol that is sold across the country is sold under long-term
contracts, which are generally--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What are those prices?
MR. DINNEEN. About 40 or 50 cents below the spot market
generally. Some are even lower than that. So even on the spot market
today, ethanol is trading at parity to gasoline, net the incentive. And as
90 percent of the ethanol sold in this country is sold much below that,
ethanol is absolutely saving consumers money and helping to reduce
gasoline costs.
The point about the tariff, however, is if we are going to start
subsidizing Brazilian ethanol, and that country has already subsidized it
to a great extent, you are sending a tremendously negative signal to our
marketplace as we are trying to develop. We have plants being built
today even in Texas.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am very aware of that.
MR. DINNEEN. It is a great thing.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am for ethanol, I am just not sure with prices
where they are at the pump, this seems to be a no-brainer that you reduce
or suspend it. You have tariffs and subsidies and mandates when you
have either an industry that is in an infant start-up stage, or it is
struggling to stay in business. By your own testimony neither of those
conditions apply to the ethanol industry.
Again, I hope ethanol is the second coming. I would love for ethanol
to be the alternative fuel that if you mix it with gasoline or biodiesel, and
Mr. Shimkus, when we get to him is going to be glowing in his support
for ethanol, as he should be, but it just doesn't make sense to me in the
current economic situation we face.
The price is higher than the price for gasoline, business is booming,
life is good. I'm getting on the oil guys on the other side of you.
Mr. Cavaney knows well. I'm firing off letters to the CEOs of the big oil
companies, and once a week I am talking to somebody in Mr. Slaughter's
shop about building more refineries. I can't just tell the ethanol guys,
that is fine.
I mean it just is an amazing situation. I would think that reducing
the
tariff would be, if nothing else, an act of faith in America to show--
MR. DINNEEN. The act of faith in America would be making sure
we continue to develop domestic ethanol production capacity.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Which would you rather have?
MR. DINNEEN. The signal that is going to go to the financial
community is we are going to subsidize Brazilian ethanol at the expense
of domestic production. You are not going to get the construction of
ethanol plants across this country that I think we need to do.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. With prices like they are and the mandate,
well, I will make you a deal. Pick one of three: Suspend the tariff for 2
years, eliminate the mandate, or cut the domestic subsidy in half. Which
of those would you pick?
MR. DINNEEN. Mr. Chairman, you are asking me to pick amongst
my children, and I love them all. I want them all to grow and develop.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, we have to do that every day on this
committee.
My time has expired. Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We will do more than one round if we don't
have more Members show up.
MR. SHIMKUS. Obviously, we have a full panel, and you may have
encouraged me to just focus on the ethanol debate, which I would not shy
away from, but I also want to obviously ask questions in other areas.
But the basic premise of this whole debate on ethanol, as you recall,
was how to decrease our reliance of foreign imported crude oil. It is a
basic energy security debate. We moved from the clean air issues of the
oxygen standard, which was the first market entry provision, and the
public is in total agreement with us that we can't be reliant on imported
crude oil. So this is a curious debate on Brazil because just like we do
not want to be reliant on imported crude oil, we do not want to be reliant
on imported ethanol. We don't want to be held hostage to other foreign
interests for our energy needs.
So the ethanol industry has shown great growth, and we are excited,
and the numbers are stupendous. And I want to applaud the independent
retailers, who, in my State, have stepped up to the plate, and they are the
ones who are providing retail locations. To those who sit in these
hearings all the time, you know I sound like a broken record, but I drive
the E-85 flexible fuel vehicle. On average, at the pump, it is 10 to 15
cents cheaper per gallon. Two years ago, I didn't have a single retail
location in my district. A single one. And I represent 30 counties in the
southern part of the State of Illinois. Now I have 30 retail locations.
By my act of driving around and doing my job in my Congressional
district, I am displacing the need for imported crude oil refined into
gasoline by my use of ethanol. And that is what the public is crying out
for us to do in a lot of different ways, and this is one of them.
The ethanol industry is still a new industry. If you look, total
demand in this country and the available ethanol to displace that is still
less than 10 percent, and probably 1 percent. So to say that ethanol is a
mature industry ready to compete against the petroleum industry is not a
correct statement. It is still in the infant cycle.
The Brazilian ethanol industry was developed by the Brazilian
government. They are the ones who pushed this to meet their demands.
And the last thing we want to do is to subsidize the Brazilian ethanol
industry.
So having said that, the basic premise is that we have had great
success and we want to work together with all our industry partners to
move to address these concerns, and we are willing to do that.
With the panel present, I would like to go to Bob for a second, and
we will hear about the reduction in the number of refineries. We have
tried to address that in the refinery bill. One, tell me how that bill could
be helpful; and, two, just for the record, the great thing about southern
Illinois is that we are an energy rich State. So as much as I love ethanol,
I love marginal oil wells, because we have them in southern Illinois. We
have coal. Illinois is a big nuke State. So I love especially Illinois crude
oil.
The ConocoPhillips' refinery in Wood River, Illinois, used to be four
separate small refineries that over the years, through consolidation, now
is one major refinery; and that major one refinery now produces more
refined product than those four small independent refineries.
Bob, can you talk about the refinery bill that we are going to bring
back up on the floor and how that would be helpful?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, Mr. Shimkus, I would be glad to do that.
The refining bill really emphasizes the importance of the domestic
refining industry in an additional capacity for the domestic industry. In
essence, it is safe to say that the United States values refining capacity
and that that capacity should increase. It would offer opportunities for
permanent streamlining, and it would offer opportunities for new sites to
be recommended for refinery construction. We think it is a very positive
step forward, and we are hopeful that the House will adopt it.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. My time is
up.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I thank the gentleman.
I think Mr. Stearns is next.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cavaney, in your testimony you described a few domestic
refinery expansions; and I guess the question is, why are those overseas
refineries economical and domestic refineries aren't? Because we
always say that there has been nothing done in the United States. Why
are they so much more economical overseas than they are in the United
States?
MR. CAVENEY. They are not necessarily. It is very hard to
generalize in that regard.
What you sometimes find is there are, as happens in the United
States, major shifts in the plate of products that are produced. For
example, if you look into Europe right now, Europe is on a major
program to shift its emphasis for fuel over to dieselization. In other
words, significantly increasing the number of cars that use diesel, and
therefore their refining capacity is moving in that direction. That leaves
some refineries who produce gasoline choose not to produce diesel, and
so they become opportunists in terms of looking for markets where they
can go ahead and sell into.
We just imported this past month the largest amount of gasoline we
have ever imported. A good portion of that incremental increase came
from Europe because they were able to swing gasoline here --
MR. STEARNS. How many different firms were refining oil in 1990?
MR. CAVENEY. I couldn't be exactly precise, but I can get you that
number. I can tell you in 1981, it was about 350. It is about half that
now.
MR. STEARNS. So today half as many are doing it.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. That is refineries. That doesn't mean owners
of refineries. I don't think you have 300 owners of refineries.
MR. CAVENEY. No, they were the properties themselves.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We probably have 40 owners of refineries?
MR. CAVENEY. It is a few more than that.
MR. STEARNS. So from the year 1990 to today, half of them are
gone; is that true?
MR. CAVENEY. I would have to check and find out.
MR. STEARNS. Just approximately speaking. Because they went out
of business? Mergers? Just why did so many leave?
MR. CAVENEY. There were, let's say, 350 in 1981. That is when we
left the period of time when we had price controls, and there were huge
subsidies that went to what we call the kettle refineries. A large portion,
50 or so, of those refineries could no longer exist without the government
subsidy. They just went down between 1981 and 1985.
MR. STEARNS. We are talking about from 1990 to 2000 --
MR. CAVENEY. Please bear with me.
Then what happened is, in 1995, the Clean Air Act started to kick in.
A lot of refineries elected to not make the financial investment to stay in
business and put in those new environmental controls, and they closed
down for reasons that was known only by their shareholders or their
investors. So that period of time then, from 1985 onward, took the other
portion, less 50 of the half, and they have gradually either been, as Bob
Slaughter mentioned in his testimony, those other refineries have been
acquired. Those that weren't sufficiently acquired couldn't find a
market, and they have been closed by their owners.
MR. STEARNS. So, in one sentence, the reason why half the
refineries are gone is because of government incentives?
MR. CAVENEY. No, no. Fifty of the, let's say--
MR. STEARNS. We are talking general here. I am just talking
general. Give me one sentence why half the refineries are gone.
MR. CAVENEY. Because they were not economically able to sustain
themselves going into the future and made those decisions.
MR. STEARNS. Okay. Mr. Slaughter, you state that refiners have
made substantial investment in technological advance process units that
have increased the yield of gasoline.
MR. SLAUGHTER. That is correct.
MR. STEARNS. Do you have any ballpark figures or percentages that
represent this industry as a whole in how these amounts have increased
in recent years in terms of investment? And talk a little bit about this
technologically--because if Mr. Cavaney is saying these things
essentially, since the year 1990 to 2006, half of them are gone, yet the
refiners have substantial investment in technological advances, that
should make them much more efficient. So if you could give me a little
bit of--
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, sir. The refining industry today is very state
of the art. There have been significant investments in the industry. The
average refinery now is considerably larger than it was in 1990. By the
way, it really was halved between 1980 and the current day. We
currently have about 54 refineries in operation.
MR. STEARNS. Maybe you can answer the question, then: What do
you think from 1990 to 2006 the number is?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, currently, we have 54 companies operating
about 149 refineries. Many of those companies are small.
MR. STEARNS. And how many did we have in 1990?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, we would have had considerably more, sir.
I know there was double the amount of refineries in 1980 than we have
now.
MR. STEARNS. Three hundred companies?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes. And refineries used to get mandatory
allocations. A lot of them went to small, inefficient refineries. When we
left the price control regime in 1980 under President Reagan, they were
no longer economic; and they basically went out of existence in the
period that we are talking about. The problem was they weren't
competitive anymore, sir; they didn't justify the tremendous investment
that you have to put in to be in this business.
MR. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
It is Mr. Bass's turn if he wishes to, or you can go vote, and I will go
to Mr. Boucher. Which do you wish to do?
MR. BASS. I will go vote.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. He looks calm and collected. You know he is
not worried about making the vote. He is smiling and all comfortable
here. So Mr. Boucher for 5 minutes.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Slaughter, let me propound some questions to you, if I may.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, sir.
MR. BOUCHER. Do you believe that we have a shortage of refining
capacity in the United States today?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I think that we need additional refining capacity,
yes. I don't think that we need to necessarily produce 100 percent of
what we consume here domestically, but I think there is a need for
additional capacity. That is why I think the industry is announcing 1.4
million in refinery expansions in barrels per day, and that will come on in
the next 3 to 4 years.
MR. BOUCHER. Are any of those investments taking place on
greenfield sites, or is that just a proposal for expanding existing
refineries?
MR. SLAUGHTER. The only greenfield site that is looking to build a
completely new refinery would be the Clean Fuels Project in Arizona,
which is having some difficulty. They have been trying to put that
together for most of the last decade. They have not been able to break
ground yet.
The economics strongly favor adding capacity at an existent site.
You have the economies of scale. For instance, Motiva has just
announced a 325 barrel-a-day expansion at the Port Arthur, Texas,
facility. That is larger than many refineries are. According to their press
announcement, they will be able to bring that on line in 3 to 4 years. If
you tried to do that through a new refinery, sir, it probably would take
you at least 10 years, and you wouldn't even be certain that you could
break ground then.
MR. BOUCHER. Many of the individuals who have commented about
the need for new refineries not only point to the need for a capacity
increase but also point to the need for some diversification of the places
where refineries are located.
It has become a modern fact of life, unfortunately, that we are having
more frequent and more severe hurricanes than we have had historically;
and I think the concern is driven largely by that fact. If another hurricane
of major consequence were to affect the Gulf Coast--as it may very well
happen even this year--the refinery capacity that we have would be
placed at risk, some large portion of it could be taken off line, just as it
was during the case of Hurricane Katrina.
So if the expansions that are planned are largely at existing sites
and the only greenfield site is the one you mentioned in Arizona, which is for
clean fuels--and I gather that is not necessarily refining gasoline into--or
refining crude oil into petroleum, although perhaps it is. You can clarify
that. But let me just say, if most of the investment is taking place at
existing sites, does that not give rise to concern that we are not engaging
in an appropriate diversification of the location of these facilities so that
they will not be subjected to disruption in the event of natural disaster?
MR. SLAUGHTER. To answer your question about Arizona, that
would be a modern refinery. It would be about 150,000 barrels a day and
would cost about $2 billion. It would produce up-to-date gasoline,
diesel, and other products, but it has been having trouble. They have got
an air permit, but they are having trouble getting financing, actually
getting that built.
Your question is a good one. Yes, they have the air permit. We
believe that it would be very good to incentivize refinery construction.
Congress did this in the EPAct bill. There is an expensing provision
which allows people who are expanding existing refineries or building
new ones to expense 50 percent of the cost. Now that is a very
significant provision. I think it is reflected in the plans for additions
that companies have mentioned. I suggested that might be looked at again,
and you might be able to retool that in a way that would give incentives
for new refineries, which probably will be in other locations. There is a
large capacity in the Gulf.
But the problem has been the country needs more capacity, and there
is a strong feeling that it is not only not economical, but functionally
impossible to build those now in other parts of the country that could
actually use them. The Northeast has no refineries. There are certainly
other places.
But the fact of the matter is that the alternative, if you tried to
move the part of the industry that is in the Gulf Coast now because of the
hurricane damage, our fear is that you would end up moving most of it
abroad, and you couldn't replicate it here.
MR. BOUCHER. Please don't misunderstand the question. I wasn't
suggesting moving anything. I was simply suggesting that, as the
investments in new refinery capacity occur, perhaps it might be the better
part of wisdom to locate some of that new investment in areas other than
the Gulf Coast, which is where the bulk of our refineries are at the
present time, so as to avoid the potential of a supply disruption from
refineries to the market in the event that we have another major disaster.
Let me move to another subject, if I may. It has been widely
reported that between September 2004, and September 2005, on average
the increase in profits for the refining industry was about 255 percent, a
truly startling number. Is that number accurate?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I find it hard to believe that it is that large an
increase in that period of time--
MR. BOUCHER. Do you have another number?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I will get them for you, sir, but I believe that one
is inflated.
You know the history--I know you do because we have talked about
it before here--of low profitability in this industry.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, I know historically you have had some lean
years; and that is not to be denied. However, if the increase of 255
percent in a 1 year period is accurate, I think it obviously urges the next
question, which is, what happened that was so extraordinary within that
year? And if the number wasn't 255 percent, obviously, some high
number was the reality. So why such a major increase in that 1 year
period?
I am trespassing on the committee's time, but let me give you an
opportunity to answer that, if you would.
MR. SLAUGHTER. All right. We have been in a period of, of course,
higher prices driven by a lot by higher crude prices and increased
demand in the U.S. You know, we also had the hurricane situation last
year, which the industry responded extremely well to. We are about to
get back into commission and produce the products that people needed.
I do not believe the figure that you are using is correct, but,
undoubtedly, profitability in the industry is up and certainly from what it
has been historically, when the refining industry is known for actually
being an area of negligible profitability that requires billions of dollars in
investment every year.
I will get you the figures for that last year, but the fact that we
have had 2 good years in the industry has encouraged people to think that
maybe the years ahead will look a little more like the last few years and
not like the 1990s, with no profitability, so they are adding capacity.
They are putting a lot of that money back into the business, sir.
MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Slaughter, thank you very much.
MR. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding.] Thank you.
The Chair recognizes my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5
minutes.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Gentlemen, we heard yesterday a claim that OPEC
sets its oil price based on the price signals from the United States
gasoline market, so I ask--I have to limit this because I want to go on to
another area--Mr. Cavaney and Mr. Slaughter, is there any truth to this
claim? Can OPEC set the world price of oil all by itself?
MR. CAVENEY. Mr. Bilirakis, it is a little bit the opposite right
now. One of the frustrations OPEC is experiencing at the present time is they
have an inability to impact, under the current environment, the price of
oil, so it is a little bit the reverse right now. I would have no reason to
know whether or not it was true. It is just not something that we would
be involved in.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Slaughter, what is your comment on that?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Bilirakis, I doubt that that is true. Essentially,
the only significant additional capacity for crude production in the world
is in Saudi Arabia. It is roughly only one billion barrels per day now, the
lowest safety margin that the world has ever had, and that corresponds to
a significant reduction in their ability or anyone's ability to drive this
market.
The international crude price is set by the competitive circumstances
of that market, and the ability at this point of anyone to control that is at
its lowest point because of that very small margin of safety. That means
almost all the oil that can be produced in the world is being produced and
sold right now. That is a strong market.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, somebody makes these decisions. I know we
talked about supply and demand and the market doing it and that sort of
thing--
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, if I could respond. If you look at what
OPEC has said, OPEC for years has been trying to talk about the benefits
of a $30 or a $40 environment. Recently, the Saudi Arabia Energy
Minister was talking about a low $50 environment, which indicates that
they have concerns over the price levels that crude has reached right
now.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Why has it gone all the way up to $70 then? I
mean, if they have concerns that $50 may be a little high--and I read the
same article--then why is it $70 at this point?
MR. SLAUGHTER. There are a lot of guesses as to that, but nobody
really knows why. I mean, there is a feeling that there is a risk premium
in the crude price which reflects people's concern that something is
going to happen to crude supplies because of problems in Iran or
difficulties in Nigeria and other places potentially.
The analysts that I have talked to have a hard time explaining the
current price level for crude. It seems to be driven by favor of adverse
events, geopolitical events--
MR. BILIRAKIS. With all due respect, sir, that is what we keep
reading and that is what we keep hearing. I think it is probably more
rationale than anything else, so--
Well, just getting away from that for a moment, let's go to energy
independence. To both of you, how strongly do you all feel that the
United States should be independent from foreign oil? Mr. Caveney.
MR. SLAUGHTER. I will just say that I think that is an admirable
goal. I think it will be very difficult to achieve. I came to town and
started to work for a member of this committee in the early 1970s, and
President Nixon had that as his goal at the time. It was impossible to
achieve. It is going to be difficult now. But it should be our goal to be
as independent as possible. We are always going to be relying on some
imports of fuel, but we should try to be as independent as possible.
MR. BILIRAKIS. How would it affect your--Exxon, et cetera, if we
had energy independence, Mr. Cavaney?
MR. CAVENEY. First of all, energy independence is a noble goal, as
Bob said, to work towards. It would be virtually impossible to do here in
the short term--
MR. BILIRAKIS. Short term.
MR. CAVENEY. In the short term because of the amount of imports
we need.
The more appropriate response to increase our energy security in the
near term, let's say in the next couple of decades and so forth, would be
to focus on interdependence, which is to try and diversify the supplies in
the international community where we get our sources of imported oil
and also to increase our domestic production here at home. That gives us
more options, and if some area has upsets where we can't take advantage
of it, it gives us more opportunity to swing and keep a stable amount of
imported oil coming into the system.
MR. BILIRAKIS. But, I guess my question is, if we ever were to reach
it, and we talk about a goal and that sort of thing. We don't really try
very hard to reach that goal, so I am not really sure of what the definitive
goal is. But if we ever reached it, how would it affect your member
companies, your producing companies?
MR. CAVENEY. It is virtually impossible to say because we don't
currently have the kinds of energy sources particularly that would
support the transportation sector that you can predict there. I believe that
we have an open trade, free-trade system in the world and that system is
always going to provide opportunities to bring in some products at
reduced prices. So that could happen even with the goal of energy
independence.
MR. BILIRAKIS. My time is up, sir, but that is really, with all due
respect, I guess maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. I am just kind
of curious how that would affect the bottom line, the profit line, if you
will, of these companies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for
5 minutes.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cavaney, you indicated that in the 30 investigations put on price
gouging there has been no finding of price gouging on gas prices or
energy prices, but the FTC has used terms like gaming the system and
maximizing prices by the industry. But with no real Federal law on price
gouging, it is impossible for them to find price gouging by the FTC, isn't
it?
MR. CAVENEY. Well, the FTC Chairman currently has said that,
even if Congress were to outlaw price gouging, the law would be very,
very difficult to enforce fairly.
MR. STUPAK. But you have got to have a law first.
MR. CAVENEY. Well, we do have laws in the majority of the States
right now, and a number of other States are putting in laws. The FTC
has also spoken about the fact that these are very situational
circumstances, and being closest to where the violation may have
occurred is going to put someone in the best position to determine it.
What you need to be careful of here is, if you look at a Federal law, you
want to make sure that, if such comes to pass, that it doesn't de facto
create a circumstance where you have price gaps and you are back into
the whole situation of price controls. We have been there before, and we
know that doesn't work.
MR. STUPAK. But your statement in your testimony that there hasn't
been any price gouging, you can't find price gouging if there is not a
Federal law; isn't that correct?
MR. CAVENEY. No, there are laws in--
MR. STUPAK. Well, explain how this price gouging works then.
MR. CAVENEY. Well, the problem is defining price gouging, and
that is one of the difficulties why it is best left to the States to look at
that. They can look at the circumstances where they are and make their
best guess at the definition.
MR. STUPAK. Well, if gas went up 90 cents in one day in Michigan
in one of our cities, is that price gouging?
MR. CAVENEY. You would have to know the circumstances of what
that person paid for that.
MR. STUPAK. Can you give me a scenario where 90 cents in one day
would be justified?
MR. CAVENEY. Well, the individual could have had to purchase
gasoline and it was that much more expensive. You just can't look at the
surface, and that is what makes these things so difficult.
MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this question then. You said the world
price of crude is the most important factor dealing with gasoline, right?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, that is what the Federal Trade Commission
said in June of--
MR. STUPAK. Do you agree with that statement?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, I do.
MR. STUPAK. So if we reduce the price of crude by $20 per barrel,
would that be reflected then in the price of gasoline?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, it would. If you look historically over decades,
you will find there is a very close correlation between gasoline and--
MR. STUPAK. So if it is $60, let's say, to make easy math here, and
it was reduced by $20, there should be one-third off at the gas pump.
MR. CAVENEY. Generally, you can say that, but each circumstance
would be--
MR. STUPAK. So then would you support our legislation, the PUMP
Act, which would actually take the speculation, fear, and greed out of the
price of oil and make sll trades in oil subject to the Commodities Future
Trade Commission? Would you support that?
MR. CAVENEY. I would have to look into it. I don't know enough,
but I will get back to you.
MR. STUPAK. Well, the experts tell us that it would reduce the price
of gas by $20, because three-fourths of the oil futures are traded without
any oversight by the Commodities Future Trade Commission. So if we
are interested in reducing the price of gasoline, I would think that that
would be one good way to start.
Let me ask you this one. We had testimony yesterday from our
panels of witnesses about the crack spread. Are you familiar with the
crack spread?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes.
MR. STUPAK. They told us yesterday that the crack spread should
probably be about $8. But, right now, it is $20; and Chairman Barton
thought it might be as high as $30. If we reduce that crack spread, would
that bring down the price of gas?
MR. CAVENEY. Well, the crack spread has a number of factors in it.
It has all of the costs as well as whatever the margin of profit is at the
end of the day.
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
MR. CAVENEY. And it is difficult to know each individual refinery,
what their spread is at any given moment.
MR. STUPAK. So each refinery could have a different crack spread?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, that is correct. But at the end of the day --
MR. STUPAK. But isn't $20 too high? Would you agree it is too
high?
MR. CAVENEY. You can't make that statement. You don't know
what his or her cost is. That is what the difficulty is. You have to look at
each individual--
MR. STUPAK. I mean, that is why we ought to have a Federal price
gouging law that takes these factors into consideration, shouldn't we?
MR. CAVENEY. At the end of the day, you should find out what the
profit is, the earnings that that person makes. The earnings historically
from the industry have been pretty much in line with all industries, so
that would indicate that the cost factors in that spread are reasonably
high.
MR. STUPAK. Sure, reasonably high.
Okay, let me ask you this. I have internal memos here from
Chevron, Texaco, and Mobil in which they actually quote the American
Petroleum Institute; and basically they say we have to reduce the number
of refineries in this country.
The Chevron memo states, if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't
reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in
profits; the Texaco memo complains that supplies significantly exceed
demand, leading to very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery
financial results; and the Mobil memo advocates keeping a smaller
refinery, Powerline, from reopening, stating that a full court press is
warranted in this case.
Has API encouraged refineries in the past to shut down to increase
the price of gasoline?
MR. CAVENEY. Absolutely not, that would be a restraint of trade.
MR. STUPAK. So if you are quoted in these memos--not you yourself
but API--these memos would be incorrect then, is that your position?
MR. CAVENEY. I haven't seen any of those memos and can't
comment on them.
MR. STUPAK. I will be happy to show them to you. Thank you.
MR. HALL. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Cavaney, I have the right and I have got the gavel, so I am going
to ask a question of you that I have really wondered about. You have
recommended and others recommended more areas for energy
exploration; and, of course, we are all interested in that. We passed all
kinds of bills. We had to leave ANWR out to get anything through the
Senate, and we go through all these gymnastics to try to get more energy
to lower the gasoline price and to keep us out of a war.
Leaving aside all the politics, if all oil limit tracks were opened to
exploration today, what would be the most economically compelling
tracks to develop? Kind of rank them for me, if you would.
I have heard John McKetta from Austin, Texas, say we have enough
coal in the midsection of this country to almost double the output of the
OPEC nations all combined if we could just mine it. But tell me about
the energy and the drilling and the off-shore drilling and ultra-deep
drilling in the shut-in areas. Just kind of rank them for me, if you can do
so.
MR. CAVENEY. We are going through a migration, as we have
historically done in the oil and gas business, which is we are moving
now to increasing more of what we call unconventional oil and gas into
the system, rather than conventional. Conventional, if you will permit
me to exaggerate a bit, is the easier to refine and easier to produce. The
unconventional is things like deep gas clays, which require very
extended and expensive technology in the Gulf, up in parts of Alaska,
and the like.
So what we had about 2 years ago was 10 percent of our production
here was of that unconventional amount. EIA has predicted that by 2025
that will be about 30 percent of our mix of production here in the U.S.
There are other important things that are now becoming a larger
play, which is the next generation that follows thereafter. For example,
we have already seen the development of the tar sands up in Alaska. We
have a situation in the western States, some shale, where the Government
indicates that we have the potential for a trillion barrels of reserves in
shale, which would be four times all the oil and gas that Saudi Arabia has
right now.
One of the things that needs to be brought to bear there is technology
to get the cost down to produce to be able to put that forward. So there
are also things like methane hydrate.
So in the industry, huge amounts in technology--because not only do
we have to serve today, but we need to be ready to serve the customers of
tomorrow. That is why we are so capital intensive, because that money
continually gets reinvested.
MR. HALL. Is the quantity and quality of shale well known and can
be documented?
MR. CAVENEY. Reasonably well known.
The industry with the help of the Government, and the involvement
during the 1970s was very active out there. What happened was, as you
recall, after the second oil shock in the 1980s, the industry underwent
windfall profits and a number of other controls, and the price just
collapsed. So most people abandoned their efforts out there at that time
because it just wasn't economic and the Government shut down their
involvement. A couple of companies have stayed active in the research
areas and think they have made some gains, and that is why we are now
seeing more interest there. DOE has a couple of grants to look at it, and
it may be one of those things that eventually may find a home in our mix.
MR. HALL. How would you rank them, then? Briefly.
MR. CAVENEY. Well, I think there are some technologies that are
very attractive.
MR. HALL. And assuming they are available and can be done, it is
just a matter of money, and put R&D into the program as much as you do
the energy program.
MR. CAVENEY. One of the ones we are already seeing is, looking at
the biofuels, you would have thought, 10, 20 years ago, the addition of
ethanol into the fuel mix was seen as basically an octane enhancer.
Increasingly now it is finding a larger and larger role. That is why we
worked on the historic removal of the fuel standard, to be able to build
that industry up so that it can produce more. We also have the biodiesel
parts that are coming in.
So the technology is doing very well there. We need cellulosic
ethanol to be able to continue the growth of ethanol. So that one, I
would say, is really the next one up on the platter.
Just behind that are things like the technologies that we have heard
about for a number of years which are a coal-to-liquid gasification, these
kinds of technologies, which there are sample projects that are along, and
that is probably a step ahead of looking at. Let's say shale, which might
be the next one beyond that. And I might also add, we don't have much
of an opportunity for utilization of the tar sands and the coal sands, but a
lot of the stuff that comes from up there is now being piped down into
the U.S., which has been very helpful to us. So technology is applied
there in terms of pipelines reversing their historic flow.
So those would be the areas of the largest anticipated growth as we
go forward, the deep water, the exploration--and that is why looking at
Lease Sale 181 and looking at the OCS are important areas for us to be
able to define the extent of the resource there. Because it may well be
that we can get things there more quickly and at more commercially
available terms, which ultimately will translate to more affordable fuels
to the consumer.
But important among all of these things is, if we want to enhance our
energy security, if we want to have more flexibility, looking at these
domestic supplies makes a lot of sense.
MR. HALL. Chairman Barton has ushered through for the first time
in 10 years an energy bill. It is not everything we wanted, but it is an
energy bill and signed and ready to go and working toward it. I think
you have given him a good wish list there to get after, and we are going
to be very supportive of him as we pursue those. Because those are
things that can save a generation from having to cross the ocean and fight
a war, and that is the goal.
Ms. Eshoo, I am sorry. I went over a little bit. I recognize you at
this time.
MS. ESHOO. Good morning to all the witnesses.
My question--I want to direct my question to Mr. Caveney. In your
testimony, you noted that there are announced refinery capacity plans
that will add 1.3 million barrels per day of additional refinery capacity
between 2006 and 2011. These expansions, as you have stated, will
boost capacity to 18 and a half million barrels per day. Current demand
for petroleum is more than 20 million barrels per day and projected to
continue to grow, and we make up the difference by importing product
from overseas.
In its 2006 annual energy report, the EIA projects that the gap
between demand and domestic refinery capacity will grow, which means
that, in addition to crude, we are going to import more gasoline and other
refined products. Now if it makes us vulnerable to be increasingly
dependent on crude imports, it seems to me that becoming increasingly
dependent on imports of refined products carries similar dangers. Can
you tell the committee if you believe domestic refining capacity will ever
catch up with demand or is the gap going to continue to grow?
MR. CAVENEY. I would like to associate myself with Bob
Slaughter's comments earlier. It is not necessary and probably not likely
that we would have to have 100 percent of our usage satisfied by
domestic production, but it is certainly healthy for us to have a strong,
vibrant national refining network. So we feel that the additions that are
announced, there may well be other ones under consideration. Some
companies have a policy--
MS. ESHOO. So you don't believe that it would be prudent policy to
become dependent on refining capacity or crude--you know, the refined
products being imported? Are you agreeing, is that what you are saying?
MR. CAVENEY. It is not--
MS. ESHOO. I can't tell by what you have said.
MR. CAVENEY. Okay. It is not necessary that we have to produce, I
feel, 100 percent of the product we use in U.S.-based refineries. We
have reliable supplies from Canada coming in.
MS. ESHOO. I think we are disagreeing with one another.
Can you explain then--is ExxonMobil part of your trade association?
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, they are.
MS. ESHOO. --why ExxonMobil says it doesn't plan to build any new
refineries in the United States? Do you know if they are revising this, if
they have moved in another direction, if they have any other plans?
I mean, we have gas now at--well, in California, it is well over $3 a
gallon. Are they looking for new ways to invest their record profits?
MR. CAVENEY. Those kinds of discussions are privy to individual
companies, and under those kind of circumstances we are--
MS. ESHOO. Are you aware of the comments of ExxonMobil?
MR. CAVENEY. I am aware of those comments, yes.
MS. ESHOO. And do you want to comment on those comments? I
mean, they run contrary to what, the committee is basing many of its--or
at least some of its decisions on.
I see that the distinguished Chairman of the full committee is
laughing, except it was our staff here at the committee--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Will the gentlelady yield?
MS. ESHOO. I would be glad to.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not laughing at you. I am just saying
how--
MS. ESHOO. The subject matter.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am just thinking how unfair it is of you to
quote their own words. It is a low blow to use what ExxonMobil has
actually said against them. I mean, that is kind of a cheap shot, don't you
think?
MS. ESHOO. Well, I think that is what my constituents would want
me to do. It is their quote.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I agree. I have had to defend their right to say
what they say, but if I had just reported--
MS. ESHOO. Well, of course they can say what they say--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I think they reported a $9 billion quarterly
profit, and if that is true, I believe they could find the money, if they
wanted to, to at least expand one of their existing refineries.
MR. CAVENEY. I don't know the exact nature of the quote, but they
have a history--
MS. ESHOO. I will have my staff bring this to you. Do you want me
to read it to you?
MR. CAVENEY. Fine.
MS. ESHOO. Exxon--this is a January 25 Reuters report, "An
ExxonMobil corporation official told congressional aides this week," this
is the week of the 25th of January, "that flat North American demand for
gasoline forecast through 2030 means there is no need to build new U.S.
refineries, a congressional source sold Reuters on Wednesday."
"Scott Newman, manager of Exxon's Economics and Energy
Division, on Tuesday briefed aides with the U.S. House Energy and
Commerce Committee on the company's oil demand outlook, according
to the committee staff member who attended."
"Exxon said they don't want to build any new refineries in North
America because of flat demand for petroleum products by 2030.
Spokesman for Irving, Texas, based ExxonMobil, the world's largest
publicly traded oil company, declined to give specifics of the meeting.
We think the most cost-effective and efficient and effective way, the
fastest way to add capacity in the U.S. is to refine our own refineries."
Do you know what "refine our own refineries" means?
MR. CAVENEY. I think what was meant there was to add capacity to
existing refineries, which is, as Mr. Slaughter had said earlier, the
quicker and more cost-effective way to add capacity in the U.S. And his
statement about not doing anything was a new refinery, not additional
capacity. ExxonMobil has a history of continuing to add capacity to
their existing refineries.
MS. ESHOO. Well, this runs contrary to what you are saying, but I
appreciate your response.
The reason why I raised the issue of demand is because Exxon
contradicts EIA's official projections for demand. So there is a disparity
there, and I think it is something that the committee needs to recognize.
I think my time has--
MR. HALL. The time has expired.
MS. ESHOO. Even though the Chairman used up some of my time.
Thank you.
MR. HALL. And we weren't laughing at you. We were laughing
with you. We were thinking about the lady who came over --
MS. ESHOO. This is strictly business, Mr. Chairman; and I
understand that.
MR. HALL. We were thinking of the lady who came over yesterday
trying to defend the Administration's cutting Children's Hospital's
teaching fund. She didn't really want to be here, probably didn't really
want to answer that question. I wouldn't have if I had been her. But you
ask good questions. We admire you.
MS. ESHOO. Thank you.
MR. HALL. We weren't laughing at you.
MS. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. Okay. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chair for
holding these hearings. They really are very informative and helpful.
If we are looking for ways that we can deal with stabilizing and
reducing energy costs over the short term, medium term, and long term;
and as gas prices have risen, we have heard about a lot of things that we
can do right now that would make a difference tomorrow or next week or
the week after. Do any of you have--let me communicate a couple of
these things that, or ideas that I have heard.
One of them was that if every American consumed one less gallon of
gasoline a week, the cost of gasoline would go down by 60 cents a
gallon. One myth. Maybe it is a myth; maybe it isn't. But if we were to
use more diesel in America, we could use CAFE standards by anybody's
predictions almost immediately. If we could increase the use of hybrids
significantly, immediately this would occur.
My question is, could any of you make recommendations or
suggestions to the committee of efforts that we could undertake that
would make an immediate impact or have an immediate impact on the
price of gasoline in America? I mean between now and the end of the
year.
Go ahead, sir, Mr. Caveney.
MR. CAVENEY. Mr. Bass, it is hard to project anything that would
immediately, let's say on a 24-hour period, have an impact.
One of the things that people can individually do without sacrificing
anything, and we have located on our Web site, is you can actually use
energy a bit more wisely, particularly in motor transportation. You can
gain 4, 5, 6, 7 miles per gallon by doing some of the very simple things
like eliminating jackrabbit starts, making sure your tires are properly
filled with the level, having your car tuned, driving at 10 miles per hour
less. That done broadly would not be anyone sacrificing anything, and in
a reasonably short period of time that would show up in the data, and you
would notice that there was less demand. Obviously, that is what you are
hoping to do, to create a wider gap between supply and demand.
MR. BASS. Does anybody have any comments on diesel utilization,
use of more diesel in America?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I would like to say something, if I could, on that,
Mr. Bass.
The diesel market in the United States is pretty well already
subscribed. We are introducing a new 15 parts per million sulfur diesel
product on June 1st, and we are putting that program into operation this
year. We are going to see how that goes. We have been working very
hard for a smooth transition.
But, as has been mentioned earlier by Mr. Cavaney, Europe has gone
to diesel for light duty vehicles, including passenger cars. It has freed up
gasoline to be exported to the United States, particularly to the Northeast,
which is 25 percent dependent upon imports. If the United States tried to
switch in a big way to diesel, we might have more difficulty finding
imports of diesel than we currently are having imports of gasoline.
So the refining industry in the U.S. is built towards the current mix
of about 49 percent gasoline output, less output of diesel. There is going
to be an increase, all analysts say, in the number of diesel cars in the
United States over the next few years, but it still will be significantly
below the figure for gasoline-driven vehicles.
MR. BASS. How practical is it for refiners to switch to diesel and
provide more diesel in North America for a short period of time?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, for a short period of time there are some
things you can do. Refiners do respond to shifts in the market where
there is a need for more diesel product than gasoline. There are some
things you can do, within limits, to produce more diesel and less
gasoline. But the kind of program you are talking about, that would be
significant. It would take much longer and we are already having
significant problems. We are producing a cleaner diesel product that
already is going to require more crude to produce than the old product
did. So it is going to be particularly difficult to do that this year.
MR. BASS. But you do have clean diesel in Europe, right?
MR. SLAUGHTER. There is a cleaner diesel in Europe. We are going
to have a cleaner diesel in the United States in less than a month.
MR. REID. Mr. Bass, in the immediate term, in terms of lowering
gasoline prices for consumers at the pump, my testimony reflected that
the only thing that SIGMA and NACS could recommend is temporarily
suspending the tariff on imported ethanol, maybe worth a few cents a
gallon.
Beyond that, a few of us have testified that crude oil accounts for
the
largest percentage in the cost of a gallon of gasoline. The second largest
contributor to the cost of gasoline at retail is local, State, and Federal
taxes. So we are not advocating it. We are not recommending it, but if
you wanted an immediate impact, a Federal excise tax would be another
place to look.
MR. BASS. Mr. Chairman, my short 5 minutes has expired. I yield
back.
MR. HALL. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the knowledge of the
committee.
There have been an expansion--in fact, I think our testimony
yesterday from Dr. Yergin said that, since 1994, existing refineries added
more than 2.1 billion barrels of capacity, the equivalent of adding a large
average refinery each year. I will ask, is that an accurate statement we
heard yesterday from Dr. Yergin?
Thank you.
And, Mr. Slaughter, you testified that refineries will be adding 1.3
million barrels in capacity in the next few years, and that is online.
MR. SLAUGHTER. We can currently count 1.4, and a lot of folks
think it will be more than that. That is over 8 percent increase in the U.S.
crude capacity.
MR. GREEN. I wasn't aware of the quote from an Exxon staff
member to congressional staff members, but, just historically, I have
represented now the largest refinery in the country in the Baytown,
Texas, an ExxonMobil facility. When I was a State senator--before they
changed our lines, and I got it back--it wasn't the largest.
So I am assuming, without documentation, that refineries--and I can
say that typically up and down the Houston ship channel the refineries
have expanded capacity over the last 10-year period, whether it is shale,
whether it is any of our refineries, that they have expanded capacity.
And we can find out the numbers. I think we will just have to do it
individually. But I also understand that Exxon particularly adds about
200,000 barrels a day, every 3 years, to five refineries that they have. So
there is expanding refining capacity.
There is still some space available in the Gulf Coast, although a
question in a minute will be, we need some ethanol facilities here to
serve our Houston markets since we no longer produce MTBE.
The Energy Information Administration's testimony yesterday said
that if we reduced the number of so-called boutique fuels to improve the
liquidity of the gasoline market we would have to sacrifice either price or
air quality. Can you respond to that, Mr. Slaughter?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, there is a balancing act that has to be done
with boutique fuels, Mr. Green. Because, as has been pointed out earlier,
the Energy Policy Act passed in 2005, already started the process of
looking at boutique fuel reduction. EPA's testimony yesterday indicates
that there is only a handful, really, of boutique fuels in the U.S. If you
change things right now, right away, some refiners would have to change
specifications and invest more money than they had planned for, for the
summer.
So it doesn't seem productive to go ahead with something like that
now, although it is a good exercise; and the EPA shouldn be completing
that exercise in just 8 weeks, is my understanding.
MR. BECKER. Mr. Green, may I comment, too?
This is probably one of the first times in the past 15 years where
Mr. Slaughter's association and our association agree on a point.
Boutique fuels are an extremely important tool for State air pollution
control agencies. As I mention in my testimony, they have reduced
smog-forming emissions up to 25 percent. They have been prompted not
so much by State and local permitting authorities but often times by the
industry as a cheaper alternative to a uniformed Federal reformulated
gasoline. So we agree with NPRA's position on that.
MR. GREEN. Let me get to another question, because I have run out
of time.
Folks, Mr. Cavaney and Mr. Slaughter, last year, there was a refining
bill passed after the energy bill; and since the Chairman is still here I
want to make sure he hears this. Do your members--because during Rita
and my experience in later September last year, and we saw what
happened in the New Orleans area and along the Mississippi River, do
your members work with the State emergency supplies to ensure we have
enough fuel during an evacuation? In Hurricane Rita, we tried to
evacuate at least 2 million people in the Houston area. Do State fuel
supplies--do they work with members of your associations?
MR. CAVENEY. The industry, as well as local government and the
Federal government, had post-hurricane conferences to actually go over
the checklist of all the things that needed to be addressed, with a
particular eye towards the human feature and then also the point you just
raised, and they are working on that. It brought to light a number of
things that people have taken for granted that would be done, but
weren't, and they are getting addressed this time. So I think we will see
a better response.
MR. GREEN. That is on the back end of it.
The front end of it, we had refineries, when we thought Hurricane
Rita was going up to the Galveston Bay, that had to shut down. To get
those refineries back on line, you don't just turn on a switch. It takes a
lot of effort. And we did have some problems with power and things like
that from other locations.
One of the interests I have, and if this committee does another bill,
is to have the Department of Energy directly involved with both front end,
if there is a problem with the big picture of getting refinery capacity back
up, whether it is in my neighborhood or anywhere else, but instead of
having to go through FEMA, who really doesn't understand--I mean, we
saw what happened again from experience. Do you feel comfortable that
the Department of Energy would be a partner that could be a problem
solver in both getting the refining capacity back up but also looking at
supplies for the evacuations?
MR. CAVENEY. I think, and Bob can speak from his perspective, that
the cooperation was incredible. When you consider that we lost 30
percent of our refining capacity, and it came back as quickly as it did,
some of the problems we had down there were equipment problems and
things needed to be replaced and just couldn't speed up. But the
government at the State and local and Federal level in almost every
instance was just unbelievable.
MR. SLAUGHTER. I certainly agree with that, Congressman. It was a
tremendous cooperative effort.
And one thing, there have been meetings, we had a large conference,
for instance, in which to share all the lessons from our members with
their experiences with the hurricanes, and I know they have worked with
people in their localities and States to make sure that problems don't
happen again. A lot of work has been done.
We are going back into hurricane season now, but I think people
need to know that the industry has learned a lot from what happened last
year about working with people, how important that was, the importance
of electricity; and all those lessons are going to be applied this year. We
have our fingers crossed that something like that won't happen again, but
we have tried to be more prepared. And we were ready last year, but the
faster you can respond, the better.
MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one more question.
I don't know if we will have a second round.
MR. WALDEN. [Presiding.] We will have another round, I have been
told.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr.
Burgess.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you.
Mr. Slaughter, just continuing on Mr. Green's last thought, do you
have a distributive network in mind for people getting caught in traffic
jams if that happens again? Are we going to use the National Guard or
State Guard? How are we going to get the gas to the people that need it?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, the industry has been working together and
also with other folks to try to make sure that this distribution system
works better this time than last time. What was a particular problem, as
you know, and Congressman Green mentioned earlier, is that people
didn't know where that hurricane was going to hit. It takes as much as a
month to get a refinery started and back online.
MR. BURGESS. I was thinking specifically of the people who were
caught in the contra flow freeway lanes, eight lanes coming out of
Houston, Texas, when traffic wasn't moving and they ran out of gas.
Are we going to have a way to get gas to their tanks if we have another
evacuation ordered? Mr. Conley?
MR. CONLEY. If I just make one comment, I was in San Antonio last
week for our annual conference and talked with a Mr. Jake Bailey from
Bolero. One of his questions to me was, can we get more Texas carriers
from other States, if need be, to help next time get the petroleum, the
gasoline, down quicker?
One of the things I asked him is, what can we do to get the trucks
going this way when everybody else is swimming upstream, and he said
that they do have information from the State that they will provide patrol
cars, State troopers and all. There is going to be a meeting I believe
Thursday, which would be today, in Houston with Bolero and some of
the other carriers, as to how to do that better next time.
MR. BURGESS. If you wouldn't mind just sharing that with this
committee--I know it is a little bit off point, but if you get the
information from that meeting.
Let me ask you, since we are already talking, you talk in your
testimony about the tank trailers being used to transport ethanol; and in
an ideal situation you would have them full both coming and going with
ethanol to the plant and then reformulated gasoline leaving the plant.
What are the barriers to doing that right now?
MR. CONLEY. Well, right now, it is a time type of thing. Again, you
don't have as much demand certainly for ethanol as we do for the
gasoline.
Take as an example, what we have been doing, one of our carriers,
either by barge or by rail, a product comes into the harbor of Baltimore.
They will pick it up and bring it into Newington. So, in the ideal
situation, a Baltimore or a Virginia-based carrier can pick it up, bring it
over here, a full load of ethanol, and then load gasoline on top and go out
and make their delivery.
MR. BURGESS. I appreciate that.
In the interest of time, again, if you wouldn't mind providing us a
written response of what we might to do make that happen with greater
facility for your industry.
MR. CONLEY. I would be pleased to.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Shea, in your testimony, you talk about
renewable fuels. The E-85 has about 75 percent of the actual power--I
assume E-85 means it is 85 percent ethanol--but you lose 10 percent of
your actual power in a gallon of E-85. Do I read that in your testimony
correctly there?
MR. SHEA. I am not sure you read that in my testimony, but maybe
it is in my full written statement. Yes, I think there is power loss. There
is no question.
MR. BURGESS. Actually, I guess it was Mr. Reid's testimony that I
was reading here, on page 12 of your testimony.
MR. REID. There are fewer BTUs in the E-85 than in a regular
gallon of gasoline.
MR. BURGESS. And yet the price is the same. We have heard
testimony on that various times during the week. In fact, you have that
in your testimony, that the price is not priced at a level that matches the
energy content of a gallon of E-85. I am just concerned. Are we getting
some ethanol price gouging here?
MR. REID. I am not in the ethanol business myself. I can't really
comment on that.
MR. BURGESS. Okay.
MR. DINNEEN. Congressman, just on the E-85 question, it is true
that in the flexible fuel vehicles that are being produced by Ford, GM,
Chrysler today, there is a reduction in mileage because of the reduced
BTU content of the ethanol. I mean, that is just a fact of science.
MR. BURGESS. But it is priced the same as a gallon of petroleum
product?
MR. DINNEEN. Not in all markets. In most markets where E-85 is
sold, it is sold at a significant discount to--
MR. BURGESS. Yet we have heard testimony to that effect during the
week. I am concerned about the price of E-85, whether it is reflective of
the actual energy that you are buying.
MR. DINNEEN. In today's market, though, most ethanol is being sold
as a blend component with gasoline.
MR. BURGESS. Let me ask Mr. Becker a question before I run out of
time.
On the current air quality, the reformulated gasoline and the boutique
fuels that we have been discussing all morning, is there any difference in
the engines that are sold today and the rules made for reformulated
gasoline 10 or 15 years ago? Are we keeping pace with the changes in
engine technology? We have heard a lot from Mr. Markey about how
engine technology has changed. Are we keeping pace with that with our
design of boutique fuels and reformulated gasoline?
MR. BECKER. Yes. The fuels have gotten cleaner, and the cars have
gotten cleaner, and a lot of that is the credit of EPA and the stakeholders
who have worked with EPA to make those--
MR. BURGESS. Does the design of our gasoline continually evolve
then during that time?
MR. BECKER. Yes. There is lower sulfur fuel that is taking effect
this summer. There is lower sulfur diesel fuel, and both those fuels will
not only clean up the air directly, but cleaner sulfur, lower sulfur fuel
will enable advanced technologies to work more efficiently than they
otherwise would.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Slaughter, you wanted very much to say
something about the discussion of the memo earlier. Did you get a
chance to cover your concerns, the refinery memo?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, actually, it was on the question about the
ExxonMobil comment. You know, it is true that we have been adding a
lot of capacity domestically at existing sites. You have them on tap
quicker than you would with a new refinery, so the product then is
available. ExxonMobil has added the equivalent of one new
medium-size refinery itself in recent years, and that is by adding on to
existing refineries, the output of those additions were available for
consumers much more quickly.
So all of our companies have made substantial investments. Bolero
has increased the capacity of their refineries. They have purchased about
400,000 barrels a day already and are planning an additional 400,000
barrels a day of investment across the rest of its system in the years to
come. So the refining industry made significant investments. That
includes ExxonMobil and the rest of our members.
MR. BURGESS. I would point out that the profits for that don't just
go to executives, but they also go to teachers, policemen, and retired
people all over the country, the stockholders of those companies.
I yield back.
MR. WALDEN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr. Waxman.
MR. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cavaney and Mr. Slaughter, I want to bring to your attention an
article in the Associated Press dated April 10, 2006, entitled "Yuma
Refinery Project Still Seeks Investors." As I am sure you are aware, a
proposal to build a new refinery has twice received permits for
construction. The first time was on January 16, 1992. Although a permit
was in hand, the refinery was never built because the project didn't get
financing.
The same thing appears to be happening today. On April 14, 2005,
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality issued another permit
to Arizona Clean Fuels allowing installation and operation of the facility.
Do either of you have any information as to whether Arizona Clean
Fuels has found investors for their new permitted refinery?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Waxman, they are members of our
association. I don't have that information on financing. But let me say
that there are difficulties with that facility, for instance as to crude
supply
for that facility, that have not yet completely been resolved. There have
been changes in there that I think have affected people's ability or
willingness to finance.
Now, supposedly they have some financing, but that's particular to
the company and proprietary information, and I don't have it.
MR. WAXMAN. Mr. Cavaney, do you have any information on that?
MR. CAVENEY. Not a member of ours.
MR. WAXMAN. Okay. Well, a year after receiving their permits,
with gasoline prices at a record high and refineries reaping record profits,
Arizona Clean Fuels is having a problem, and the article seems to
indicate their biggest problem is finding financing.
The other point I would raise is that the Wall Street Journal pointed
out that ExxonMobil now has $32 billion in cash. ExxonMobil has
enough money to invest in the Yuma refinery if it wanted to, doesn't it,
Mr. Slaughter?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Thank you. You know, people put their capital in
the best investments. There is a lot of disagreement as to whether a new
refinery is the best investment.
For instance, you know, ExxonMobil also has returned $55 billion in
the last 3 years to its shareholders. So a lot has been done with
investment money and other money that ExxonMobil has. I mean, they
look at refineries. They can look at exploration and production
investments.
MR. WAXMAN. Would it be unfair if someone said that ExxonMobil
didn't want to build any new refineries because new refineries might
reduce their justification for higher prices?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, it would be very unfair.
MR. WAXMAN. Okay, thanks.
Now, Mr. Caveney.
MR. CAVENEY. Yes, sir.
MR. WAXMAN. In your written testimony you said API supports
increased energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy, including
transportation, as an essential part of efforts to meet U.S. energy
challenges. And Mr. Slaughter emphasized the importance of CAFE in
his oral testimony today.
Mr. Cavaney, is it your position that if we are going to get energy
efficiency in the transportation sectors, that if fuel economy standards are
revised, we should, in fact, have efficiency increased and not decreased,
and a guarantee to that effect?
MR. CAVENEY. We feel it should be increased in all sectors, and that
does include transportation, because there is less flexibility in the
transportation sector than any other for the use of energy, and it would be
very helpful.
MR. WAXMAN. You didn't mention that last year when you
testified. Any reason why not last year but this year you have come out
with this position?
MR. CAVENEY. Well, the one thing that we have seen is that it is
very clear the global pressure on supplies is great, and it is going to be a
little while before that relief comes, and we think it just makes good
sense over time to go ahead and take this particular approach.
MR. WAXMAN. Okay. Mr. Slaughter, you indicated that NPRA
characterizes a current environmental agenda as a regulatory blizzard,
and you seem to be blaming a tight gasoline market and high prices on
environmental protections. You gave us a chart listing the burdensome
requirements on refineries that drive high gas prices, and one of them
was boutique fuels cap. This is something Congress adopted last
summer to limit States' clean fuels.
Isn't it correct that your colleagues in the oil industry had been
calling for a boutique fuels cap for years while environmental advocates
opposed it?
MR. SLAUGHTER. There is some disagreement in the industry on the
boutique fuels issue. You know, we basically feel that the boutique fuels
issue is not as serious as some people have suggested. A lot has already
been done through EPAct. It is being looked at. We feel the tremendous
improvements that have been made, for instance, in largely desulfurizing
regular gasoline, is going to mean that regular gasoline and reformulated
gasoline in the future is going to look relatively similar. We think fewer
people will have a desire to go to boutique fuels because of that, and we
don't really see a need for a limitation.
MR. WAXMAN. You also cite a renewable fuels standard, which was
imposed by this Republican Congress, as another environmental problem
that is driving up costs. If anything, ethanol makes smog worse, not
better, and corn-based ethanol provides only marginal global warming
benefits. To the extent that new ethanol plants are fueled with coal,
ethanol doesn't provide any environmental benefits at all and likely
would make things worse.
And I point that out just to challenge your assertion that Congress
adopted the renewable fuels standard as part of an environmental agenda.
These are not part of an environmental agenda. And I think that the
charge that it is the environmental laws that are driving up the costs for
gasoline is an unfounded one, and I certainly take issue with it.
My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WALDEN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Tennessee Mrs. Blackburn for questions.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
each of you for your time and your patience with us this morning.
Mr. Reid, I want to come back to you and Mr. Slaughter on the
ultra-low diesel fuel for the summer. I am one of those, back in the late
1970s, when I had little kids, and we had the situation with the gas lines,
I bought a diesel vehicle and loved it, used it, and found that to be a great
way to work around the situation.
I know that as our constituents are looking for options, some of them
are going to be looking at light trucks and diesel vehicles, and so I have
talked to some of my oil marketers about the transition; the fact that you
are going to have to have the fuel to the terminals in mid-July, and they
have got to have it to the retailers in September. And I have listened to
this discussion, as we are now in our third hearing on this issue, and we
continue to come back to refinery capacity. We are at about 95 percent
refinery capacity, and during the summer we can go as high as
98 percent.
I am looking at this adding another requirement, and you all have
talked about the different blends and getting things to the customers. So,
Mr. Reid, I think you are probably--looking at the panel, and listening to
you, you are the one that lives most in the real world. You are not here
on the Beltway, and you are dealing with people that have got to deal
with the customer who is putting that money on the table.
So, looking at what is considerably a high refinery utilization rate,
and then adding on this requirement with the ultra-low diesel fuels,
should we expect a price spike in diesel this summer?
MR. REID. I understand your concerns. I am really unsure as to how
the markets will respond to the roll-out of the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
We have concerns it could create a price spike, but it is really uncertain.
Refiners tell us that supplies will be ample. There are still some issues
with respect to how it is going to come through the distribution system.
MRS. BLACKBURN. You are confident that the supplies will be
ample?
MR. REID. Yes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. And you were just talking about your
distribution system. Go ahead and finish that.
MR. REID. Well, there are still challenges associated with getting
the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel from point A, where it is manufactured, to
point B, where it is stored, distributed, and then down to the retail level --
MRS. BLACKBURN. Sure.
MR. REID. --and maintaining the specification. It is an open question
how that is going to work out at this point.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Do you feel like you have enough lead time?
MR. REID. We have as much lead time as we have.
MRS. BLACKBURN. You have got what you got. Well, the good
thing is you all were looking at this as kind of being the year of fuel
specification anyway.
MR. REID. Welcome to the party.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Yeah. Exactly.
Okay, Mr. Slaughter, do you want to add anything to that?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, I would like to say that industry has been
working closely with all of their stakeholders to try to make this
transition as smooth as possible. It is a daunting challenge. We have
never made a product this low in sulfur. The 15 ppm is measured at
retail. At the refinery, we are going to have to put out 5 to 7 ppm sulfur.
And the difficulty is that it is extremely difficult to make.
Now, a lot of work has gone into trying to make this a successful
transition, and our fingers will be crossed. We think we have done
everything we can.
MR. BECKER. May I?
MRS. BLACKBURN. Yes, Mr. Becker, go ahead.
MR. BECKER. Thank you. I just want to echo what Mr. Slaughter
said. This was a rule that was developed based upon compromises from
the environmental health groups, the States, and the oil industry. It is a
rule that is going to result in several thousands of saved lives. It is going
to have a huge air quality benefit. It is going to have a huge economic
benefit to this country. And it is one of the success stories that all of us
collectively can brag about.
We would have preferred to see the rule implemented earlier, but as
part of the compromise, we thought EPA did a fair job of bringing in the
stakeholders and coming up with the deadlines that it did.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Mr. Slaughter, go ahead.
MR. SLAUGHTER. I wanted to add one additional point, since we
have talked a little bit about numbers and profits today. The cost of this
program is $8 billion. That is on top of the $8 billion the industry spent
to reduce sulfur in gasoline.
So I just want to point out that it is a very significant commitment
of this industry to new investment for environmental reasons to make this
product for the U.S.
MRS. BLACKBURN. I appreciate that.
Mr. Slaughter, I am going to run out of time, and I had really wanted
to talk with you about New Source Review. We have done some things
on that and have had some things included in the GAS Act that we
passed in the House. It didn't pass in the Senate. And the more I hear
and read, and the more I look at New Source Review, I think we were
right in the actions that we took on the GAS Act.
I will submit this to you in writing, but I think it is an important
part of the record in looking at New Source Review and those requirements
and how it may either enhance or stifle and prevent investment in
refineries here.
I think Mr. Cavaney was trying to recall that number of refineries
that we had had, and our committee work shows that we have not had a
new refinery since 1976, and in 1981 we had 324 total. Today we have
148. That is of concern to us, and I would appreciate your response in
writing, and I will submit the question to you in writing.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, I will.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I know my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WALDEN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington State Mr. Inslee for questions.
MR. INSLEE. Thank you. Really appreciate you all being here.
Just to let you know, there are some sort of bold ideas floating
around in Congress now. One is called the New Apollo Energy Project,
something I am cosponsoring with a bunch of folks who really believe
that we need to take some very bold steps in energy, not just little baby
steps. We call it the New Apollo Project because we think we need
something of the same scale as Kennedy challenged us to in 1961. We
don't need that little small step for man, we need a giant leap for
mankind in here. So I appreciate your being here to talk about it.
I want to talk to you about ethanol and flex fuels and how we
develop infrastructure in that regard. Some of us have been looking at
the experience of Brazil, where they have had considerable success. We
are told about 40 percent of their transportation infrastructure is now
fueled by ethanol, principally from sugar cane in Brazil. That resulted
from pretty aggressive, pretty assertive, pretty visionary actions by
Brazilian leaders over the last couple of decades actually to develop both
a demand on the demand side for ethanol, which, as we know, is a great
product because it reduces CO2 emissions, and we have a global
warming issue we have to deal with, but also on the supply side to help
development of the infrastructure so that that E-85 is available at the
pumps for their consumers.
Now, what the Brazilians tell me is that they sort of felt both was
necessary; that it was necessary to help the supply side to provide some
incentives, some assistance to the suppliers to help the infrastructure
development to put in those E-85 pumps, and to develop the refineries
and the transportation infrastructure, but it was also necessary to help on
the demand side when they have helped Brazilians get these flex-fuel
vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol.
So I guess what I would just ask for your thoughts on are, is that the
right strategy? Do we need to do both? And if so, what are the most
effective things on either approach to try to inspire that progress?
MR. DINNEEN. Congressman, Brazil has done a tremendous job
building an ethanol industry through tax incentives and mandates for use.
And actually, they built their ethanol industry largely first, initially,
through a blend market, requiring ethanol to be used and blended with
gasoline. They had blended as much as 25 percent with gasoline in
vehicles that were on the road. It has only recently been that Brazil also
required the availability of E-85 and provided additional incentives for
E-85 vehicles. That program has indeed proven to be extraordinarily
successful.
In this country, we are still working through ethanol as a blend
component with gasoline, and there is tremendous room for growth as
ethanol becomes a more ubiquitous component of the motor fuel market
as a blend.
For ethanol in this country to be more widely used as an E-85,
several things need to happen. You need to have more vehicles. We
have 5 million E-85 vehicles on the road today. That is a good start, and
I give great credit to Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler for the
commitment that they have made toward those vehicles, but it is not
nearly enough. It is not enough vehicles to attract a gasoline marketer to
put in an E-85 fuel pump.
You need more pumps. We only have 650 E-85 pumps across the
country, out of something like 130,000 gasoline stations across the
country. You need to have more infrastructure. That will come as the
vehicles come.
But there is one other very important component. You need more
ethanol. I mean, to really replace gasoline, you are going to have to be
talking about ethanol from cellulose. You are going to be talking about
30 billion, 40 billion, 50 billion, 60 billion gallons of ethanol.
Congressman, you can't do that from grain.
MR. INSLEE. And I am very happy to report that the first commercial
cellulosic ethanol plant is going to go in in my neck of the woods in
northwest Idaho and is ready to go; construction is ready to start as soon
as the loan guarantees are perfected. And I think that is a very exciting
development, because cellulosic ethanol, of course, is going to have a
production per acre severalfold what existing crops have. And when we
do that, then we really are talking about a meaningful alternative to
gasoline in this country.
I just want to let you know of some efforts going on here is that
many of us think that while Brazil has provided some good vision, we
don't have the luxury of time that they had, of decades, to start this
transition. Our security needs in the Mideast, the science of global
warming indicates that we have to get meaningful transition in the next
decade or we are going to be eaten alive. We are going to be in areas of
CO2 emissions that are so high that these changes are going to be
irreversible.
And I, and I don't think I am alone, believe we have to act more
quickly than Brazil did, perhaps in the same direction, but with much
more dispatch. We just don't have this luxury of time. So one of the
things we are talking about is trying to inspire more flex-fuel vehicles to
be sold so that it will increase that demand so that the person can then
afford to put up the pump because they know the demand is there.
In Brazil Ford is running commercials that has a young man pull up
to a pump, and it shows him being indecisive. He can't decide between a
blond or a brunette, between one diet pop and another, or gasoline and
ethanol. He finally punches ethanol, which is the cheapest one at the
moment. So that is Ford's marketing strategy in Brazil, and we want to
have the same strategy here.
Did you want to make one comment? I have brief time.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, Mr. Inslee. I would just say that the
Brazilian project is very interesting, but apparently with a $2.90 price for
crudes for gasoline and for the $2.90 price for ethanol here, and the $2.38
price for gasoline he wouldn't be punching the cheaper option in the
United States.
MR. INSLEE. That may be true today. And I will just tell you what
my bet is on. My bet is on that there is not going to be a whole lot of
new dinosaurs found to dramatically increase our fossil fuel production.
My bet is we're going to find a lot more Chinese demanding
automobiles, and that the price of fossil fuels is going to--over a long
term is going to go up, and the price of ethanol, when we develop
cellulosic ethanol, is going to go down.
So I think we should be putting our money in part on an alternative
that is coming down rather than a horse that is going up. That is just one
person's view.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Hasn't gone down yet.
MR. WALDEN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Wyoming.
MRS. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because
most of my questions have already been asked and answered, and I
appreciate that.
I would like to start with Mr. Shea. What insight can you offer as to
what net effect the capping of boutique fuels, as mandated by Section
1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act, will have on national pipeline storage
and transmission capacity?
As we continue to work to reduce the number of boutique fuels in the
system, do you think publishing the list will be of any help in the
management of our Nation's pipeline system?
MR. SHEA. I believe currently we are able to handle the
transportation of the boutique fuels that exist. Our concern is if there is
continued proliferation of boutique fuels and what impact that may have
as it relates to pipeline capacity, through-put capacity, and also tank farm
storage capacity.
We are in a position today, I think, in the pipeline industry, with
the advent of the growth of boutique fuels, adding to that the phase-out of
MTBE for ethanol, the phase-in of ULSD and such low parts-per-million
requirements, that the pipeline system is getting stretched to capacity in
certain segments. So I guess my view would be that the capping of
boutique fuels would be helpful at this point.
MRS. CUBIN. Mr. Waxman, I think, stated in one of his questions as
he went along that ethanol was not cleaner, or it was less pollutant, I
should say, than oil products. Can any of you respond to that?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I would be glad to say something.
MR. DINNEEN. And I will probably have to say something after that,
but go ahead.
MR. BECKER. And then I will change his view.
MR. SLAUGHTER. The fact of the matter is there are differences. If
you use ethanol, you produce aldehydes, which is a form of pollutant. If
you use ethanol in the summer in gasoline, it increases the volatility of
the mixture, and you basically lose about 5 to 6 percent of the volume.
MRS. CUBIN. Of the gasoline or the ethanol?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Of the gasoline. Because you have to back out
some of the high energy content, but more volatile parts of the gasoline
to accommodate the ethanol volatility number.
So there are new investments that have been made by the industry
this year to accommodate that and to use ethanol in those areas. It is just
that it presents different challenges, and the industry this year is learning
how to deal with those.
MR. DINNEEN. Surprisingly, I actually agree with much of that.
Ethanol has tremendous exhaust emissions benefits, reducing carbon
monoxide and exhaust VOCs. As Bob indicated, it does have a higher
volatility when blended with gasoline, so evaporative emissions increase.
When used in clean-burning gasoline programs, however, refiners have
to accommodate for that increased volatility by producing a
lower-volatility blend stock. The refiners have made the investments to
make sure that is possible.
So from an air quality standpoint, using ethanol in clean-fuel
programs is going to have the same air quality benefits as any other fuel.
MR. BECKER. And if I may add to that?
MRS. CUBIN. Please.
MR. BECKER. I am going to say the same thing in different words.
In a few areas of the country, several areas of the country, where
there is Federal reformulated gasoline and ethanol is being used, there
shall not be any additional increase in volatility because of the specific
cap in the Federal reformulated gasoline program.
In Wyoming and most other areas of the country that are using
conventional gasoline that is going to have ethanol in it possibly.
Ethanol is allowed a waiver to the volatility limits that gasoline had to
meet in the past. And so by regulation, by waiver, ethanol will be
allowed to be more smog-forming than gasoline.
MRS. CUBIN. More what?
MR. BECKER. More smog-forming, more volatile than gasoline in
the other Federal reformulated gasoline areas.
MRS. CUBIN. And at high altitudes, of course, that volatility problem
is worse than it is at lower altitudes.
MR. BECKER. And this could be a problem.
MR. DINNEEN. But if it is a problem, the States have the authority to
petition EPA to have that volatility waiver lifted.
MR. BECKER. And Mr. Dinneen is correct, but this is not an easy
step, to overcome this obstacle that we face. And we are a fuel-neutral
association. We don't have a dog in this fight about whether it is ethanol
or any other additive. But you raised the question.
This is going to make it more difficult for States who want to meet
their smog, their ozone standards to meet, because by regulation, by
waiver we will see more emissions in conventional gasoline areas from
ethanol. And to bring them down, we will have to convince EPA and
seek that waiver, which is not an automatic waiver.
MR. DINNEEN. But EPA has never not approved such a waiver, and
I guess I just have more faith in State air quality officials than Mr.
Becker.
MR. BECKER. Excuse me a second.
MRS. CUBIN. So it depends on what chemical it is that you want to
decrease. I mean, if you are talking about the hole in the ozone, we are
talking about carbon dioxide. So that isn't an aldehyde.
MR. BECKER. The Congress has, in the Energy Policy Act,
expanded the amount of ethanol, have codified the expansion of the
amount of ethanol throughout the country. You raised the issue as to
whether or not this is going to exacerbate air pollution, or Mr. Waxman
raised it and you are responding as to whether it is going to exacerbate
air pollution levels in some areas of the country.
MRS. CUBIN. So it will just be different pollution.
MR. BECKER. Unless EPA accepts the waiver request that the State
offers, there will be increases in smog-forming emissions in those areas
of the country that use ethanol where there is not Federal reformulated
gasoline. I think that is a fact.
MR. WALDEN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
MRS. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WALDEN. For the record, we have a vote on the floor with
about 7 minutes left. So I am going to ask a couple of brief questions,
but before I do, I want to make one statement.
We have heard a lot over the last couple of days about the success in
Brazil based and attributed to their increase in ethanol production, which
is remarkable. But as I have looked into this, it appears that Brazil's
energy independence really in large measure has come about because of
its increase in crude oil production, which I am told is nine times larger
than its increase in ethanol production between 2004 and 2005 and four
times larger than the 2000 to 2005 period. And they are on track to
increase their crude oil production even more, and ethanol plays a very
small piece.
Now, I am an ethanol advocate, and I think we need to look at these
alternative fuels. I think there is a lot of opportunity out there, but am I
missing something here?
MR. CAVENEY. No, that is absolutely correct. Another thing
happened back in the early 1970s. Brazil was faced with this problem of
wanting to try to become energy independent. On the one hand, they
went down the ethanol track, which we have heard a great deal about, but
they also formed their national oil company, Petrobras. Petrobars has
been very, very successful offshore of Brazil, making some very
successful finds in the deep water and using that.
So, yes, their independence is in large part a combination of both of
those things and not attributable to one or the other.
MR. WALDEN. But if the amount of crude oil production is up nine
times over that of ethanol, how can you say it is not attributable one over
the other? I mean, ethanol represents like .25 million barrels per day,
and crude oil is 1.65 or something.
MR. CAVENEY. The point I was trying to make was that when it
became clear that they were having these successes with their offshore
production and all, they didn't feel they had to rely exclusively on
ethanol to carry the weight of their goal of becoming energy
independent.
MR. WALDEN. I guess that is what I am trying to figure out here. In
my district we produce geothermal heat, we produce solar electricity, we
produce wind power in copious quantities, and not just because I am
upwind. You know, politicians. Never mind.
But we produce a lot of alternatives, and I am a big advocate for
that. But I am also a realist to know that you can't rely on that totally.
And it seems to me in America part of our energy independence has to also rely
on increased crude oil production out of our own resources. Am I
missing something here?
What rate of growth are we seeing on production of crude oil in
America? Who can address that?
MR. CAVENEY. I can address that.
MR. WALDEN. All right.
MR. CAVENEY. You are absolutely right. One of the things people
do is selectively take information out of the Brazilian experience and
bring it out to serve their own interests. And as Bob mentioned earlier,
the success of getting ethanol going in the early years was mixing it with
alcohol, alcohol and gasoline together. That is the same approach we
recommend here, because what you want to do is to get the ethanol
industry up as big and as strong and as flexible as it can be to withstand
the huge swings that the fuels industry goes through.
And other people say, no, the Brazilian experience is you have to go
to E-85. Well, there are 222 million automobiles and SUVs on the road
right now, only 5 million of which--
MR. WALDEN. Where, here or Brazil?
MR. CAVENEY. Here in the U.S., only 5 million of which are
flexible fuel. So you will have a very long wait if you focus on that.
So what we would like to see is continued U.S. production of crude
oil here and conversion in our refineries, blending it with ethanol. We
produce per gasoline 140 billion gallons.
MR. WALDEN. But I want to get back, because I am out of time, and
I have to go vote on the floor.
How much is the crude oil production?
One comment to ethanol and alcohol. I didn't think you were
supposed to drink and drive.
But, Mr. Slaughter, you indicated you might be able to answer that
question. What is the crude oil production in the United States; the rate
of growth?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Crude oil, well, it is small. Actually it has been
negative in many years, but it has recently turned around a bit. There are
several new projects, particularly offshore, that are very large that are
going to increase domestic production slightly over the next few years.
And, of course, ANWR would help a lot more.
But the fact of the matter is U.S. crude production has been on the
decline more often than on the incline over the past decade.
MR. WALDEN. I am going to have to leave it at that because we are
under 3 minutes now for the vote on the floor.
The Committee will stand in recess until about 1 o'clock or
thereabouts, or a few minutes after the last vote.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
CHAIRMAN BARTON. [Presiding.] The committee will come to
order. I thank you all for staying. I know it has been a long day.
We are going to start our second round. I know Mr. Boucher has
asked questions the first time, Mr. Hall, and I think Mr. Bass. So the
Chair will recognize himself for the second round of questions.
In my first round, I picked on Mr. Dinneen, so I am not going to pick
on you this round.
MR. DINNEEN. Can I go?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. No, you can't go.
I want to ask Mr. Slaughter some questions.
We are beginning to increase refinery capacity again in this country.
That is a true statement, isn't it?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I think you said that about a million and a half
barrels of projects have been announced. Most of those are expansion of
existing refineries; is that correct?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I think they all are expansions of existing
refineries.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. I also think you said that your trade
group does support the refinery permitting reform bill that passed the
House and is scheduled to come back up again next week.
MR. SLAUGHTER. That is right, we do.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Now, my good friends, Mr. Boucher and Mr.
Dingell, and I have many good friends, but those two good friends have
announced, and may have introduced, a refinery bill. Has it been
introduced yet?
MR. BOUCHER. [Nodding in the affirmative.]
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I haven't studied the bill in its totality, so if I
misrepresent it, Mr. Boucher can correct me, but my understanding is
that they would require the construction of brand new refineries for
military purposes. And do you all have a per barrel per day requirement,
Mr. Boucher?
MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, it would be 5 percent of the existing
refinery capacity.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. So that is about 850,000 barrels, somewhere in
that range. What would the industry position be on the Boucher-Dingell
bill?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, I hesitate to say because I am not familiar
with everything that is in the bill. I think if you are particularly talking
about the idea of government-run refineries, you know, one of the
questions would be what kind of role that it would play.
We believe that the domestic industry has shown, by significant
investment in the domestic market, that we are very committed to it. The
problem with new refineries, I will have to say, Mr. Chairman,--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Look, this is no time to be reticent.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, with new refineries, just one question. We
have always said that people who want to build new refineries should be
encouraged to do so. One of our members is Arizona Clean Fuels, and
we have worked with them.
One of the things I don't understand is what is the difference
between the steel that goes into a new refinery and the steel that goes into
an existing refinery? Because the existing refinery can produce more out
of that steel in 3 or 4 years, when you don't know what you are going to
get out of the new refinery.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It is unusual for a witness to ask a question of
Congress, but in the spirit of an open dialogue, to get to the bottom, I
mean, this is a hearing about truth. So my answer to that would be that
my understanding is that a brand-new-from-scratch refinery could use
the best available technology, would tend to be built in a way that could
refine any kind of crude oil and would probably be more efficient. So
that would be the technical answer.
The political answer would be to show that we can. To show the
American people and the world that we can still do things in America.
MR. BASS. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield. I am over here, Mr.
Chairman, in front of you.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Oh, Mr. Bass. I am looking down here.
MR. BASS. It is also the issue of geographical diversity which we
need, and which you don't get when you expand an existing facility.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes. But I would rather have existing
refineries expanded than no capacity increase at all. But if we could do
some diversification and take advantage of some of the newer
technology, I think that would be a good thing.
One of the witnesses yesterday, Mr. Cooper of a consumer group,
indicated that according to the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
or maybe it was the Federal Trade Commission, they do a generic test for
market concentration, and that in four of the five regions of the country,
there is market power concentration in the refinery sector--in fact, in
every part of the country except the Southwest.
What would your response be to that, Mr. Slaughter?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Frankly, I find that difficult to believe, because
the refining and distribution system, for instance, in the Gulf, the Gulf
supplies a great many products up the East Coast and into the Northeast.
So I don't know exactly what they have decided the perimeters are.
Now, in the case of California, there are a limited number of
refineries out there because most of the independents out there have gone
out of business, with the exception of Valero and Tesoro. That is a
separate case. And the problem is sometimes they are unable to permit
an ethanol tank in California, let alone a refinery.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand. My time has expired. My last
question before I turn to--I think Mr. Stupak is the first Democrat. He
was actually here at the opening bell this morning.
For both Mr. Slaughter and Mr. Cavaney, would your group be
willing to engage in a series of off-camera discussions with myself, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Hall on perfecting the refinery permitting
bill that we have got up to see if we could come to an agreement that
would be bipartisan, that the industry would support, if we wanted to
bring a little different refinery bill up in the next 2 to 3 weeks? Would
you all be interested in doing that?
MR. SLAUGHTER. We would, certainly.
MR. CAVENEY. Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would you? Okay.
I will yield then to Mr. Stupak.
MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, before you have that discussion, is
there any willingness in the industry, Mr. Slaughter, to even increase
refining capacity?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, the industry has been increasing refining
capacity every year. For instance, we were at 16.5 million barrels per
day about 3 years ago. We went to 17.1. We are at 17.3 this year, and as
I said, we are adding 1.4 million over the next 3 to 4.
MR. STUPAK. Sure, but since 1981, you have gone from 325
refineries down to 149 refineries.
MR. SLAUGHTER. But the refineries we have now are larger and
more sophisticated and produce more product than those refineries did.
MR. STUPAK. Well, what is the one issue that would reduce the
price of gasoline for the American consumer? If there is one thing you
would say, what would it be? More refining capacity?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, the difficulty is the market situation has led
to the prices we are seeing today, both for crude and gasoline. And I
think the good news, as I talked about in my testimony, is that additional
supply is coming on the way because refining--
MR. STUPAK. But that is in crude, right, not in refining?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Sorry?
MR. STUPAK. That is in crude, not refining.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Oh, no. But you need to recognize there are
refineries that have just been in a very heavy maintenance season
because of the hurricane last year. Those are coming back on line now,
and there will be additional production of gasoline out of those refineries.
And that should be very good news for this market. We can't offer you
new capacity by a snap of the finger.
MR. STUPAK. No, I know that, but it seems to me we go through this
every year about this time where we have an increase in prices, and it is
switching over from winter fuel to summer fuel, you say. I would think
by now we would have that figured out, after all these years.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, this year we had to switch over from MTBE
to ethanol on top of it, sir, and that has greatly complicated the process.
MR. STUPAK. But MTBE has been on sort of the hit list for some
time. You knew that was coming, right?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, it was 4 percent of U.S. gasoline supply.
Last year it was still 1.5 percent, so it is not an easy matter to replace it.
MR. STUPAK. So if it is 4 percent, why then have prices gone up 70
some cents, or 72 cents?
MR. SLAUGHTER. It used to be 4 percent. It is now far less even
than the 1.5 percent last year. But the prices have gone up because of the
market situation and the tight supply/demand balance.
MR. STUPAK. How about the crack price we talked about earlier;
that crack premium? You understand that? That is up, as the Chairman
estimated yesterday, about $30 when it should be about $8.
MR. SLAUGHTER. The crack spread essentially represents market
conditions. That determines what it is, and what goes in --
MR. STUPAK. Who determines the crack spread?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry?
MR. STUPAK. Who determines the crack spread?
MR. SLAUGHTER. The market does.
MR. STUPAK. Who is the market?
MR. SLAUGHTER. The market is basically what people are willing to
buy our products, at which price and in what quantities.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would the gentleman yield on that?
MR. STUPAK. Sure.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Slaughter, if you tell us what it is today,
the EIA witness was a little unclear. He estimated it was about $20, and
my information was it was as high as $30. If you could tell us, without
being proprietary, generically, in general where it is today.
MR. SLAUGHTER. The charts that I have seen recently are usually
between 30 and 20, and closer to 20 now. I will give you a new number.
I haven't looked in the last couple of days.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And what historically has been considered a
fair spread, that at that level refineries can make a reasonable profit and
stay in business? My number is it has been around $3 to $4 a barrel. Is
that a good number or bad number?
MR. SLAUGHTER. That number I can't give you because I think it
would vary from refinery to refinery. And, again, I would say today's
situation, everyone agrees, is an extraordinary situation in terms of crude
price, demand, and gasoline supply because of coming off the hurricanes.
That is affecting that crack spread.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that.
We will give Mr. Stupak a little more time because I took some of
his time, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
MR. STUPAK. Well, between September 2004 and September 2005,
according to charts we have seen, the refinery costs have gone up
255 percent. How do you justify that kind of increase?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I think you meant to say refinery profits, because
that was the figure used earlier by the Chairman. I think that is a
suspicious figure. I have not looked at that. I have promised to look into
it and get back to you on the number.
There is no doubt that in the last 2 years refiners have been making
more money than they have in the last decade. That is because it has
traditionally been the least profitable sector in the refining industry.
MR. STUPAK. Sure, and that is why we have those closed refineries
and the increase in price.
MR. SLAUGHTER. The fact of the matter is there has been significant
investment in the refining industry in this country, and basically the
industry is more competitive now than it was in the past.
MR. STUPAK. Well, how much has the refining industry reinvested
into refineries? There has been no new ones. I mean, Valero had a
60 percent increase in the first quarter of this year.
MR. SLAUGHTER. And they have put 400,000 barrels of new
capacity into the refineries they have purchased over the last few years,
and are putting 400,000 new barrels of capacity into those refineries in
years to come.
MR. STUPAK. And they had--6 months, ending in June of 2005, they
also had a 60 percent increase. So even while they are increasing supply,
if you believe that, they are still making 60 percent. So they are keeping
their margins where they want their profits.
MR. SLAUGHTER. The margins are a product of market situation and
what buyers will pay for gasoline and what crude oil costs us to make the
gasoline.
MR. STUPAK. So bottom line is, basically, let the buyer beware as to
the price.
MR. SLAUGHTER. No. The bottom line is, let the market work. It
always provides the consumer with adequate supplies at the best possible
price.
MR. STUPAK. Do you agree the risk premium is probably $20 on a
barrel of oil?
MR. SLAUGHTER. There is considerable disagreement on that. Some
analysts feel there isn't any risk premium. I feel, just by reading the
news, it looks like there probably is one, but I can't tell you how big it is.
MR. STUPAK. Do you think the trading of oil should be regulated by
the New York Mercantile Exchange, as one-fourth of it already is?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I have to confess that I am unfamiliar with that
bill, and I am going to have to look at it.
MR. STUPAK. I am not asking about the bill, I am just asking about
the theory. If 25 percent of the oil traded on the market is regulated, why
shouldn't the other 75 percent of the oil trades on the market be
regulated?
MR. SLAUGHTER. I will tell you, I am not an expert on crude
trading, and I just can't answer that.
MR. STUPAK. Mr. Cavaney, your industry is going to spend
$30 million on educating people on the reason gas prices are so high.
How are you going to educate them? What is the message you are trying
to give to the American people there?
MR. CAVENEY. What we came across was the fact that the public
did not understand the energy industry whatsoever, particularly in oil and
gas. And in order to help them understand, and hopefully be able to help
guide all of us toward better solutions, we decided to have an educational
advocacy effort, which was to explain to people where their dollar goes
when they buy a gallon of gas and how it is distributed. We talk about
our investment, how much it takes to put in, how long an investment you
need to do, what the returns on the industry were. We talked about the
commitment to reinvestment and our involvement with alternative fuels
and the like.
So we are just in the process of trying to bring a level of education
that frankly the industry had not really undertaken broadly over the past
several decades.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The Subcommittee Chairman for Energy and
Air Quality, Mr. Hall of Texas.
MR. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conley, I suppose you would be the one I would want to inquire
about truck carriers. In a day and time when airlines are flying full and
going broke, and everybody knows the reason, what is the situation with
the trucking companies? What effect do higher fuel prices--what impact
is that having on them, as on other consumers?
And if there is a problem with truckers who may haul ethanol going
out of business because of higher fuel costs, thereby reducing the number
of ethanol shippers, what is the situation there?
MR. CONLEY. I don't think it would be fair to say there is a danger
of the people that I represent going out of business because of fuel costs.
They are absorbing some of them and passing some of them on. So I
don't see that as a real concern.
There certainly are some challenges, as we talked about in the
testimony, in trying to adjust to the different types of fuels. And with
ULSD coming in, that is going to be another one. But the fuel prices,
obviously, we are paying them. Some of them we are passing on, and
some we are absorbing.
MR. HALL. Is that partially because some haulers are switching to
hauling ethanol, and that is one way you are confident about the ethanol
hauling capacity?
MR. CONLEY. It is kind of an interesting thing, and it is fortunate
we were just down in San Antonio for our annual conference most of this
week, as I mentioned. I was talking to people who are petroleum
haulers, and, of course, they are hauling the ethanol. But you don't have
to be a petroleum hauler to haul ethanol.
MR. HALL. Are the petroleum haulers the ones switching to ethanol?
MR. CONLEY. Well, they are hauling it. Yes, they are. Some of
them are using their trailers to haul ethanol. And, like I said, they can
maybe haul gasoline back out in an ideal situation. There is just not that
much demand right now for ethanol that that can be done in every case.
But the other side of it is, even for a gasoline hauler, whether it is
a private fleet or one of ours, you don't have to have a petroleum trailer to
haul ethanol. So people who don't haul anything in the petroleum
industry, or have not, are now hauling some ethanol. So that is why I am
confident that the capacity is there.
MR. HALL. Well, your testimony doesn't say it, but it kind of
implies that there is or there may be some shortage of qualified personnel
to haul ethanol.
MR. CONLEY. That is another issue, and I will be glad to talk about
that.
MR. HALL. Tell us about that.
MR. CONLEY. Well, the biggest challenge facing the trucking
industry today, whether it is the tank truck industry or any part of it, is
drivers, finding the drivers we want out there, recruiting people to come
into the industry. It is a very tough job. So that is an issue.
Now, in the area that I talked about in my testimony, it is the whole
HAZMAT endorsement portion, to haul gasoline or ethanol, or any of
these, you need your HAZMAT endorsement, which requires a
fingerprinting procedure. I talked to one of our members this week who
lost two good drivers because they just got tired of waiting in their State
for the stuff to come back, and they went and got another job. So that is
kind of an artificial pressure that has been imposed. That is why I
suggested if we could maybe take another look at how that whole process
works.
But the bottom line is, the biggest challenge we have right now is
finding the kind of drivers that we are confident will do the job. And
there are a lot of reasons for that we could talk about.
MR. HALL. There is another argument going on here in Congress
about immigration. The House has passed a bill that protects the border,
and the Senate has done practically nothing. Will our actions on
immigration affect your acquisition of haulers?
MR. CONLEY. Over time it could. Again, a lot of our people are in
the HAZMAT business, so it is almost another hurdle to get a HAZMAT
driver. But, on balance, we have got many carriers that have immigrant
drivers that are doing very well.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would the gentleman yield?
MR. HALL. Sure. I have sense enough to yield to the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. You don't have to.
While we are on this, I just want to ask Mr. Shea a question, with our
friend here from the trucking industry. I am told in Brazil that they can
actually transport ethanol by pipeline, but in the United States we don't.
What does Brazil know that we don't know about ethanol
transportation by pipeline? It would, obviously, be much easier to move
around the country, especially to my part of the country, if we didn't
have to use Mr. Conley's trucks or the railroad's tank cars. Not that we
don't love our truckers or train guys, but we were able to transport
MTBE gasoline by pipelines. What is the problem in the United States
about pipeline transportation for ethanol?
MR. SHEA. First, let me say I am not sure why Brazil has been able
to transport ethanol. I am not familiar enough with that. But the
problem that we have is that, first, as you probably know, ethanol has a
great affinity to absorb water, and most of our refined petroleum product
pipelines are multiproduct systems hauling diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasolines,
all different flavors and brands of gasolines, and there is inherently water
in the pipeline system.
So to blend ethanol with gasoline and try and transport it is
virtually
impossible. The ethanol absorbs the water, drops out, and is out of
specification at that point.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. What if we put ETBE in gasoline? Could you
transport that in a pipeline?
MR. SHEA. I am not a chemist or an engineer. I am not sure of that.
Now, what I can say is that there have been tests; in fact, Buckeye
has conducted one quite a few years ago where we stopped shipping
refined products in a system up in Connecticut and Massachusetts,
cleaned it out, because ethanol, of course, also is a solvent. So we have
had to run a lot of ethanol through the pipeline to clean the pipeline out,
and we were successful in transporting on a dedicated basis a batch or
two of ethanol.
But it takes large quantities of ethanol to make that economical. In
our view, at this point, it takes a dedicated pipeline system to be able to
transport ethanol and make it economical.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It is Mr. Hall's time, but that question, Mr.
Dinneen, and I think Mr. Slaughter wanted to comment on it.
MR. DINNEEN. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman, if I could, on this
subject.
You are correct, Brazil does ship ethanol via pipeline. They ship it
in a common carrier pipeline with a shipment of ethanol, and then a
divider, and then a shipment of gasoline. One of the big differences is
Brazil built its pipeline system to accommodate ethanol. So the pipeline
system actually originates in the sugar-growing regions of the country
and then flows to the population centers.
Our pipeline system was built to accommodate gasoline, as it should,
and so it originates in the Gulf Coast and flows out to the East Coast, and
north to the Midwest, and west to the West Coast. For us to even
participate in that at all, we would first have to ship our ethanol from the
Midwest down to Houston. Well, we can ship it via train or barge
directly to the market it needs to go.
The other issue, of course, is just one of volume, and we are such a
small component still of the U.S. motor fuel market that you would be
hard-pressed to make it work on our pipeline system as it is structured
today.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Bob, did you want to say something?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to give you an
affirmative on whether ETBE could be shipped in pipelines with
gasoline. Like MTBE, it could.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It could?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay.
MR. HALL. I yield back my time and thank the Chair.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yeah, I took 4 minutes.
Mr. Boucher.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
particularly want to thank you for the suggestion that we undertake a
bipartisan conversation on a role for the Federal government in making
sure that our Nation has an adequate supply of refinery capacity, and I
look forward to that conversation. And I am particularly pleased to hear
that Mr. Slaughter and Mr. Cavaney have also agreed to take part.
As we begin those discussions, there is some sort of baseline
information that might be very helpful to have. So Mr. Slaughter, let me
ask you this: Can you tell me how many refineries have been closed in
the U.S. over the last, say, two decades; or what the capacity of those
closed refineries is? And then compare that refinery closure to the
expected capacity that will come from the new investments that you have
indicated in the expansion of current refineries now in operation.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Let me respond to that, to the extent I can. As I
remember, the peak year for U.S. refining, number of refineries, was
1981. We were well over 300. In terms of capacity, we were at
18.6 million barrels a day, if I remember correctly. If you add the 1.4- or
1.5 billion in extra capacity to our probably 7.3 million barrels a day
now, you would come up with 18.7. So we will be slightly above.
But, of course, that will be modern capacity with a lot more
sophisticated technology than those old tea kettle refineries were. They
were really very small refineries, and they were called tea kettle
refineries because they couldn't really produce sophisticated products
like gasoline in any sufficient supply.
MR. BOUCHER. So as the consumption of gasoline has continued to
rise in the United States, we are going to find ourselves at the end of the
expansions that your industry is currently projecting with essentially the
same capacity we had in the 1980s. Do I interpret that correctly?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, actually, yes, 18.7 versus 18.6. But this is
modernized capacity. You know, gasoline demand was down for most
of the 1980s and started to come back up in the 1990s. And I don't know
whether you are leading to the question whether we need to refine
100 percent of our product here in the United States or not.
MR. BOUCHER. I will be happy to ask that question, if you care to
answer it. I think it might be a useful illumination of the record, in fact,
to have your position with regard to whether it would be economically
useful to do that.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Looking at the current situation, you would have
to say that the market has not led to that result, which means that imports
have optimized the system over additional refining capacity in the United
States. It was easier to bring in the imports, cheaper, than to build the
capacity in the United States and produce it here because of the myriad
of difficulties, the additional costs that we have talked about all the time.
We believe that you should encourage the construction and use of
domestic refining capacity, but if you go to 100, and that is not the most
economical thing to do, you are adding additional costs to the industry
and its products. That is the trade-off. You are going something where
economics has not taken you, so you are adding additional cost.
Refining doesn't really work very well with the surge capacity idea
because it takes a considerable time to start up refineries. You can't have
extra refining capacity just sitting around.
MR. BOUCHER. Let me ask you this. Back in the 1980s, when we
had 18.6 million barrels of refining capacity, what was the demand for
refined product in the U.S.? Was it that number or a higher number?
MR. SLAUGHTER. No, sir. There was a considerable delta between
gasoline demand in the United States and that capacity figure.
MR. BOUCHER. Well, a delta in which direction?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Oh, demand for gasoline at the time was
substantially less than 18.6.
MR. BOUCHER. So you had an excess of refining capacity?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes, but--
MR. BOUCHER. So you have gone from a situation where you had an
excess of refining capacity in the 1980s to a situation now where there is
a capacity deficit, given the fact that the demand for refined product has
increased in the U.S.; is that correct?
MR. SLAUGHTER. There is a deficit now, that is true. It reflects
pretty much the situation in the world refining industry as well.
MR. BOUCHER. I think there might be some difference of opinion as
to the economic utility of being able to refine 100 percent of the product
here in the United States. We have heard your view. I am sure other
contrary views would be expressed.
Let me turn, if I may, to another topic, and that is the potential for
fuels created from other sources to help address the need for
transportation fuels in the U.S.
Coal to liquids, we were told yesterday, is economic when the price
of oil is $40 per barrel. It is obviously well above that today. EIA
projects that it will remain above that for the foreseeable future. And so
one would assume that profit could be made in creating coal-to-liquid
refineries in the United States at the present time.
So, Mr. Slaughter and Mr. Cavaney, perhaps, let me ask you if any
of your member companies are demonstrating interest in building
coal-to-liquids facilities? If any are, perhaps you could tell us who they
are and where they are. And if there are barriers that are preventing that
examination from taking place, perhaps you could tell us what those
barriers are.
MR. CAVENEY. There are a number of companies, particularly the
large integrateds, who are looking at coal to liquids, gasification, and a
number of these sort of next-generation things. And the extent to which
they have made commitments, they haven't made any commitments
publicly about going full scale with a new refinery based on that.
But we would be glad to, if it is public information, make available
to you the list and the information we have on who is active in each of
these areas, and you can speak with them directly because they are in a
position where they would be able to talk to you directly about what they
are doing and things like that. They just haven't probably reached the
point where they have their board approvals or anything like that to allow
them to go public.
MR. BOUCHER. I would personally appreciate that sort of
information, and others on the committee would as well. So if you could
perhaps facilitate that discussion, I would appreciate it.
MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just indulge your
cooperation for one more question, I would like to ask what our
witnesses think the most likely source of a cellulosic feedstock for the
United States might be. Corn is not economically efficient. According
to many studies, you wind up spending as much petroleum to cultivate
annually the corn and then harvest and process it as you get in ethanol on
the other side. But with grasses and other kinds of biomass that
regenerate naturally, that problem is not present, and perhaps those are
economic.
So, Mr. Cavaney, what are your members, if any, looking at? Mr.
Dinneen, you may want to comment.
MR. CAVENEY. Some of our members are invested heavily in
cellulosic experimentation, and there is still some additional work that
needs to be done on the enzyme packages. The difference is with both
sugar cane and with corn, you can design one enzyme that will take care
of converting the process, where, when you look at cellulosic, you have
to be prepared to take a whole series of different materials in.
I think one of the most attractive ones would appear to be the issue
of wood chips. If you think about that, the processing of trees that are
harvested for lumber or paper, in order for them to do that, they tend to
take something with a wide geographic spread and deliver them to one
spot. So you would be able to centralize and get your raw materials
fairly quickly, and I know that is one of the ones everybody is looking at
a great deal. I am sure there are others, but I am familiar with that
industry.
MR. BOUCHER. Mr. Dinneen.
MR. DINNEEN. Congressman, I know it will probably not surprise
you that I disagree with some of the premise of your question with regard
to the energy efficiency of corn. We have had that discussion before, but
nonetheless, there is not an ethanol company that I represent that doesn't
have a very aggressive cellulosic resource program going on now, in part
because they all have cellulose already coming into the plant. There is
cellulose in the corn itself that is not processed. So they are looking at
that.
But there are other companies looking at other cellulosic materials
right now. There is a company in Canada looking to build a plant in the
United States that is looking at wheat straw. There are companies
looking to finance plants to British Ethanol from municipal solid waste.
Certainly there has been ethanol production from waste wood, wood
chips in the past and certainly can be again, people looking at research on
switchgrass and other energy crops.
I think the marketplace ultimately will decide which of these makes
the most sense, and probably all of them will at some point, because you
can get alcohol from virtually any starch or cellulose-based material.
MR. BOUCHER. So you foresee a variety of refineries using various
feedstocks placed around the country?
MR. DINNEEN. Absolutely.
MR. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Dr. Burgess.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could ask Mr. Cavaney and Mr. Slaughter, over the past several
days of testimony, it seems that the revapor pressure controls on fuels
that States use to gain emissions productions when they choose not to
participate in the reformulated gasoline program--how many levels of
RVP control are there in use, and could any be eliminated?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Well, I have that here somewhere.
MR. CAVENEY. I don't have it, but I would like to make a comment.
It has been said earlier several times, and I want to make a point, that the
idea of trying to look at boutique fuels and reduce the number is going to
cause some environmental degradation.
We have never, ever said that that is our interest. We think if you
work together carefully--and we agree it shouldn't be done quickly,
because there is a study under way--we think you can reduce the number
of boutique fuels and do so without degrading the environment and
harming the emissions. So both of those, especially when you look at the
new generation of automobiles and the new cleaner fuels that are out, we
think there is a great opportunity.
And I would disagree a little about the fact that it does make our
system much, much more flexible, both the pipeline and the capacity to
distribute it there, and also the slates that the refinery produces. If you
are going to run one or two fuels all the way around instead of four or
five during a day, you are, by definition, going to be more efficient and
get more output. So we think this is a goal worth pursuing.
Bob.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Dr. Burgess, unfortunately I have to say first that
we have a different position on boutique fuels limitations. But we have
currently RVP of 7.8, 7.2, 7.0, and 7.0 with sulfur provisions. So there
are essentially four. Most of them are at 7.8 and almost an equal number
at 7.0.
We believe that the impression is wrong that there are a great deal of
boutique fuels out there now. We are concerned about a situation in
which there would be a whole lot of new fuels in the future. That would
add some difficulty, but we haven't seen that with the current slate. We
optimize delivery of these fuels every day, Dr. Burgess.
MR. BURGESS. Has the EPA's waiver authority been useful in
increasing the fungibility of the gasoline supply in times of shortages?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Very, particularly after the hurricanes last year.
There was a cooperative effort among everybody concerned, including
EPA. They moved very quickly to grant waivers in that emergency
situation. They were very helpful.
MR. BURGESS. How long did that last, that waiver?
MR. SLAUGHTER. It lasted a month.
MR. CAVENEY. I think they put it in for 15 days, and I believe they
extended a second time for 15 days, short-interval waiver.
MR. BURGESS. We have heard a good deal on the ethanol, and I
appreciate you all have worked so hard to improve the infrastructure
issues, but still the delivery of ethanol in my market, in the Dallas/Fort
Worth market, seem to lag behind. Is there a reason for that?
MR. DINNEEN. Congressman, I think when the refiners made the
decision to get out of MTBE and all those markets, they realized--we
certainly did--that Dallas would be among the most difficult markets in
which to make that turnover because the terminal servicing that area did
not have rail access.
The market has responded. I think our industry has worked awfully
hard. The oil industry certainly has as well, and we are servicing that
market today. We are using transloading, where railcars are unloading
directly to trucks, as was noted earlier, to service that market. Our
industry is bringing product up from Houston, bringing product down
from Kansas by truck as well. There is a terminal that is being permitted
that will ease that situation significantly. It may be open now. If not
now, it will be within days or weeks. But I think, by and large, while
there were some initial hiccups down there, and the transitional issues
were not ideal by anybody's standard, we are doing our best.
MR. BURGESS. May I ask when you were aware that there would be
a problem? Can I ask when the industry become aware that there would
be a problem? Do you recall?
MR. DINNEEN. I think when the oil industry decided we will get out
of MTBE, and they evaluated the markets, I think everybody looked at
Dallas and decided they would be a tough market.
MR. BURGESS. Was that with the passage of our energy act in
August? Was that with the hurricanes in September? Was that later in
the fall? When did this sort of come, percolate to the top of the
consciousness of the industry?
MR. DINNEEN. Are you talking my industry or the oil industry?
MR. BURGESS. Let us stick with yours since we shouldn't speculate-
-
MR. DINNEEN. Our industry obviously became aware of the fact that
they were going to make this transition when their member companies
came to our member companies and said, we need product.
MR. BURGESS. I guess just looking at it as a consumer, we wake up
May 1 and we have high prices and some stations running out of gas, and
some people ask me, legitimately, how come you couldn't see this
coming? And apparently you did see it coming. Why we are not able to
act fast enough to prevent or--
MR. DINNEEN. We have ethanol in that area. In fact, the trains are
backing up, we have so much ethanol in that area. The terminals haven't
necessarily been as ready as I think they could have been, but we have
been working around those transitional issues as well.
MR. BURGESS. You go, but I guess it is the anticipation of the
problem that bothers me. There will be other things that happen this
summer. There will be other things that happen this fall. Are we looking
out for those consumers in those markets and maybe negatively
impacted?
MR. DINNEEN. I think both of our industries are clearly looking for
whatever speed bumps might be in the road in the future, but I think the
transition has been made. It has been successful, and it is a testament to
the effort on the part of the oil industry and to ours that we have been
successful in addressing some of those things.
MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, may I have one additional question?
It maybe controversial, but I would just like to follow up from some we
have had, some of our hearings last year. Is it still necessary to have a
subsidy for the ethanol industry?
MR. DINNEEN. Congressman, if you can tell me what the price of oil
is going to be down the road, I think it would be a lot easier to answer
that question. Certainly, in the past it has been difficult to get refiners
to
utilize ethanol in very strong economic conditions. But the incentive has
been extremely successful in helping to build the industry and build the
infrastructure, and done so in a way that is cost-effective for the Federal
government because it reduces farm program costs. It increases
economic activity in the rural areas where the plants are produced, and
the analyses are that the Government actually saves money as a result of
this program.
MR. BURGESS. But with oil at $75 a barrel, the question has been
legitimately asked in Mr. Cavaney and Mr. Slaughter's industry why
they continue to need subsidies, and, I guess, has the ethanol industry
asked the same question of itself?
MR. DINNEEN. Certainly, it is an issue that we will work with the
Congress on, with our member companies or with our customers on, to
get to a day that we don't need to have government incentives. But in
the climate that we have seen in the past, government incentives to
encourage oil refiners to blend some carbohydrates as opposed to
hydrocarbons has been incredibly important.
MR. BURGESS. What about the relaxation of the Federal motor fuels
tax, is that still in place? The Federal excise tax on gasoline, is ethanol
still exempted from that?
MR. DINNEEN. It is the same; the way ethanol is incentivized is by
providing a tax incentive to oil companies for blended.
MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. You have done so good, I hated to stop you.
The Chairman recognizes Mrs. Cubin, gentlelady from Wyoming.
MR. GREEN. Mr. Chairman--
MR. HALL. The Chair reluctantly recognizes Mr. Green from Texas
for a third shot at this group.
MR. GREEN. No. Second shot. This is only my second time. I
think you will like what I am going to ask.
Let me follow up on Dr. Burgess. And I know there one time was
incentivized for using ethanol, but today since there is no MTBE in
competition, why do we need the subsidy for ethanol? I mean, the
refiners I know are all trying to figure out how they are going to get
ethanol, and since there is no competition--
MR. SLAUGHTER. Congressman, the incentive is going to be
incredibly important down the road to encourage additional investment
in this industry. If you are going to have cellulose ethanol production,
which I think everybody certainly wants to see, having economic
incentives for that is going to be necessary.
MR. GREEN. Okay. Let me--because I only have 5 minutes, and I
am lucky to have that, Mr. Chairman, I guess. The concern I have in the
Houston area, because we have used and benefited from reformulated
gas that has been MTBE, I assume it is being barged in from the
Midwest, not railcars.
MR. SLAUGHTER. I believe that is true for Houston, yes.
MR. GREEN. Those on the panel mention railcarring it or tankering it
up from Houston to Dallas, because we checked yesterday and we were
told that the maximum delivery of ethanol in Dallas is 23 cars a day.
And I assume it is Union Pacific, maybe Burlington, that serves those
areas--200 railcars, backed up waiting to unload ethanol in the
Dallas/Fort Worth market. I am just glad that we can barge it in because,
one, it is much cheaper, which gets to my next question.
There was some discussion about pipelining ethanol in Brazil, and,
you know, I have just taken it as a fact that you could not pipeline
ethanol, but someone did mention that ETBE is possible to pipeline
because of the properties that it has.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the panel knows, and I know as a
business major and a lawyer I don't have any idea about that, but I think
it would be great for the subcommittee or the full committee to see if that
is something we want to find out, maybe have another hearing with
experts from the chemical side and people from the pipeline companies,
see if that is a possibility, because we actually made 70 percent of the
MTBE in my district, and back in the energy bill we talked about, well,
we will have the option to do ETBE. And I want to see if that really is
an option, now that we are not quite a year away from when the
President signed the bill, that we would still have ethanol compound
contents, but it would also be something that could be blended again in a
chemical facility that at one time was able to do MTBE.
Let me ask Mr. Dinneen about the testimony yesterday from the
Energy Information Administration. Ethanol supplies are tight now, and
they singled out Texas, and we know Dallas/Fort Worth, because
Dr. Burgess represents Fort Worth and Denton. What about the Houston
market? Is there a problem in getting the barges in, or is there enough
product in the Midwest to be barged out the Mississippi and intercoastal
to us?
MR. DINNEEN. Absolutely, my understanding is we can't get much
more ethanol into Houston, and there are barges in the canal waiting to
be unloaded there as well. Houston has not been a difficult market for
any of us at all. As I noted in response to Dr. Burgess, some of the
ethanol for the Dallas/Fort Worth area is coming from Houston because
we have so much there.
MR. GREEN. Okay. Again, Mr. Chairman. I would like to maybe--
if you could teach the Members of Congress some science on the
possibility of pipelining either ethanol and seeing how they do it or,
looking at the properties of ETBE, if that would make it easier to
pipeline. Not that I want to take any business away from the railroads
and the trucks, because, don't worry, there will be plenty of trucks on my
Interstate 610 in Houston even if they don't haul ethanol.
MR. HALL. The gentleman yields back. Is it okay now if I recognize
the gentlelady from Wyoming?
MRS. CUBIN. Mr. Slaughter, in your testimony you mentioned a
number of fuels regulations coming into existence will serve to reduce
the necessity for boutique fuels. Can you provide any examples of any
of those boutique fuels?
MR. HALL. Excuse me just a moment. Would you let me interfere?
We have a gentleman at the table that needs to leave at this time, I am
told. And we give you the right to go. Mr. Reid is it?
MR. SCOTT. He has already left. I can enter to replace him,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. Well, you are a very good replacement. We will ask you
about convenience stores in a little bit. Yield back.
MR. DINNEEN. Yes. I think I got the question. If you look at the
EIA testimony and EPA's testimony from yesterday, a reason why
people have gone to the boutique fuels that exist now is that they were a
better fit for them than reformulated gasoline. They saved money.
They had a supply of them, and they were just more economical.
In the future, reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline is
going to look a lot more alike, because the sulfur level has gone from a
500 to 30 ppm and with considerable environmental benefits, and as well
there is going to be a limitation on benzene content. So they will look
much more alike.
So we think there will be a natural confluence where people are
going to an RFG that doesn't have a 2 percent requirement anymore.
The oxygen requirement was removed by the EPAct. That really is what
was driving people to other fuels. So that is going away. Conventional
fuel is much cleaner. So we think that just naturally will mean most
people will pick from one of those two. We can't prove it, but, it makes
sense because the 2 percent was just lifted, so there isn't an example
right now.
MRS. CUBIN. Okay. Good. Is it easier for a major integrated refiner
like ExxonMobil to adjust to Federal and State fuels requirements,
changes versus a small regional refiner like I would have at Wyoming?
And if so, why is that the case?
MR. DINNEEN. Well, one might argue ExxonMobil is larger, has
more investment capital, can make changes, but everybody basically
wants to do that in an economical way. People who are writing
regulations usually give special consideration to areas and types of
facilities that might have different problems. Under the gasoline sulfur
program and the diesel sulfur program, there was some special notice
taken of the needs of smaller refiners.
MRS. CUBIN. Right.
MR. DINNEEN. So I guess the short answer is yes, there, are special
difficulties that they have. I think regulators have tried to smooth it out
as much as they could.
MRS. CUBIN. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HALL. All right. Thank you.
This time we recognize Mr. Greg Scott and identify you as a
representative of the National Association of Convenience Stores and the
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America. Thank you for
joining the panel.
Chair recognizes Mr. Bass.
MR. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dinneen, I have never been a big fan of the ethanol subsidy, but
I was just wondering if you or anybody else has ever calculated the total
incentives in royalty discounts that have been offered to the oil producers
over the years and how that might compare with what is being offered in
the area of ethanol.
MR. DINNEEN. Well, certainly that has been calculated. There are
reports that I could submit for the record that I don't recall off the top of
my head, but obviously the oil industry has been highly incentivized over
the years and probably for all very good reasons.
MR. BASS. Would you be willing to supply my office and perhaps
the committee with a copy of the report that you think is the most
accurate in this respect?
MR. DINNEEN. Certainly.
MR. BASS. And if Mr. Cavaney wants to do the same thing, that
would be great. I would appreciate it.
MR. BASS. Mr. Dinneen, I believe there are 166,000 gas stations in
America, and probably--how many E-85 stations, 150, 160?
MR. DINNEEN. Six hundred fifty, most of them in Minnesota.
MR. BASS. Most of them in Minnesota. So how are we going to get
beyond that problem? Is it not more expensive to have vehicles work on
both versus just one, and what is going to happen with it, delivery issue?
MR. DINNEEN. We discussed earlier several things need to happen
for E-85 to become a more meaningful component of the U.S. motor
fuel. Clearly you need to have more vehicles; 5 million vehicles is just
not enough to attract the kind of investment you need at the gas stations
for refueling infrastructure. You need to have more pumps. A lot of that
is happening. You see a lot more investment today in the E-85 refueling
infrastructure.
MR. BASS. Is E-85 going to be any different in cost from gasoline?
Car works on both, why would you bother, especially if it is more
expensive?
MR. DINNEEN. In those areas where E-85 is widely used in
Minnesota, for example, E-85 typically sells at a 40-cent or 50-cent
discount to gasoline. Importantly, that is with the technology that is
being used today with flexible-fueled vehicles, which, quite frankly,
while very good, does not optimize those vehicles for the use of E-85.
General Motors has a new vehicle, a Saab 9-5, that is turbocharged, that
has no mileage deduction when E-85 is used, and I think as you move
down the road in the future, you are quite likely to see changes in
technology on the vehicle side that make all of this a more economic
option for consumers. The important thing is that they have that option,
that they have the flexibility. I was able to drive here today in an E-85
vehicle.
So you are going to see a lot more of that on the road, but, look, it is
going to take time, and the fact of the matter is the ethanol industry will
need to grow as a blend component in gasoline significantly, and you
need to have a heck of a lot more ethanol out there before E-85 can really
take off.
MR. BASS. Is the Renewable Fuels Association promoting ethanol
development and production from sources other than corn?
MR. DINNEEN. Absolutely. We are not the grain-based ethanol trade
association. We have member companies that are looking at cellulose
ethanol production today. One of my member companies is actually
building a cellulose and grain ethanol production facility in Spain with
the intention of bringing that technology to the United States very soon.
Another member company has a cellulose plant in Canada right now that
is looking to site a commercial facility here.
MR. BASS. Thank you.
Mr. Cavaney, are you aware of that bill that Senator Craig introduced
recently that would allow us to drill or to bid in the Cuban Basin for oil--
I think it is oil and gas. What effect would that have on U.S. energy
security if it were permitted?
MR. CAVENEY. Well, I think it looks at the broader issue of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico and the southern part of the tip of Florida. We
have demonstrated, we think, through the hurricane season last time
where we could have no production spills of any significance as a result
of two Category 5 hurricanes. That has been the principal concern
expressed by the State of Florida in keeping exploration and production
so far off shore.
We would like to be able to look at circumstances where we are now
disadvantaged by allowing national oil companies from China, from
Venezuela and elsewhere to get within 50 miles and be able to explore
and produce while the U.S. companies are being held off hundreds of
miles off of the coast. It just doesn't seem to be a fair and equitable
reason, so we would like to work with the Congress to try and see if we
can't allow more of that Eastern Gulf to be made available for bid.
MR. BASS. Good enough.
I have one other quick question. Mr. Chairman. What is the
turnover in gasoline inventory in the United States? I have been told that
17 days is a glut, and 10 days is a shortage. Is it that fast? Anybody
know?
While you are talking to each other, I will pontificate here. I
always
thought that gas stations, they filled up the tank, and they came every
other week or so. It turns out they come every other day. If you have a
17-day supply of gasoline nationally, you have a glut, and prices start to
fall. And if you have a 10- or 11-day supply, you start having shortages.
I want to know if you could correct that or tell me if it is accurate, if
anybody knows; and if not, submit the answer for the record.
MR. SCOTT. Mr. Bass, from a retailer's point of view, it all depends
on the volume of the retail outlet. A retail outlet might get a delivery of
gasoline, say, once every 7 days perhaps if they are a fairly low-volume
neighborhood store. A truckstop, on the other hand, may get five
deliveries a day of diesel fuel. So it really depends on the type of the
store.
I also believe you are referring to wholesale stocks, and those
gentlemen are better able to answer that question.
MR. CAVENEY. If you take total inventory and divide it by demand,
you are going to end up--historically would be about 22 days would be
the inventory turn.
MR. BASS. What would you consider to be a shortage, how many
days? Would it be 2 weeks?
MR. CAVENEY. Typically the Federal government, EIA, has listed
what they considered to be a sort of a benchmark of minimum inventory
before they start to worry, and that is 185, and that would be how many--
185. And what do we do today? About 200 plus. As we have said in
my testimony, we have ample --
MR. BASS. What does 200 plus mean?
MR. CAVENEY. Two hundred million barrels plus in inventory right
now.
MR. BASS. Twenty days is the average inventory time in the United
States.
MR. CAVENEY. Twenty-two.
MR. BASS. Twenty-two days. But what is the flexibility? I am
sorry, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. [Presiding.] We have so many other Members
that need to ask questions.
MR. BASS. If you would be good enough to drop me a note and tell
me that information.
MR. CAVENEY. We will give you some historical data as well.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized
for 5 minutes.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Wonderful. You know us women, we are
always talking.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Take your time. I have plenty of questions. If
you want me to go while you get ready.
MRS. BLACKBURN. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. I am ready, and I thank
our committee Chairman for working this, and for our panelists for
allowing us to jump in and out of this.
Mr. Cavaney, I want to come to you. With my first round of
testimony, I had talked with Mr. Reid and Mr. Slaughter about some of
the diesel requirements, but I wanted to come to you, Mr. Cavaney,
because of the group that you head. And, of course, I understand why
we have the prices at the pump where they are. You know, we have
talked about refinery capacity, we have talked about supply and demand,
but there is an incredible amount of frustration that is out there.
And I did a radio show this morning in my district in Tennessee, and
one of the first things that came up was the retirement package from
ExxonMobil, and this is something that gets people really angry. And I
mentioned to the folks that were listening to the radio show today that we
were going to have another hearing today, and that you all had consented
to come in and to talk with us on this.
So I went to your Website, and for your trade association--and for
the record, it is the American Petroleum Institute--and I looked on your
Website where it says "About Us," and it says, and I am quoting from
your Website, "Our association draws on the experience and expertise of
our members and staff to support a strong and viable oil and natural gas
industry."
And you also mentioned in your testimony today that the oil and
natural gas industry understands the frustrations of consumers. And I
just would like for you to explain for the record how in the world giving
a $400 million retirement package during a time where we have tight
supply lines, where we have high prices at the pump, where we have
high market pricing on a barrel of crude, where we have lots of questions
that are being asked by consumers, how in the world does giving that
kind of retirement package in this environment support a strong and
viable oil and natural gas industry?
MR. CAVENEY. First of all, the area being discussed here, which is
compensation, incentives, retirements, and so forth, is an area not within
the jurisdiction of the trade association, so we do not deal in those
specifics, so I have no basis. Typically though, as a matter of practice,
public companies are held by shareholders who elect a board, and it is
board and management who work out each individual company's
specific pathway. And so I am just not in a position to pass judgment.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Well, I understand that, and we talked about that
on the radio this morning, that it is the shareholders that are responsible
for raising these questions, and I certainly hope that they do when you all
have a shareholders meeting and this has the opportunity to be discussed
with your shareholders. But I would just commend to you that that type
action during this type environment seems to show very little
understanding of what the consumers are thinking, which is supposed to
be one of the missions, one of the things that you all are about. So I just-
-as a point of reflection and as a point where I commiserate with my
constituents, that is something that is very difficult.
Mr. Slaughter, I wanted to come back to you. Going back, and as we
have looked at the utilization, the refinery utilization, and where we are
on those levels, we know we have got some pressures with the boutique
fuels, with the diesel fuel that we discussed earlier, and we thank
everyone for the work they are doing on those. But if we are running at a
98 percent capacity this summer, and we know at this point in time most
of our refineries are in the Gulf, and what we are beginning to hear is it is
going to probably be a very difficult weather season once again and
could be for a few years to come. So going back to what we were
discussing earlier with pricing, and looking at a price spike for diesel, if
we have another hurricane, a Category 3 or Category 4 in August, and
that knocks out, again, as it did last year, a large part of our refinery
capacity, I think 25 percent of our refinery capacity was down for most
of the month of September, then what kind of increase do you think that
we are looking at for gasoline?
MR. SLAUGHTER. Mrs. Blackburn, one of the things I never do is
predict prices. I will just say that last year, of course, after Katrina hit
and the situation that you are talking about unfolded, prices for gasoline
went above, slightly above, $3. Those prices sufficed to bring in a record
amount of imported gasoline into the country, as well as it encouraging
other refiners that had any additional capacity at that time to run full out
to try to make up for the gasoline that was not being produced in the
affected refineries.
The only answer I can give to you, it would depend, and we hope
that doesn't happen again, on the size of the outage, on the location of
the refineries, but that the free market and market pricing will be the best
way to get the product to consumers in that area.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Let me ask you something, and I
understand and appreciate your answer. If we talked a little bit about the
New Source Review and, of course, our original version of the GAS Act,
what we would have liked to have done there, if we could go in and
streamline the permitting process and--as the House had passed last year,
and if there is a commitment from the industry to build refineries outside
the Gulf Coast, do you think that we will actually see refineries in other
areas of the country, you all?
And through our hearings we have heard expansion is the better way
to do this. It costs less, more cost-effective, they can get it stood up more
quickly; but then on the other hand, one of the things that frustrates our
constituents is they turn around and they hear, well, with everything
down in the coastal area, we are looking at the same problem. So if the
permitting is streamlined, and if some of the regulatory burden is
streamlined, then do you think that it is feasible that people will actually
look at other parts of the country for refineries?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. This will have to be the gentlelady's last
question.
MR. SLAUGHTER. I suspect that would be very helpful. It would
have to improve the economics. Right now someone looking to build a
new refinery is looking at 10 years or more of delay. So it would have to
be helpful.
I would also say some of the capacity improvements we are making
are being made in refinement centers that are outside of the Gulf. So
some of this additional capacity will come on in areas other than the
Gulf.
MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And Mr. Becker wanted to respond to your
question, too.
MR. BECKER. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
Mrs. Blackburn, thank you for asking that question because I would
have liked to have responded when you asked it the first time.
One of the reasons that our associations representing State and local
air pollution control agencies opposed last year's bill was because of the
New Source Review provisions. We support the New Source Review.
This bill would have codified into law a proposal by EPA that the courts
have rejected, and I am going to give you an example of what it would
do.
To build a new refinery today would cost in excess of $1 billion.
The EPA's rule would allow up to 20 percent of the capital cost of that to
be spent for capital expenditures, and not misstating how much
additional air pollution would go into the region, the source would not be
required to meet the New Source Review requirements.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. That is not true. That is not true. It is required
to expand up to 20 percent so long as the emission didn't exceed the old
emission cap. That is true. That is true.
MR. BECKER. Where States have a State emissions cap, that is true,
but many areas do not have an emissions cap.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I was one of the authors of that section. We
very carefully crafted it so that total emissions did not increase. If they
tried to increase above what they already were emitting, they would have
to go through the permitting process. But as long as they were
expanding an existing facility, and they didn't increase emissions, they
were constant or declined, they could do it. That is what it said. I don't
want to get in a fight with you, but that is what it said.
MR. BECKER. I am not viewing this as a fight, Mr. Chairman. If a
source makes capital expenditures without your bill or without EPA's
rules and doesn't increase its emissions, then it, by law--by law you
adopted in 1977--the source is not required to comply with the New
Source Review. New Source Review is not triggered unless there is a
substantial increase in emissions.
What EPA's rule does, and what the bill codified, is a program that
was rejected by the courts because emissions were allowed to increase
without triggering the New Source Review. I am happy to provide more
information for the record so we don't--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. We can hold a hearing under Ralph just on
New Source Review. I mean, that subject is worthy of a full-day hearing
itself.
MR. BECKER. And I would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not being argumentive with you. I was
very involved in that bill and that particular section, and we do not, under
my stewardship of this committee, want to do anything that allows
anybody in this country to increase their emissions above the current
baseline. We are trying to be environmentally friendly. We don't get
much credit from the environmental groups, but we have not done
anything to allow industry to willy-nilly increase pollution and
emissions. I am not going to do that during my chairmanship. Not going
to happen.
MR. BECKER. That is good to hear. And if I may, just along those
lines, I think you made a very nice gesture to my colleagues in the
refining industry to bring them in on discussions with regard to refinery
revitalization. And I would respectfully ask that, to the extent that you
are trying to make improvements in the air pollution permitting
provisions of that bill, that you also consider inviting State and local air
pollution officials into those discussions, because we will all learn
together what the industry needs and maybe what they don't need.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I am willing to do that if on the
condition that the participants engage in a positive dialogue with the
understanding that everybody wants the product to be the possibility of
actually building or expanding new refineries or existing refinery
capacity in this country. I am not interested in a dialogue where one
party is in there simply to sabotage, sandbag, prevent a positive outcome.
But if your group wants to help us figure a way to do that, I would
welcome you.
MR. BECKER. Well, I appreciate that. We are a group of State and
local governmental officials. We never sabotage processes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not saying you do. I have been in
negotiations where one party, the outcome that they wanted was nothing,
they wanted to stop it. I would love to have the environmental groups
participate in a positive way. That would be a refreshing change. I
would just absolutely endorse that.
MR. BECKER. And just to make clear, we are not an environmental
group. We are a group of State and local governmental officials, and we
do--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. And maybe I should say this. My sister is an
enforcement attorney for EPA in Dallas, so I know very clearly what
group you personally represent.
MR. BECKER. I think what would be instructive is for the industry to
challenge the premise that we bring into this debate that New Source
Review and air pollution regulations have not interfered with the
permitting of new facilities or delayed them.
In fact, I had a discussion before the hearing with Mr. Cavaney that
what is most important to industry--we know, and I think they will
admit--is certainty and the ability to plan. The stringency of regulation is
subordinated by certainty and the ability to plan.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Let me stop the clock. I want to ask a few
wrap-up questions. Do you have one final question before I turn it over
to myself?
MRS. BLACKBURN. No, Mr. Chairman. I will just say--again, say
thank you to you for your leniency on the time, and thank you to our
panelists for being here and working with us on this. And we do want to
find an answer to some of the questions, and we appreciate the dialogue.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am going to recognize myself for the final
question. We have a hearing on Social Security numbers in the
Consumer Trade Protection Subcommittee that was supposed to start 20
minutes ago. So you will be happy to know this will be the final
question.
I want to start with you, Mr. Becker. We have really kind of skated
around the issue of MTBE. Would there be any interest by local and
State air control pollution officials to find a way to bring MTBE or
ETBE back for a period of time while we have all these gasoline supply
problems? Because you were pretty adamant that ethanol, by itself,
might not solve some of the air quality problems that we face. So would
you think the group that you represent would be supportive of an effort
to resuscitate the MTBE industry for some period of time until we get
ethanol distribution up and running and some of those issues settled?
MR. BECKER. Let me answer a couple ways. We are totally fuel
neutral. We don't mind ethanol so long as it meets performance
standards on a national basis.
With respect to MTBE, we don't have a position on MTBE. I know
individual States do, and some of those individual States may object.
Our national association doesn't have a specific favorite fuel.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, there's no question MTBE not being in
the fuel chain is causing price problems, and in some parts of the
country, including the part I represent, supply availability, period. I am
under no illusions that the MTBE industry is going to become a
permanent part of the process, and I am not even sure it would be
technically possible to do, but if the MTBE refiners haven't changed
their systems in the short term it would definitely help the supply and the
price to have MTBE available for this summer and perhaps through next
summer. I am just asking if the air control people would be interested in
being supportive of that. If you want to say no, say no. You seem to
indicate you didn't think ethanol was going to be able to handle the air
quality issue at least in the short term because they don't have enough
capacity.
MR. BECKER. I don't think I said that. I think somebody else said
that. But I think there is nothing that--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. No. I may misrepresent what you said, but
you are the only one that raised it earlier in the hearing.
MR. BECKER. Well, I think I raised the issue about whether or not
ethanol used in conventional fuels enjoyed increased flexibility, a one
pound waiver to the volatility limits that will allow air pollution to
increase. That is as far as I went on ethanol other than to say we are
pretty fuel-neutral. With regard to MTBE, I don't know anything that
Congress has done that precludes MTBE being used now other than--
CHAIRMAN BARTON. It is what we didn't do. Had we given a
limited liability waiver for product liability--safe harbor simply is a
defective product--the pipelines wouldn't have chosen to stop
transporting it, and the refiners in the area where it is available would
have continued to use it because there is no ban against it at the Federal
level. It is a State ban, and that is fine. But when they didn't get the
liability protection, primarily some of the pipelines decided they didn't
want to continue to transport it because they might be subject to some
sort of a liability lawsuit, and they just said, we are not interested, and if
you can't transport it through the market, then that is that. No, but there
is no Federal ban on it.
MR. BECKER. And others have weighed in on that issue. We
haven't.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. I want everybody to answer this
question. We will start with you, Mr. Conley. Would you support a
suspension of the ethanol tariff for a defined period of time, no longer
than 2 years, yes or no?
MR. CONLEY. We really don't have a position. We will haul
whatever everybody gives us to haul. So we just don't have a dog in
that.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. If you don't say yes, I am going to assume you
are a no.
MR. CONLEY. Then you are saying no.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Shea.
MR. SHEA. I would be in the same boat. I guess I would say no.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Reid.
Mr. Reid. Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Becker.
MR. BECKER. No position.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Then you are a no.
Mr. Slaughter.
MR. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I know you are a no.
MR. DINNEEN. Can I just get it on the record? No.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Caveney.
MR. CAVENEY. No.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. You would say no? Why would you say no?
That is a surprise.
MR. CAVENEY. I mentioned earlier, if you look at the CBI,
Caribbean Basin Initiative, in other venues where ethanol can be brought
into the United States, that is not necessarily even full up. It is only
about half utilized, which would indicate that we don't have a problem of
getting that stuff in here without having to pay any tariff. So that is the
basis for ours.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. The Caribbean Basin Initiative hadn't used
their quota?
MR. CAVENEY. Correct. There is quite a bit of room left in that.
That comes in without the tariff.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I guess I have a number of other questions, but
we will ask them for the record. Thank you to each of you gentlemen.
MR. HALL. Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Hall.
MR. HALL. Could I maybe have 30 minutes to summarize? I yield
back my time.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, this is an important hearing. Every poll
I have seen show gasoline prices are one of the top three issues that the
constituency of this country is worried about, and some of those polls it
is the number one issue.
MR. HALL. Great issue.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am a little surprised we didn't have more
Members here today, because when they go home, this is the question
they have got to answer.
Anyway, thank you to each of you. We are going to adjourn this
hearing and in approximately 15 minutes, reconvene at the subcommittee
level to have a hearing on the Social Security numbers.
[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY S. WILLIAM BECKER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, STATE AND TERRITORIAL AIR POLLUTION PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATORS/ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
OFFICIALS
Response of the
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
to Questions Posed on May 26, 2006
by Congressman John D. Dingell
Ranking Member,
U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce
Regarding the New Source Review Permitting Process
and Boutique Fuels Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
June 14, 2006
Question 1: Section 106 of the Gasoline for America's Security Act of
2005, as introduced in the House, amended the New Source Review
provisions of the Clean Air Act. You testified in the hearing that this
provision, if enacted, would allow sources to increase emissions
significantly without going through the New Source Review permitting
process. Please explain why you believe this to be the case.
Response: Section 106 states that the term `modification' as used in both
the New Source Review (NSR) program and the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) program should be consistent. Section
106 would codify the NSPS definition of modification and apply the
NSPS definition of modification in 40 C.F.R. 60.14(h) to all industrial
sources. Finally, section 106 codifies the EPA's previously issued
Equipment Replacement Provision rule.
1. Codification of the NSPS Definition of Modification As defined in
the Clean Air Act, a modification is "any physical change in, or change
in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which increases
the amount of any air pollutant not previously emitted" (Section
111(a)(4)). In promulgating regulations for the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment NSR programs, EPA defined
"significant" increases in emissions in terms of tons per year emitted by a
major source. Under the NSPS definition, however, NSR is triggered
only in the extremely rare event that a modification results in an
increase in the capacity, or maximum achievable hourly rate of
emissions, of an emissions unit (40 C.F.R. 60.14(h)). Thus, codification
of the NSPS "hourly" test would allow the reconstruction of process
units and boilers across the nation without NSR, allowing all sources to
make major changes to their operations and operate their equipment
longer hours-thereby increasing their emissions thousands of tons per
year-without pollution controls or analysis of the impacts on air quality.
By way of contrast, when a facility currently plans a modification of its
equipment at a given process unit, it makes a projection of the increased
emissions following the change. Normally, sources making
modifications increase their hours of operation afterward to benefit from
the resulting increased efficiency of the upgraded unit-and
correspondingly increase their emissions. Sources planning to increase
their emissions potentially more than de minimis amounts (for example,
40 tons per year for SOx and NOx) currently trigger NSR requirements to
install pollution control equipment. In enacting NSR provisions,
Congress refused to "grandfather" dirty plants indefinitely. Codification
of the "hourly" test, however, would have the effect of allowing sources
to increase their emissions significantly, as frequently as they desired,
and for an indefinite time period.
2. Codification of the Equipment Replacement Rule The Equipment
Replacement Rule (ERP) was vacated in its entirety by the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals on March 17, 2006. The Court's opinion in State of
New York, et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency was based in part
on the fact that the rule allows sources to significantly increase their
emissions without triggering NSR requirements. Specifically, the Court
stated, "...Congress defined "modification" in terms of emission
increases, but the ERP would allow equipment replacements resulting in
non-de minimis emission increases to avoid NSR." In fact, equipment
replacements valued at 20 per cent or less than the value of the total
process unit were exempted by the ERP from NSR under the "routine
maintenance" exception-even though actual emissions would increase
beyond de minimis levels.
In order to understand how emissions could increase significantly if the
now-illegal ERP were enacted into law by Congress, it is crucial to
distinguish between allowable and actual levels of emissions: The
allowable, or permitted levels of emissions for major sources are
generally expressed in a permit in terms of the operating capacity of a
unit based on 24 hours per day, 7 days per week operation. The fact that
the ERP requires facilities to remain under their permitted levels of
emissions has little significance because sources can vastly increase their
actual emissions without approaching their permitted, allowable levels.
Thus, the ERP provides no protection from increases in actual emissions.
Modifications made by the Ohio Edison utility provide an example. The
enforcement case brought against the company's coal-burning power
plants resulted in the utility being held liable for making 11
modifications of process equipment without complying with NSR
requirements. Ohio Edison subsequently entered into a settlement with
EPA that will result in reductions of 212,500 tons per year of harmful
emissions. However, all except one of the 11 projects would have been
exempt from NSR requirements under the 20 per cent cost level of the
ERP. Thus, the significant increases in actual emissions caused by the
utility's modifications would have been completely legal under the ERP.
Question 2: Please explain whether, under the current New Source
Review clean air permitting program, sources can modify their facilities
without going through the major New Source Review permitting process.
Response: Under the current NSR permitting program, sources making
modifications that result in increased emissions beyond de minimis levels
must apply for NSR permits, install pollution control equipment (either
best available control technology in PSD areas, or lowest achievable
control technology in nonattainment areas), and, in attainment areas,
must analyze the air quality impacts of their projects in order not to
violate the clean air increments. One exception to the NSR requirement
exists for facilities whose changes are considered "routine maintenance,"
which has been evaluated historically by assessing four factors: the
nature and extent of the change; the purpose of the change; its cost (i.e.,
whether it involves capital expenditures); and the frequency of the
change. However, facilities making modifications that are located in
states within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals are not currently
subject to NSR unless their hourly rate of emissions increases after the
change-which would be an extremely unusual occurrence. The question
of which test was intended by Congress to measure increases in
emissions resulting from a modification-annual actual or hourly-is
now before the United States Supreme Court in the Duke Energy case.
Question 3: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of
provisions addressing potential issues related to boutique fuels.
a. Do you believe that this Congress needs to pass additional
legislation further limiting the number of boutique fuels adopted
by states to address air quality issues. If yes, please explain what
legislative changes you support and why. If no, please explain
why.
Response: STAPPA and ALAPCO oppose additional legislation further
limiting the number of boutique fuels adopted by states to address air
quality issues. We are concerned by assertions that there has been a
"proliferation" of state clean air fuel programs and that these programs
are responsible for fuel price increases and could potentially compound
fuel supply disruptions should they occur. State clean air fuel programs
have been wrongly targeted as the cause, and further curtailment of state
and local authorities to pursue such programs - beyond the limitations
already placed by the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct) - could unnecessarily jeopardize public health and clean air.
If Congress is interested in taking legislative action with respect to state
clean air fuel programs, rather than limit the number of fuels, it should
expand states' authorities by allowing increased flexibility to adopt clean
air fuel programs that will meet public health needs in the future.
STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that Congress consider 1)
expanding the list of clean air fuels available under EPAct to include
California Clean Burning Gasoline, 2) allowing all areas of the country -
attainment and nonattainment - to opt into the federal Reformulated
Gasoline program and 3) facilitating the ability of states and localities to
adopt cleaner regional fuels, including allowing attainment areas to
participate in such regional programs.
b. If this Congress decides to enact legislation imposing further
limitations on State fuel programs, do you believe that such
legislation should address only State fuel programs adopted for
air quality reasons? Or should it also address State fuel
programs adopted for local economic or other reasons. Please
explain why.
Response: STAPPA and ALAPCO oppose any legislation that would
impose any further limitations on state and local authorities to control air
pollution, including state clean air fuel programs; we also oppose
limitations on fuel programs adopted for local economic or other reasons.
If, however, Congress is intent on responding to generic fuel supply and
distribution concerns by enacting legislation to impose further
restrictions on state and local fuel programs, we do not believe there is
any justification for limiting such action only to state clean air fuel
programs and not also to other specialty fuel programs.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY RED CAVANEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
June 16, 2006
The Honorable John D. Dingell
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2215
Dear Mr. Dingell:
I appreciated the opportunity to testify before the May 11, 2006 House
Energy and Commerce Committee hearing entitled "Gasoline: Supply,
Price, and Specifications".
Attached are my responses to your additional questions. As always,
please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if you are
in need of additional information.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Chairman Barton
Attachment
Red Cavaney, API Response to Congressman Dingell
1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of provisions
addressing potential issues related to boutique fuels.
a) Do you believe that this Congress needs to pass additional
legislation further limiting the number of boutique fuels
adopted by States to address air quality issues? If yes, please
explain what legislative changes you support and why? If no,
please explain why?
Response
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) included a provision
setting some restrictions on EPA for approval of states' fuels intended
for reducing air pollution. In addition, Congress required that EPA and
the DOE complete two studies regarding boutique fuels (one this year
and one in 2008). We look forward to the results of this study and its
recommendation regarding how the number of boutique fuels may be
reduced while balancing environmental needs and supply capability. In
particular, we need such a careful study to weigh the impact of increased
fuel fungibility from a reduced number of fuels with the reduction in
production capability that will occur if the overall fuel specifications are
made more stringent in the process of insuring continued environmental
performance.
b) If this Congress decides to enact legislation imposing further
limitations on State fuels programs, do you believe that such
legislation should address only State fuel programs adopted for
local economic or other reasons? Please explain why?
Response
The bigger challenge now facing us is the recent proliferation of bio-
fuel boutiques that are just as disruptive to supply but lack a basis in
improving air quality. We feel strongly that the addition of provisions
restricting state bio-fuel mandates would substantially strengthen what
has been proposed. More state bio-fuel mandates could undo or offset
much of the benefit your legislation as well as EPACT05 promises to
provide.
Also, the legislation should be strengthened to further limit diesel
boutiques (except for the existing Texas program) by preempting all state
diesel programs, including those that address non-road fuels.
At a minimum, we strongly recommend that this legislation amend
EPACT05 to require study of the supply and distribution impacts of state
bio-fuels mandates. Also, EPA should be required to review potential
supply impacts of any fuel under consideration for approval. Simply
reducing the number of fuels is not sufficient especially if it means
moving to more stringent formulations that reduce producibility which,
in turn, could also have adverse supply impacts.
2. Please describe the potential impacts, if any, of State ethanol or
biodiesel mandates on the potential to affect gasoline supply,
fungibility, and price spikes. Please describe the ways in which
these potential impacts are similar to, and different from, the
potential impacts of State fuel programs adopted for air quality
reasons.
Response
The federal Renewable Fuel Standard will ensure continued growth
in renewables, especially ethanol. Unlike potential state mandates, the
RFS builds in flexibility. Its credit banking and trading component,
when established through regulations by EPA, should allow refiners to
use renewables where they are most efficient. This is critical for the
reliable supply of fuels.
State mandates undermine that flexibility and create obstacles to the
achievement of Congress' goals. Individual states should not be
permitted to force the use of ethanol or biodiesel by devising and
mandating their own gasoline/ethanol and/or diesel/biodiesel blends. The
last thing our nation needs now is an expansion of the boutique fuels
patchwork of state-by-state laws mandating ethanol and/or biodiesel use
at different concentrations and/or under different terms.
Here are examples of the kind of problems that state bio-fuels
mandates could create:
- A per gallon mandate requires that E10 be available at all
times. Thus, a shortage of ethanol for any reason means that
gasoline could not be sold.
- If the governor has chosen to eliminate the 1 pound waiver
or if the state has a low rvp fuel requirement, refiners may
need to produce a low RVP blendstock (BOB) for
conventional gasoline.
- For areas requiring RFG, refiners would be required to
produce a lower RVP blend of RFG, i.e. a reformulated
BOB, for blending with ethanol. While most are choosing to
do this now, it is possible that in the future some will choose
to produce RFG with no oxygenates. This would not be
possible in a mandate state.
Integrating ethanol and other biofuels into the gasoline marketplace
is too important - and presents too many challenges - to be approached
in an individual, state-by-state manner. In order to meet consumer fuel
needs, we want to produce more, refine more, and distribute more - but
state bio-fuel mandates would make this difficult. For example, ethanol
cannot be moved by common carrier pipeline, unlike more than 70
percent of U.S. fuel production, and requires a long supply chain to serve
consumers. That means a longer reaction time when problems occur.
State ethanol mandates would significantly add to that reaction time.
3. In section 1541 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress gave the
EPA authority to issue waivers of state boutique fuel requirements in
case of extreme and unusual circumstances. Last fall, EPA used this
authority to address extreme and unusual circumstances related to
Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Please comment on whether, from your
perspective, this authority was helpful in addressing potential
hurricane-related supply disruptions.
Response
The Section 1541 fuels waivers issued by EPA were critically
important in enabling industry to respond to the devastation of Hurricane
Katrina and Rita. However, because of the extensive nature of the
damage done by these hurricanes to U.S. refining capacity, the 20-day
limitation in Section 1541 was problematic as it created uncertainty for
making supply and distribution decisions. In fact, some waivers had to
be reissued three times.
Another problem was when there was a need for not only an EPA
waiver but also State waivers of environmental and product quality
regulations. What usually occurred was that EPA acted quickly to waive
certain federal fuel requirements to increase fuel supplies but the needed
state responses were not prompt. This resulted in unnecessary delays in
increasing fuel supplies. To remedy this, during events of national
significance or extreme supply emergencies, EPA should have authority
to waive both federal and state environmental and product quality
(situations where state adopts its own product quality regulations and
situations where states adopt ASTM specifications) fuel requirements.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY BOB SLAUGHTER, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION
June 16, 2006
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Committee on Energy & Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Barton:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Energy
and Commerce at the May 11, 2006 hearing entitled, "Gasoline: Supply,
Price, and Specifications." I appreciate the continuing interest that you
and your colleagues give to the nation's transportation fuel supplies. As
you know, NPRA, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association,
members includes more than 450 companies, including virtually all U.S.
refiners and petrochemical manufacturers.
NPRA has prepared responses to questions for inclusion in the official
hearing record. Please find NPRA's responses attached to this letter.
Again, I thank you for your interest in the critical issue of supplying the
nation with the refined products that it needs. NPRA appreciates your
close and cautious consideration of issues affecting the refining industry.
Sincerely,
Bob Slaughter
Attached: Responses to Ranking Member John Dingell's Questions for
the Record
Responses to Ranking Member John Dingell's Questions for the
Record
1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of provisions
addressing potential issues related to boutique fuels.
a. Do you believe that this Congress needs to pass
additional legislation further limiting the number of
boutique fuels adopted by States to address air quality
issues? If yes, please explain what legislative changes
you support and why. If no, please explain why.
NPRA believes that the Committee draft is a reasonable and
modest approach to the boutique fuels issue, representing the
absolute limit that policymakers should consider this year. We do
suggest that it would be wise to add four additional items: 1) to
include in the definition of boutique fuels all state ethanol and
biodiesel mandates, as well as CARB fuel; 2) to require EPA to make
a finding on the impact of state biodiesel mandates and CARB fuel
on fuel supply fungibility and air quality; 3) to require a study of the
impact of a 1-3 fuel national fuel slate on concentration and
competition in the U.S. refining industry; and 4) to determine the
impact of this bill on the average consumer costs for gasoline,
compared to the current system.
b. If this Congress decides to enact legislation imposing
further limitations on State fuel programs, do you
believe that such legislation should address only State
fuel programs adopted for air quality reasons? Or
should it address State fuel programs adopted for local
economic or other reasons? Please explain why.
See recommended additional items 1 and 2 above.
2. Please describe the potential impacts, if any, of State ethanol or
biodiesel mandates on the potential to affect gasoline supply,
fungibility, and price spikes. Please describe the ways in which
these potential impacts are similar to, and different from, the
potential impacts of State fuel programs adopted for air quality
reasons.
The Committee draft attempts to control the total number of
boutique fuels as defined in section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act
in an effort to minimize fuel marketplace volatility and maintain air
quality gains. However, while the draft legislation focuses on the
purely legal definition of boutique fuels, it expressly allows the
proliferation of state mandated fuels using renewable additives such
as ethanol and biodiesel.
The federal preemption provisions in the Clean Air Act preserve
a rational motor fuel supply because states are precluded from
unilateral adoption of unique specifications unless EPA grants a
waiver. EPA explains the merits of federal preemption in the
preamble for the federal RFG and anti-dumping final rules, which
includes the following statements:
"The regulations proposed here will affect virtually all of the
gasoline in the United States. As opposed to commodities that are
produced and sold in the same area of the country, gasoline produced
in one area is often distributed to other areas. The national scope of
gasoline production and distribution suggests that federal rules should
preempt State action to avoid an inefficient patchwork of potentially
conflicting regulations."
Because the draft legislation intends to improve fuel fungibility
and alleviate adverse air quality impacts, it should also cover other
fuels, such as state ethanol and biodiesel mandates-whether or not
these fuels fall under the requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C) of the
Clean Air Act. At the very least this legislation should require EPA
to make findings regarding the impact of these mandated fuels upon
fuel supply and fungibility and air quality.
3. In Section 1541 of the Energy Policy Act, Congress gave the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to issue
waivers of State boutique fuel requirements in case of extreme
and unusual fuel and fuel additive supply circumstances. Last
fall, EPA used this authority to address extreme and unusual
circumstances related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Please
comment on whether, from your perspective, this authority was
helpful in addressing potential hurricane-related supply
disruptions.
NPRA commends the federal government for acting quickly and
decisively in the face of supply outages. Several steps taken in the
days and weeks following these storms helped refiners provide
consumers with the products they need. EPA provided temporary
fuel waivers that made it easier to supply fuels to affected areas. The
waivers pertained to both gasoline and diesel specifications. NPRA
appreciates the efforts of EPA and commends the agency for its
diligence in gathering the necessary information to protect both fuel
supply and environmental concerns.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY PAUL D. REID, PRESIDENT, REID
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONVENIENCE STORES AND SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE
MARKETERS OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES
1600 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF
AMERICA
11495 Sunset Hills Road
Reston, VA 22090
June 16, 2006
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Responses to Written Questions Submitted in Connection with
the May 11, 2006 Committee Hearing on "Gasoline: Supply, Price,
and Specifications"
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter responds to your letter of May 26, 2006 posing written
questions to me that were submitted by members of the Committee in
connection with the May 11, 2006 Committee hearing on "Gasoline:
Supply, Price, and Specifications." My answers to these questions, on
behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores ("NACS") and
the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America ("SIGMA"),
are attached.
NACS and SIGMA are pleased to submit these answers to the
Committee. If the Committee has additional questions, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Signed
Paul D. Reid
President
Reid Petroleum Corporation
On behalf of
NACS and SIGMA
Attachment
cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell
Responses to Questions from the Honorable John D Dingell
Question 1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of
provisions addressing potential issues related to boutique fuels.
(a) Do you believe that this Congress needs to pass additional
legislation further limiting the number of boutique fuels adopted by
States to address air quality issues? If yes, please explain the
legislative changes you support and why. If no, please explain why.
Ms. Sonja Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer of E-Z Mart Stores,
Inc., provided the following testimony to the Committee at its June
7, 2006 hearing on boutique fuels. This testimony speaks to this
question directly:
"NACS and SIGMA have for many years warned Congress
about the fragmentation of the fuels markets which has resulted
from various jurisdictions requiring their own boutique fuel
blends. Nevertheless, it is our straightforward message to this
Committee today that we are more concerned than reassured by
the prospect of new fuels legislation this year. Our industry,
and the entire motor fuels manufacturing and distribution
industries, are still working very hard to implement the
significant changes in the motor fuels markets that have been
the result of the legislative mandates contained in the Energy
Policy Act of 2006 (EPAct). Over the next six months, we also
face significant challenges with the introduction of ultra low
sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). . . .
We welcome the Committee's focus on the continued
proliferation of boutique fuels and believe that there should be a
healthy debate on any additional measures that may need to be
undertaken to build on the boutique fuels restrictions in EPAct
. . . .
However, we urge the Committee to be very careful when
considering additional legislation on boutique fuels in light of
the impact such legislation could have on an already volatile
gasoline and diesel fuel market."
Ms. Hubbard's testimony continues by recommending that, if the
Committee does consider new boutique fuels legislation in 2006, it
adhere to the following limitations: (1) avoid the adoption of a fuel
slate until the joint Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Energy ("DOE") report on the effects of such a slate
is received by Congress in August 2006; (2) adopt a mechanism to
gradually reduce the number of boutique fuels (a so-called
"ratchet"); and, (3) condition the implementation of state alternative
fuel mandates on findings by DOE and the Department of
Transportation that sufficient alternative fuel supplies and
infrastructure exist to support such a state mandate.
(b) If this Congress decides to enact legislation imposing further
limitations on State fuel programs, do you believe that such
legislation should address only State fuel programs adopted for air
quality reasons? Or should it also address State fuel programs
adopted for local economic or other reasons? Please explain why.
As noted in the answer to Question 1(a) above, NACS and SIGMA
support congressional action on state alternative fuel mandates.
Drawing again from Ms. Hubbard's June 7th testimony before the
Committee:
"If state biofuels mandates continue to proliferate, the
current situation will only grow worse. Our industry will be
required to move ethanol from one market to another, based not
on market forces but rather on artificial demand created through
state mandates. Even worse, our industry will be prohibited
from supplying markets in need, like those reformulated
gasoline markets transitioning away from MTBE, because
supplies will be held hostage by individual states. Clearly, these
state mandates interfere with the efficient flow of interstate
commerce of a very important commodity. We urge you to
stand by the national renewable fuel standard adopted in EPAct
and condition the implementation of any state mandate upon
findings by the relevant federal authorities that adequate
supplies and logistics exist to support the demands created by
these state mandates."
Question #2. Please describe the potential impacts, if any, of State
ethanol or biodiesel mandates on the potential to affect gasoline supply,
fungibility, and price spikes. Please describe the ways in which these
potential impacts are similar to, and different from, the potential impacts
of State fuel programs for air quality reasons.
NACS' and SIGMA's answer to Question 1(b) responds to the first
part of this question. With respect to the second part of the question,
we posit that state alternative fuel mandates have much the same
effect on supply, volatility and price spikes as state boutique fuels
adopted for air quality purposes. Either boutique fuel -- an
alternative boutique fuel or a boutique fuel adopted for air quality
purposes -- creates an island of unique fuel specifications that is both
difficult to resupply in the event of supply shortages and acts as an
artificial and arbitrary barrier to the smooth movement of fuels and
fuel additives based on market forces. State biofuels mandates have
the added potential effect of inhibiting the smooth implementation of
the Renewable Fuel Standard established by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. That program envisioned a flexible system that would
enable the petroleum industry to comply with the requirements in
the most efficient manner possible. State biofuel mandates eliminate
that flexibility.
It also is important to note that this week ethanol is selling at
world
record levels in spot trading -- over $5.00 per gallon, or over $200
per barrel. Because ethanol is a commodity, these prices reflect the
same pressures on the domestic ethanol market that high prices
reflect on other commodities markets -- namely, high demand and
questionable supply. In the context of an examination of state
ethanol mandates, these historically high prices reflect both the
questionable public policy of such mandates and the constraints that
such mandates place on the movement of ethanol from one market to
another based on actual demand, rather than artificial governmental
mandates. Ethanol currently being used to meet state ethanol
mandates could have a moderating effect on these ethanol prices if it
is allowed to move to alternative markets.
Question #3. In Section 1541 of the Energy Policy Act, Congress gave
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to issue waivers
of State boutique fuel requirements in case of extreme and unusual fuel
and fuel additive supply circumstances. Last fall, EPA used this
authority to address extreme and unusual circumstances related to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Please comment on whether, from your
perspective, this authority was helpful in addressing potential hurricane-
related supply disruptions.
NACS and SIGMA believe that EPA exercised the emergency fuel
waiver authority grant by Congress in EPAct wisely and judiciously
in the wake of Katrina and Rita. The temporary waivers granted by
EPA were credited by NACS and SIGMA members -- and by many
others -- with increasing motor fuel supplies across the nation and
moderating the wholesale and retail price volatility that followed the
hurricanes.
NACS and SIGMA generally do not support a substantially wider
grant of waiver authority to EPA. However, we have urged
Congress to consider two narrow expansions of EPA authority under
the EPAct emergency waiver provisions: (1) the adoption of a "hold
harmless" provision so that states will not hesitate to follow an EPA
emergency waiver out of concern that the state will be forced to
offset any increased emissions during the waiver period; and, (2)
consider a grant of authority to EPA to issue an emergency waiver if
transitions from one fuel to another are significantly constrained by
infrastructure or transportation limitations. We would not oppose a
proposal to grant the President authority to pre-empt state boutique
fuel mandates in the context of a supply emergency to assure that a
national determination of an emergency is not undercut by a state's
failure to act quickly to suspend temporarily local fuel
specifications.
RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY BOB DINNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION
June 16, 2006
The Honorable John D. Dingell
House of Representatives
Committee on Energy & Commerce
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Additional Questions to Witnesses.
Hearing on May 11, 2006, entitled "Gasoline: Supply, Price, and
Specifications,"
Dear Congressman Dingell:
Attached are responses to the additional questions you submitted from
the above-referenced hearing.
1. You testified that 35 ethanol plants are currently under construction.
(a) How many of these facilities have obtained a major New Source
Review air permit?
Response: I am not specifically aware how many of the plants
under construction have obtained a New Source Review air
permit.
(b) For those facilities that do not have a major New Source Review
air permit, please explain why such a permit was not required.
Response: A New Source Review permit would not be required if
a plant meets the definition of a synthetic minor, i.e., emits less
than 100 tons per year. Generally, plants larger than 50 million
gallons must be permitted under New Source Review. Of the
plants under construction today, 24 plants are 50 million gallons
or less.
(c) For those facilities that do have major New Source Review air
permits, how long, on average, did it take to obtain the permit
once the permitting agency had a complete permit application?
Response: In general, plants having to obtain a New Source
Review air permit can expect 12 - 18 months to finalize the
process. There have been cases where it has taken longer.
2. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of provisions
addressing potential issues related to boutique fuels.
(a) Do you believe that this Congress needs to pass additional
legislation further limiting the number of boutique fuels adopted
by States to address air quality issues? If yes, please explain
what legislative changes you support and why. In no, please
explain why.
Response: If the Energy and Commerce Committee concludes
"boutique fuels" are a contributing factor to rising consumer
gasoline prices, then the RFA would support legislation to
reduce the number of fuels refiners must produce and improve
overall gasoline fungibility.
(b) If Congress decides to enact legislation imposing further
limitations on State fuel programs, do you believe that such
legislation should address only State fuel programs adopted for
air quality reasons? Or should it address State fuel programs
adopted for local economic or other reasons? Please explain
why.
Response: States are contemplating biofuels programs to
stimulate ethanol and biodiesel production in their respective
states. They are attempting to capture the tremendous economic
benefits local ethanol and biodiesel production will provide.
Consider the local economic impact of just one 100 million
gallon ethanol plant:
<bullet> Generate $406 million for the local community;
<bullet> Increase the state's Gross Output by $223 million;
<bullet> Increase household income by more than $50 million; and
<bullet> Create nearly 1,600 local jobs.
Congress should not impinge on a state's ability to pursue
biofuels programs intended to promote such significant economic
development in their states.
3. Please describe the potential impacts, if any, of State ethanol or
biodiesel mandates on the potential to affect gasoline supply,
fungibility, and price spikes. Please describe the ways in which these
potential impacts are similar to and different from the potential
impacts of State fuel programs adopted for air quality reasons.
Response: State Biofuels Programs will not affect gasoline supply,
fungibility or price. Simply adding ethanol to gasoline does not
constitute a "boutique fuel." Indeed, ethanol is blended in 40% of the
nation's fuel. Ethanol is either blended with a fully fungible RBOB
(reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending) in federal
RFG areas to meet appropriate emissions standards or with a fungible
conventional gasoline, which adds volume and octane to the motor fuel
supply. Blending ethanol with conventional gasoline requires no
unique blend from refiners and does not add to the complexity of the
fuel distribution system. That is fundamentally different from a State
fuel program adopted for air quality reasons that requires significant
refinery modifications and a separate and distinct fuel distribution and
storage infrastructure.
Congressman, I appreciate your interest in renewable fuels,
specifically ethanol, and look forward to the ongoing development of
ethanol biorefineries in Michigan. Already, Michigan Ethanol, LLC in
Caro, MI is producing more than 50 million gallons of ethanol in your
state. However, since Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Michigan has begun construction on three additional ethanol refineries.
In my view, Michigan's ethanol industry is a remarkable reflection of the
ongoing domestic biofuels energy infrastructure. If you have additional
questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bob Dinneen
President & CEO
cc: Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and
Commerce
June 16, 2006
The Honorable Ed Whitfield
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Committee on Energy & Commerce
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Additional Questions to Witnesses.
Hearing on May 11, 2006, entitled "Gasoline: Supply, Price, and
Specifications,"
Dear Congressman Whitfield:
Attached are responses to the additional questions you submitted from
the above-referenced hearing.
1. The biofuels industry has received immense support from the
agriculture industry and from my colleagues in the House and
Senate. There are a number of new technologies and advancements
in the biofuels industry taking place across the country. I believe it
is in the interest of the American consumer to support the
development of these alternative fuels. Do you support a more
expedited approach to marketplace introduction of new, alternative
biofuels? Why, why not?
Response: Absolutely, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) as
contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is not limited to ethanol and
biodiesel and was intended to expand the national usage of renewable
fuels. Additionally, although not in production today, new sources of
feedstock for ethanol are being created. In a few short years, I believe
cellulosic ethanol production will dramatically expand the types and
amount of available feedstocks used to make ethanol, including materials
now regarded as wastes, corn stalks, rice straw, wood chips and "energy
crops" such as fast-growing trees and grasses. Cellulose ethanol
production will create new jobs and economic growth outside the
traditional "grain belt" from locally available resources, and provide
significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
2. If new technologies are able to produce a renewable fuel from
agriculturally-based feed stocks, albeit with different physical
characteristics from conventional biofuels, but remain acceptable
substitutes for petroleum based products, they should be treated
equally. Unfortunately, they are all too often faced with enormous
barriers to entry into the marketplace. The exact situation is
happening in my District with a biodiesel producer. A farmer is
using a new technology which produces a new horsepower, is more
efficient, and cost less to produce. However, because of a turf battle
between new and old technologies and the adoption of an
international standard, production in my district has been shut down
and forced to convert back to old technologies. My constituent has
one of the best technologies around and prior to the explosion of this
issue, he did not receive one complaint. However, because of
inconsistencies in the biodiesel industry he was forced to revert back
to a more expensive and less efficient product. Do you believe
additional regulations slow the influx of new alternatives into the
marketplace? (i.e. ASTM International Standards).
Response: Any new fuels, even derivatives from current biofuels, must
be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), due to
environmental and health regulations. Additionally, ASTM is the
national standard setting body for fuels and biofuels. The ASTM process
is a science-based entity that develops standards through consensus of
all stakeholders, including engine manufacturers, fuel producers and
consumers. ASTM evaluates current and new standards for fuels on an
ongoing basis and standards can be changed with sound technical
support.
The regulatory and specification process is necessary for creating new
fuels in today's marketplace. It ensures transportation fuels products
used by consumers are rigorously tested and approved. The ethanol
industry has worked with ASTM throughout its history, and standards
have changed many times. The process assures the highest quality fuels
are being introduced to the marketplace, which is absolutely essential to
the long-term viability of the alternative fuels industry.
I am unfamiliar with the specific circumstance facing the company in
your district, and have no expertise on biodiesel ASTM standards
generally. But from the ethanol industry's experience, I can absolutely
affirm the efficacy of ASTM's standard setting process. It has not been a
barrier to entry for ethanol companies.
3. Similar technologies are popping up all over the country. I was
reading not long ago of a company that is producing a renewable fuel
from stale beer. Some critics argue that international standards
ensure quality. I understand the need for quality assurances in the
marketplace. But it is the marketplace that should make the ultimate
determination of the product so long as the environmental protection
agency determines the product's viability. Do you support all
technologies that provide a variety of choices among alternative
biofuels in the marketplace?
Response: Today ethanol is produced from corn, grain sorghum, wheat,
barley, sugar cane, cheese whey, beverage waste, including stale beer
and unused or wasted soda, sugar beets, the cassava root, potatoes and
wheat straw. Each of these feedstocks yield a fuel that meets ASTM
specifications. Fuel marketers will simply not purchase product that
does not meet ASTM specifications.
Congressman, I appreciate your interest in renewable fuels,
specifically
ethanol, and look forward to the ongoing development of ethanol
biorefineries in Kentucky. Already, Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC
in Hopkington, and Parallel Products in Louisville are producing nearly
40 million gallons of ethanol in your state. If you have additional
questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bob Dinneen
President & CEO
cc: Peter Kielty, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and
Commerce
Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States,
Dr. John Urbanchuk,
Director, LECG, LLC, February, 2006.
Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, GREET Model,
February, 2006.
It is important to note that no provision of the Energy Policy Act or the
Clean Air Act requires
refiners to eliminate MTBE, nor are they required to use ethanol. This is a
decision refiners are
making because replacing MTBE with ethanol is the most cost-effective means of
meeting Clean Air
Act standards while maintaining the octane and performance consumers expect.
Brazil is the world's largest exporter of ethanol, and significant volumes
of ethanol come from
Brazil directly. Other Brazilian product is imported through the Caribbean
Basin Initiative, which
allows up to 7% of the U.S. market (~270 million gallons in 2006) to enter duty
free. Ethanol
produced in Canada and Mexico is also duty-free today.
The Ethanol Monitor, published by Oil Intelligence Inc., Oceanport, NJ,
Volume 2, No. 11,
March 27, 2006.
We know of only one modification in the last 15 years that has triggered NSR
requirements.