[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SHARING THE ROAD: POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC AND CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLES IN THE YEARS AHEAD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-125
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-281 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, CaliforniaL RUIZ,
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Environment
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 3
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 5
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 125
Witnesses
Megan McKernan, Manager, Automotive Engineering, Automobile Club
of Southern California, on behalf of AAA....................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.................................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Genevieve Cullen, President, Electric Drive Transportation
Association.................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Bob Dinneen, President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association...... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Geisha Williams, President and CEO, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute............ 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Frank Macchiarola, Group Director, Downstream and Industry
Operations, American Petroleum Institute....................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
David Reichmuth, Senior Engineer, Clean Vehicles Program, Union
of Concerned Scientists........................................ 90
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Dylan Remley, Senior Vice President, Global Partners LP, on
behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores and
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America........... 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Answers to submitted questions............................... 131
Submitted Material
Op-Ed entitled, ``Automakers are Addressing Climate Change,'' by
Mitch Bainwol, submitted by Mr. Shimkus........................ 126
Statement of Growth Energy, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............. 129
SHARING THE ROAD: POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC AND CONVENTIONAL
VEHICLES IN THE YEARS AHEAD
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Barton,
Blackburn, Olson, Johnson, Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Duncan,
Tonko, Ruiz, Green, McNerney, Cardenas, Dingell, Matsui, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Daniel
Butler, Staff Assistant; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Jerry
Couri, Chief Environmental Advisor; Margaret Tucker Fogarty,
Staff Assistant; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator,
Environment; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Milly
Lothian, Press Assistant and Digital Coordinator; Mary Martin,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy & Environment; Drew McDowell,
Executive Assistant; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Energy
Advisor; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant; Priscilla
Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Jean Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy
Advisor; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and
Chief Health Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; and Alexander Ratner,
Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. We will call the hearing to order and I will
recognize myself 5 minutes for an opening statement.
As most of you know, this is the Environmental
Subcommittee's third hearing over the last 2 months dealing
with fuels and vehicles. Our first hearing provided an overview
of the future of personal transportation and I believe there
were two key takeaways, one that the internal combustion engine
running on petroleum and plant-based liquid fuels remain the
major player in the decades ahead. And two that battery
electric vehicles will continue to make inroads in the
marketplace.
Our next hearing expanded on that first point specifically
that since the internal combustion engine and liquid fuels are
going to be around for a while we should consider new ideas for
improving them, namely, a high octane fuel standard matched
with vehicles whose engines are optimized to run on these
fuels. Ideally, a range of higher octane fuel blends could lead
to as much if not more ethanol use than under the RFS while
giving vehicles significantly improved performance and fuel
economy.
Today we focus on the second point, the battery electric
vehicles, EVs, are gaining in market share and that the
internal combustion engine has significant competition for the
first time in a long time. This hearing will delve into the
question of what these changes mean for everyone involved in
fuels and vehicles and most importantly what they mean for
consumers. I thank our diverse panel for being here today and
providing a variety of perspectives.
I should add that we are focusing on EVs and not other
alternative vehicles like natural gas vehicles or fuel cells
for example, mainly because projections from the Energy
Information Administration see EVs as the fastest growing
alternative. Of course, only time will tell which vehicle types
will catch on.
When we think of larger EV fleets, one of the first
questions that comes to mind is where all the extra electricity
is going to come from to power them. After all, EVs are not
going to be a good deal for consumers if the electricity is
expensive. I am certain we will hear from several witnesses on
this point, but I would like to add that I believe coal-fired
generation will have an important role in providing affordable
electricity and making an EV future work.
Fueling infrastructure is also an issue. We currently have
150,000 liquid fuel retailers along our nation's roads and
highways and you can fill up in about 5 minutes. It is hard for
EVs to compete with that level of convenience, so charging
infrastructure and charging times are still a challenge. As the
Nation's vehicle mix changes, we may need to re-think past fuel
and vehicle policies. For example, the Renewable Fuel Standard
was last amended back in 2007 when we assumed that gasoline
demand was on a one-way trip higher. We know now that those
assumptions were overstated and will be even more so if EVs
continue to gain market share. This doesn't necessarily mean
the RFS needs to be amended in light of EVs, but Congress
should at least look at the matter.
Automobiles are the second biggest family expense after
home so the stakes are high. I look forward to a thorough
discussion and again I thank our witnesses.
I have some time. I will yield to the gentlelady from
Tennessee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
As most of you know, this is the Environment Subcommittee's
third hearing over the last two months dealing with fuels and
vehicles. Our first hearing provided an overview of the future
of personal transportation, and I believe there were two key
takeaways--one, that the internal combustion engine running on
petroleum and plant-based liquid fuels will remain the major
player in the decades ahead, and--two, that battery electric
vehicles will continue to make inroads in the marketplace.
Our next hearing expanded on the first point, specifically
that since the internal combustion engine and liquid fuels are
going to be around for a while, we should consider new ideas
for improving them, namely a High-Octane Fuel Standard matched
with vehicles whose engines are optimized to run on these
fuels. Ideally, a range of higher-octane fuel blends could lead
to as much, if not more ethanol use than under the RFS, while
giving vehicles significantly improved performance and fuel
economy.
Today, we focus on the second point, that battery electric
vehicles (EVs) are gaining in market share, and that the
internal combustion engine has significant competition for the
first-time in a long-time. This hearing will delve into the
question of what these changes mean for everyone involved in
fuels and vehicles, and most importantly what they mean for
consumers. I thank our diverse panel for being here today and
providing a variety of perspectives.
I should add that we are focusing on EVs and not on other
alternative vehicles, like natural gas vehicles or fuel cells
for example, mainly because projections from the Energy
Information Administration see EVs as the fastest growing
alternative. Of course, only time will tell which vehicle types
will catch on.
When we think of larger EV fleets, one of the first
questions that comes to mind is where all the extra electricity
is going to come from to power them. After all, EVs are not
going to be a good deal for consumers if the electricity is
expensive. I'm certain we will hear from several witnesses on
this point, but I would like to add that I believe coal-fired
generation will have an important role in providing affordable
electricity and making an EV future work.
Fueling infrastructure is also an issue. We currently have
150,000 liquid fuel retailers along our nation's roads and
highways, and you can fill up in about 5 minutes. It is hard
for EVs to compete with that level of convenience, so charging
infrastructure and charging times are still a challenge.
As the Nation's vehicle mix changes, we may need to rethink
past fuel and vehicle policies. For example, the Renewable Fuel
Standard was last amended back in 2007 when we assumed that
gasoline demand was on a one-way trip higher. We now know that
those assumptions were overstated and will be even more so if
EVs continue to gain market share. This doesn't necessarily
mean the RFS needs to be amended in light of EVs, but Congress
should at least look at the matter.
Automobiles are the second biggest family expense after a
home, so the stakes are high. I look forward to a thorough
discussion, and again thank our witnesses.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here and for this hearing. In my
district in Tennessee we have Nissan which is located right in
Franklin, we have GM at the Spring Hill facility working on the
Ecotec engine, and we hear from automakers and auto dealers
about EVs. We are interested in looking at going forward on the
strength of that battery, and the chairman has well laid out
some of the questions that we as a committee have.
We also are looking at the acceptance by the public. Last
year in my district, in 2016, 67 percent of the cars that were
sold were in the truck category. They were small trucks, light
trucks, SUVs, crossovers. And looking at acceptance and then
looking at how the EVs will move into that market that is where
I will center my questions with you today. I look forward to
hearing what you all have to say about this. And as always with
us in Tennessee this is an interesting topic and we welcome
you. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back to me. Anyone else
seeking the last 30 seconds, if not, I yield back my time and I
recognize the ranking member, my friend Mr. Tonko from New
York, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we start the
clock, if I might I want to acknowledge the presence of Albany
County Executive Dan McCoy who just joined us. It is great to
have you in town, Dan, and thank you for your work on
transportation issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our witnesses for
joining us this morning. Much like this subcommittee's future
of transportation fuels and vehicles hearing in March, the
assembled panel represents a good overview with diverse
perspectives on today's issue, the current state and future of
electric vehicles. In recent years, despite more options for
fuels and improvements in fuel economy, transportation has
become the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States.
Greenhouse gas reductions are occurring much more quickly
in the power sector. It has become clear that shifting
transportation emissions into electricity generation is not
only an effective, but a necessary means for our country to
make major strides to address climate change. EVs will continue
to become cleaner as the Nation's electricity supply moves
toward a more low and more zero emissions energy resources.
This has already been recognized by countries around the world,
so it is my belief that electric vehicles are not only
essential they are inevitable.
But we do not need to look as far as China or Europe to see
the desire to promote EVs. Cities and towns across our country
are launching smart community projects, many including EV
charging sites to make their communities more connected and
efficient. I expect we will hear about the benefits of EVs,
chief among them the opportunities to improve air quality,
reduce gas emissions, and save consumers from fuel costs.
Despite these benefits, it is important to acknowledge that
the internal combustion engine is not going to disappear
overnight. In the subcommittee's previous hearing we heard
estimates of how long it might take for the Nation's vehicle
fleet to turn over. Even with a growing adoption rate of EVs,
conventional vehicles will remain a staple of our vehicle fleet
for decades to come.
Today we should hear about a few aspects of the future of
electric vehicles. First, what is the state of EV technology
development? In part due to investments by the Department of
Energy in recent years, batteries' costs have declined and
their effectiveness have improved dramatically. According to
DOE's 2016 Revolution Now report, the cost of EV batteries
produced at high volume decreased by 73 percent between 2009
and 2016. Automakers are now offering many more vehicle options
with ever-increasing ranges at a variety of price points.
Continued Federal investments in R&D could unlock the next big
breakthrough in fast-charging battery capabilities or vehicle-
to-grid smart technologies.
Second, what barriers still exist to broader EV adoption?
These may include increasing consumer education and acceptance,
deploying new charging infrastructure, and addressing
regulatory hurdles. Regulatory action often lags behind
technology. This has been true of charging infrastructure which
is outstanding questions about where to build it, who can own
it, and how to ensure broad public access at affordable rates.
Some of these questions will be determined by state governments
and PUCs such as the development of off-peak charging rate
structures. But clearly there are things Congress can do to
incentivize EV purchases and infrastructure build-out.
Finally, where are we heading? The trends are positive for
greater EV adoption. I want to highlight a portion of Ms.
McKernan's testimony, and I apologize for spoiling it, but what
A-A-A, AAA, has identified is worth mentioning more than once.
Between 2017 and '18 there were pretty significant shifts in an
increasing number of Americans that want to buy electric for
their next vehicle and a decreasing number of Americans
concerned about access to charging locations which is still the
biggest concern for buyers. It is clear that even in a short
amount of time, consumer acceptance is growing and range
anxiety is beginning to decline. My guess based on the trends
is that concerns over range, charge time, and price will
continue to decline especially as more infrastructure is built
to support the growing EV fleet.
Perhaps the most important trend which is outside of
Congress's control is that many other countries have already
set ambitious EV goals. Some are even proposing to ban internal
combustion engines entirely in the decades ahead. EVs will be
heavily utilized around the world which is why I believe this
transition is inevitable. It is my hope that our Federal R&D
investment continue to support the research, design, and
manufacture of EVs here in the U.S. in the face of increasing
global competition and market opportunities.
Mr. Chair, I believe that cleaning up our transportation
sector is important regardless of our vehicle and fuel mixes.
That means improving fuel economy, developing new low emissions
liquid fuels such as advanced cellulosic biofuels, and
deploying a much greater number of electric vehicles. If we
continue to identify and address barriers, I am certain EV
adoption will increase substantially.
So I look forward to hearing more about the current state
of EVs as well as what Federal, state, and local policymakers
can do to continue to incentivize adoption to ensure that the
trend of greater EV deployment continues. With that I thank
you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time and the
chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the
ranking member of the full committee, Congressman Pallone from
New Jersey, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we
are finally having a hearing to discuss electric vehicles or
EVs. These vehicles are transforming our transportation sector
to the benefit of both consumers and our environment, and I
strongly support efforts to advance electric vehicles whether
they be tax credits for EV purchases, assistance for the
deployment of EV charging infrastructure, and Federal
investment in vehicle and battery research.
Unfortunately though, progress in transportation
modernization and fuel economy is under direct attack by the
Trump administration. Recent reports indicate that the
administration plans to undermine the 2012 agreement made
between the auto industry, the State of California, advocates,
and the Obama administration to increase the efficiency of our
transportation fleet.
And this is extremely shortsighted and now comes word that
President Trump intends to preempt California, a move that
appears driven mainly by Administrator Pruitt and right-wing
ideologues to benefit their favorite special interest, the
petroleum industry. At the same time, the administration is
indiscriminately giving companies of all sizes waivers of the
Renewable Fuel Standard undermining that program as well.
So the administration's efforts to gut enhanced fuel
economy standards couldn't come at a worse time. Emissions in
the transportation sector are continuing to grow. They now
exceed those of the electricity sector. In 2017, the cost of
weather related disasters hit a record $306 billion, and just
last month we hit another grim milestone. Scientists recorded
concentrations of heat-trapping carbon pollution in the
atmosphere above 410 parts per million for an entire month. The
last time carbon dioxide concentrations were at that level was
3 million years ago when seas were 66 feet higher and human
beings did not exist.
So we can't continue down this road. To avoid further
catastrophic climate impacts we must use every tool available
to reduce greenhouse gases. EVs are one of our most critical
tools to do this. In the face of a drastically changing climate
we can't afford to move backward on vehicle electrification. I
believe the future for electric vehicles is promising and their
lower operating and maintenance costs offer significant
benefits to American consumers.
As technologies improve and costs continue to climb,
consumers will continue to demand cars that save money and help
preserve a livable planet for future generations. EVs have been
sharing the road for some time now with conventional vehicles.
As with any transformative technology, there are still various
to widespread EV adoption, some of those are technological,
other barriers are created by shortsighted entities who have a
financial stake in the status quo and little stomach to push
forward the electric platform that most auto companies' CEOs
admit is critical for the future of their industry.
And the growth of the EV market even in the face of scant
advertising and limited availability is a testament to American
innovation and consumers' desire for these vehicles. Continued
investment in EVs and charging infrastructure can only yield
positive benefits for our environment, the transportation
industry, and the American people. So we need smarter energy
infrastructure and cleaner vehicles. Many cities across the
country are taking the lead, and it is time that we do that at
the Federal level to support these efforts. I would like to
yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone. We have
all been paying attention to the discussion about fuel economy
standards and it is clear that electric vehicles are an
important part of getting there. The fact of the matter is auto
companies are building EVs, but we need to figure out how we
are going to encourage more consumers to buy them and that is a
challenge we all have to tackle together. We need to use this
hearing to understand the barriers to EV adoption and
deployment, how we combat range anxiety, and we build out an
infrastructure that we need to support electric vehicles.
This closely relates to fuel economy standards and I will
talk about this more on my questioning, but want to close with
a final comment. We must maintain one national program for fuel
economy standards that keeps California at the table. We need
stringent standards that improve over time but that also
reflect current marketplace realities like the low cost of gas
and low rate of EV adoption.
We are entering a critical phase. We can either come
together on a negotiated solution that continues upward
progress and sets standards through 2030, or we can have a
costly legal battle where nobody will win and we cede American
leadership in this area to overseas. I hope that this
administration, California, and other stakeholders will roll up
their sleeves and get to work on a negotiated deal on fuel
economy. Failure is simply not an option, it hurts too many
people. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. And the gentleman yields back his time.
The chair wants to thank you all for joining us today. It
is a diverse and a very interesting panel. And so we will
start, first of all, and remember your full statements have
been submitted for the record, you will have 5 minutes to kind
of summarize that and we will go into a question and answer
period.
So we will begin with Megan McKernan, Manager, Automotive
Engineering, Automobile Club of Southern California, on behalf
of AAA. Welcome, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF MEGAN MCKERNAN, MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING,
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF AAA; MITCH
BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS; GENEVIEVE CULLEN, PRESIDENT, ELECTRIC DRIVE
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; BOB DINNEEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION; GEISHA WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND
CEO, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE EDISON
ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; FRANK MACCHIAROLA, GROUP DIRECTOR,
DOWNSTREAM AND INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE; DAVID REICHMUTH, SENIOR ENGINEER, CLEAN VEHICLES
PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; AND, DYLAN REMLEY,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL PARTNERS LP, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES AND SOCIETY OF
INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF AMERICA.
STATEMENT OF MEGAN MCKERNAN
Ms. McKernan. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing. My name is Megan McKernan and I am
the Manager of Automotive Engineering for the Automobile Club
of Southern California. In that role I lead the team of
automotive engineers responsible for evaluating alternative
fuel vehicles for our annual Green Car Guide. I am also a race
car driver, so I am one of those lucky people that gets to
apply my passion for cars with my job.
With over 100 years of experience, AAA is a trusted,
independent authority in the automotive industry. AAA experts
serve on SAE committees responsible for setting automotive
standards and participate in the Auto-ISAC working group
responsible for vehicle cybersecurity guidelines. Most
importantly, AAA serves 58 million members and is a leading
traffic safety advocate. In the time I have today I would like
to focus on a few key points from the more detailed testimony
submitted for the record.
AAA has invested significant resources into understanding
and evaluating vehicle ownership trends, fuels, automated
vehicle technologies and electric vehicles, and surveying
consumer trends. One of the key investments we have made in
this area is the Automobile Club of Southern California's
Automotive Research Center, ARC, located in Los Angeles, a
premier vehicle emission test laboratory featuring state-of-
the-art facilities and equipment operated by a team of highly
qualified engineers and technicians.
The pace of battery EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles being
introduced into the national fleet is likely to accelerate
especially as technology trends ramp up due to changing
consumer preferences, lower ownership costs, and the adoption
of connected and autonomous vehicles. In fact, according to a
new AAA survey, 20 percent or 50 million Americans are likely
to go electric for their next vehicle purchase, a jump of five
percentage points from just a year ago.
Since 2010, the AAA Green Car Guide has become a trusted
source of information for buyers who are looking to maximize
the value of their purchase. A team of ARC engineers with more
than 75 years of combined automotive experience conduct the
evaluations of a variety of new alternative vehicles including
hybrid or plug-in hybrid, battery electric, compressed natural
gas, hydrogen, other alternative fuel vehicles, or have
category leading fuel economy set by the U.S. EPA for the
annual AAA Green Car Guide.
All vehicles are evaluated in thirteen different categories
in real-world and test track evaluations using testing
procedures developed by SAE standards and custom procedures
employed by the ARC to provide useful information to members
and consumers. Vehicles are rated on the criteria that matter
most to car buyers including ride quality, safety, and
performance. In 2018, we evaluated 74 vehicles and based on our
findings awarded AAA's Top Green Vehicle awards in several
categories. The complete guide has also been submitted for the
official record and is available online for consumers.
To better understand what the public thinks about EVs, AAA
also conducted a consumer attitude survey on EV purchasing
trends. So what did we find? Two in ten Americans say they are
likely to buy an electric vehicle the next time they are in the
market for a new or used vehicle, an increase from 15 percent
over 2017 survey results. We also learned concern for the
environment is the top reason consumers are likely to purchase
an EV, followed closely by lower long-term ownership costs,
access to the newest technologies, and then access to car pool
lanes.
And range anxiety, previously a serious concern for
consumers, is beginning to ease. More charging options is
reducing consumer anxiety and making EVs an attractive vehicle
purchase and viable transportation option for a variety of
trips, including longer journeys that may require fueling
options as convenient as filling up at the local gas station.
With more consumers looking to purchase an EV, the AAA Green
Car Guide is a valuable resource for consumers who are looking
for the right electric vehicle or alternative fuel vehicle for
their next purchase.
Over the coming years, automakers will make EVs a higher
priority in their research and development efforts and the next
generation of EVs will feature the most advanced technology our
nation's roads have ever seen. Whether it is EV or autonomous
vehicle, the importance of well-maintained roads and bridges
cannot be ignored. Infrastructure improvements and system
upgrades will need to incorporate electric vehicle charging,
intelligent transportation, and connected vehicle technologies
to ensure networks are built and maintained to support all
levels of connectivity that will benefit users and improve
safety.
In closing, AAA is committed to doing its part to provide
accurate information to help consumers on all things
automotive. Through our continued vehicle research and consumer
surveys to our work in traffic safety, we will look for
opportunities to make the Nation's roads, vehicles, and drivers
safer. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McKernan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Mitch Bainwol, President
and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Sir, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL
Mr. Bainwol. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member
Tonko, members of the committee. I am Mitch Bainwol. I run the
Auto Alliance which is comprised of 12 manufacturers
headquartered in the U.S., in Europe, and in Japan, and we are
responsible for about 80 percent of the vehicles on the road
today in this country. Next slide.
[Slides shown.]
Mr. Bainwol. Rather than read testimony, I am going to run
through a short PowerPoint deck and hopefully it will be a
little lively and at least some good images here for you.
The first slide shows world vehicle sales 1996, 2006, and
2016 by region, and what you see is one phenomenal growth in
sales. So mobility is alive and well and we are probably, 2017,
closer to a hundred million units. When you think about the
next decade a billion cars will be put on the roads of the
world. What you also see is that the U.S. is a very mature
market. We are relatively stable in terms of sales. And you see
China ramping up, so China is clearly the world leader in terms
of unit sales. The question for us really, ultimately, is who
will be the world leader when it comes to innovation and we
want that to happen here. Next slide.
We are talking today about powertrain. I think when you
reflect on the broader question of mobility there are four
different trends going on. One is powertrain, another is
connectivity, another is the trend toward autonomy which this
committee has addressed, thankfully, and the last is sharing,
and these are all independent trends but they are interactive.
And when you have a conversation about powertrain I think you
have to look in the context of the broader question. Next
slide.
Around the world, and this was, I think, suggested in Mr.
Tonko's statement, we are seeing policy made to either phase
out liquid fuel, ban liquid fuel, or set EV targets. So this is
happening in a very, very dramatic way. We are global companies
and we are having to respond to that global reality when it
comes to policy. That is also happening in the U.S., more so in
California and what are called ZEV states, states that follow
the California model. But we are seeing policy induce
electrification, and the question really is how you align what
is happening in the marketplace with what is happening with
policy. Next slide.
What you see here, very quickly, is a timeline of
announcements by the companies responding to the global
interest in electrification. Next slide.
You see the green bars show from 2011 through 2017 the
number of models available to the public when they go into
showrooms to buy a car and it has gone up by about 980 percent
from 2011 to 2017. So we are offering many more models but
consumers literally are not buying it just yet. EVs represent
about 1.2 percent of the marketplace. If you add in hybrids you
are getting closer to about 3 percent. The next slide tells you
why this is in part happening and one reason is the success of
the conventional engine. From 2005 to 2017, the conventional
engine is up 30 percent in terms of fuel economy and so that
does make the question in terms of the economic calculus a more
complicated one for the consumer. Next slide.
Here you see the relationship between gas prices and the
adoption, the purchase of alternative powertrains and it looks
like an Olympic event. It looks like synchronized swimming. It
is just directly correlated, and so policymakers can make
policy but what happens in the marketplace has a huge impact in
terms of buying behavior.
The next slide shows the bottom line in terms of where we
are and the red line is the share of the marketplace that is
gas and diesel. The blue line is the share of the marketplace
that is a combined hybrid, plug-in, and electric and the
circled percentages are the delta between gas, diesel, and
alternative powertrains. And from 2011 to 2017 that net has
gone from 96 percent to 95 percent, so in other words it hasn't
really moved. We all expect it is going to change at some
point, but it has not yet changed.
I have two more slides. This next one is a bit complicated,
but I can deconstruct it pretty quickly and easily. It
reflects, and I believe you may have a copy of this and we will
make sure it is available to you, this reflects the ZEV
percentages in 2013 and in 2017 by the states on the Energy and
Commerce Committee. So, overall, ZEVs were 0.6 of the
marketplace in 2013, in 2017 nearly doubled to 1.13. If you
look at California, there you see a material change.
So, for the California members, up from 2.34 to 4.81,
California is alone in this respect. Other states are not
moving quite as rapidly. It is also important to point out
Georgia, where the ZEV credit, the tax credit, was removed and
there the number actually fell. So there is a direct
relationship between the availability of tax credits and
adoption.
Finally, the last slide, I just want to make a point that
the job of Congress is hard and sometimes policies conflict. If
you care about the environment and that is your driving passion
in CO2 reduction then you are looking to promote
electrification and that all makes sense, but that obviously
drains the trust fund. If you are looking to build an
infrastructure then you want a robust gas fund and that
unfortunately is inhibited by electrification and by the
improvements in conventional engines.
At any rate, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and
this is a kind of sardine panel, but I would look forward to
the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Genevieve Cullen, President,
Electric Drive Transportation Association. You are recognized
for 5 minutes. Thanks for being here.
STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN
Ms. Cullen. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Shimkus,
Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the committee. I am
Genevieve Cullen, President of the Electric Drive
Transportation Association. Our membership includes the entire
electric drive value chain including vehicle, battery, and
component manufacturers as well as utilities and infrastructure
developers who are advancing e-mobility. Using electricity to
power a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric
vehicles enhances our energy security with fuel diversity and
ensures our competitiveness in the global race for new
technology while reducing transportation costs and emissions.
A brief look at the numbers, the same numbers that Mitch
uses but from a slightly different lens shows a growing market
for electric drive, since the commercial scale introduction of
plug-in vehicles in late 2010 the electric drive segment has
grown from two to almost fifty models including three models of
fuel cell vehicles. More than 800,000 electric vehicles have
been sold to date and annual sales are continuously increasing.
2017 sales showed a 71 percent increase over 2015 in the face
of stable and low gas prices.
The diversity of the electric drive market is also
increasing. We are seeing a expanded offerings across a range
of price points in vehicle categories including trucks, buses,
and mobile equipment. Looking ahead, a survey of major industry
and analyst projections shows uptake increasing substantially
in the next decade and beyond. For instance, the Boston
Consulting Group predicts that EVs could be more than 20
percent of the U.S. new car registrations by 2030. Bloomberg
New Energy Finance estimates that global electric drive sales
will reach parity with internal combustion sales by 2038.
While the numbers and timelines have some variability, the
direction of the market is clear. Electrification will shape
the future of mobility. The global opportunity in e-mobility
has not gone unnoticed by our competitors. Although not alone
in its pursuit, China is making an aggressive push to dominate
this market and they could succeed. The Wall Street Journal
recently reported that 40 percent of global investment in
electric vehicles is occurring in China. Meanwhile, electric
charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure are expanding to
serve this market. DOE reports more than 20,000 charging
stations in operation today. More will be needed to serve
diverse driving and charging needs.
Electric transportation advances are also reinforcing
growth in automation, connectivity, and shared mobility. While
the continuum of autonomous technology is being built into
vehicles today is not exclusive to it, electric drive is in
many ways the optimal partner. The smart technologies of the
future will be built on electrified platforms. In that vein, we
thank the committee for its leadership in this area through
H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act. The advances we have been
talking about have positive implications for consumers,
businesses, and the country.
For drivers, e-mobility means wider options and reduced
costs. For the country, the growth of this market is building
an advanced technology value chain that is creating jobs,
expanding manufacturing in the United States, and bolstering
our position in the global race for electrification. An
electrified transportation sector will also increase our energy
security, reducing our reliance on a single transportation fuel
while reducing transportation emissions.
So where do we go next? To secure these benefits and the
U.S. position in the global marketplace we need to grow. I
think we can all agree to that. We are still an emerging market
of new technologies pushing to deliver ever-enhanced
performance at reduced cost while building volume. To achieve
that scale, the industry is investing in technology
development, market expansion, and infrastructure at the local,
regional, and national scale. Public policies can reinforce
that work and speed achievement of these benefits.
In conclusion, industry investment trends, technology
advances, and global market imperatives all point to
electrification. Accelerating that movement is a critical
opportunity for continued United States leadership in a market
that we built. Neglecting that opportunity is a choice to
follow rather than lead in the world market for electric
transportation. Again I thank you for the opportunity to be
here today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes
Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels
Association. Welcome, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BOB DINNEEN
Mr. Dinneen. Good morning Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to be with you again to present the views of
the American fuel ethanol industry.
Liquid fuels and internal combustion engines will continue
to drive America for decades to come and despite what you might
hear, these are not fully mature technologies. Plenty of room
remains for the improved performance of both. We need to make
sure that the technologies literally and figuratively driving
our economy compete in a policy environment that maximizes
efficiency and carbon reduction and allows fair access to a
market that has largely been closed to competition for more
than a century.
As you heard at your hearing 2 weeks ago, ethanol is the
lowest cost and cleanest source of octane on the planet and
research has shown that a mid-level ethanol blend could deliver
tremendous efficiency benefits if used in an optimized engine.
However, if the move toward higher octane fuels simply
encourages more hydrocarbon aromatics, a huge opportunity will
be lost and consumers will be paying more for fuels that
pollute more, are imported more, and increase carbon more.
This committee has already led when it comes to
transformative energy policy. The RFS, for example, remains a
beacon of success that is being emulated as other countries
seek to expand their production and use of renewable fuels to
address the same energy, economic, and environmental
imperatives that drove this committee to pass the RFS a decade
ago.
Yes, there are critics of the policy, those who want to
ignore the economic and environmental consequences of
unfettered petroleum use, but consumers appreciate the savings
at the pump resulting from the increased use of lower priced
biofuels. Farmers appreciate an important value-added market
that means fewer taxpayer dollars being spent on farm programs,
environmentalists recognize that we have made an important
first step in addressing global climate change, and national
security hawks most certainly value the fact we are relying
more on renewable fuels produced in the Midwest and less on
fossil energy from the Middle East.
That is why EPA Administrator Pruitt's campaign to destroy
RFS demand is being met with such virulent opposition. By
issuing secret hardship waivers to highly profitable
refineries, by ignoring a court-ordered reallocation of 500
million gallons in 2016 RFS obligations, and by forgiving more
than half of the RFS obligation for an aging and noncompetitive
refinery that has scapegoated the RFS. EPA has done great
damage to this important program. Those actions send the wrong
signals to the fuel producers and automakers who are poised to
make huge investments in the next generation of fuels and
vehicles.
The ethanol industry recognizes a broad array of electric
vehicle technologies are on the horizon and we want them to
succeed. We do not see electric vehicles as a threat, rather,
we see electric vehicles as fellow travelers on our road toward
energy independence and decarbonization. It will take all
innovative technologies for us to succeed. Indeed, I will tell
you, although I would appreciate it if you didn't tell my board
of directors that my wife drives a hybrid electric car. She
loves it, I don't. It is too small for me, big surprise. I much
prefer my flex-fuel Chevy pickup, but that just underscores my
point.
There will be consumers for whom electric vehicles work
well for their taste, their lifestyle, and their wallets and
there will be consumers who will continue to prefer liquid
transportation fuels. Public policy needs to make room for both
and ought not put the heavy finger of government on the scale
in favor of any one technology. Today, for example, EVs are
effectively treated as zero emission vehicles because the
upstream source of the electricity is not considered. That is
not only inaccurate, it provides EVs with an incentive relative
to other decarbonization technologies. Compliance values from
all technologies should be based on full, direct, well-to-
wheels lifecycle emissions that would allow for an apples-to-
apples treatment of their greenhouse gas emissions.
We believe ethanol and EVs can play a complementary role in
the long term. In 2016, Nissan unveiled the prototype of a
vehicle powered by solid oxide fuel cells that uses ethanol as
the fuel. Last month, Toyota revealed its first prototype of a
hybrid electric vehicle powered by a flexible fuel internal
combustion engine that can run on any blend of ethanol and
gasoline. Ford has also experimented with ethanol flex-fuel
hybrid EV technology.
A global policy shift is taking place driving
transportation toward low carbon technologies. Renewable fuels
have a key role to play in the development of this new
mobility. We believe a combination of technologies with ethanol
could be the answer so long as there is a level playing field.
Together we can work to increase efficiencies and reduce costs
for consumers, it is not one or the other. Thank you and I look
forward to our questions.
[The prepared statement of Bob Dinneen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Geisha Williams, President and CEO
of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, on behalf of the Edison
Electric Institute. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GEISHA WILLIAMS
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. Thank you,
Ranking Member Tonko, for the opportunity to speak before your
committee this morning. It is on, yes. I will make it up a
little bit closer, all right.
I am Geisha Williams, CEO and President of PG&E
Corporation, the parent company of Pacific Gas and Electric.
Pacific Gas and Electric is the largest combined electric and
natural gas energy company in California. PG&E is here today as
a member of the Edison Electric Institute. Together, EEI's
member companies provide power to 220 million Americans across
all 50 states.
We are also active and committed partners in the drive to
grow America's electric transportation sector. As such, we
applaud your focus on the policy implications of a
transportation future in which electric vehicles will represent
a growing share of the vehicles on our roads. Let me say
clearly, we see electric transportation as a vital opportunity.
It is an opportunity to make more efficient and economic use of
our nation's incredible energy grid infrastructure and to help
keep costs reasonable and affordable to all Americans. But it
is also an opportunity for the U.S. to cement itself as a
leader in transportation innovation. It is an opportunity to
spur new investment and create jobs. And it is an opportunity
to make our environment more sustainable through improved air
quality and through lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Electric transportation technology and infrastructure are
going to be one of the keys to making our cities smarter and
more liveable. In our home state in California, for example,
the transportation sector contributes 40 percent of the
greenhouse gas emissions, 80 percent of NOx emissions and 90
percent of diesel particulate matter pollution. Because of the
progress we are seeing in clean energy, and specifically in
California, electrifying the transportation sector offers a
chance to dramatically reduce each of these numbers. Consider
in 2016, the electric industry CO2 emissions were
nearly 25 percent below the 2005 levels and for the first time
in over 40 years they were lower than emissions from the
transportation sector.
EEI member companies including PG&E are already helping to
turn these opportunities into a reality in an efficient and
cost effective way that benefits everyone. And let me briefly
touch on a few examples. One is access to public charging
infrastructure. A study by EEI and the Institute for Electric
Innovation projects that by 2025 there will be seven million
electric vehicles on the road in the United States and they
will require nearly five million charging stations. More than a
dozen EEI companies are stepping up and helping with this
challenge with plans to invest $350 million in customer
programs and projects.
PG&E alone, my company, is investing $130 million over the
next 3 years to put 7,500 chargers at workplaces, at
multifamily residences, and in disadvantaged communities. This
will roughly double the number of public charging facilities in
our service area. And we hope to soon launch an additional $230
million project of similar investments for medium and heavy
duty vehicles. We are also growing EV into the grid. One key to
this is managing the timing of charging. Our companies are
approaching this in multiple ways including customer education,
rate design, and smart charging which optimizes charging
through communication between the grid, the vehicle, and the
charging equipment.
For the last several years, PG&E has partnered with BMW to
successfully pilot wireless smart charging through vehicle
telematics systems. We also offer special rates to EV owners
that incentivize them to charge at certain times of the day
which allows us to take advantage of times when there is excess
energy available on the grid. For the customer it means they
are able to charge their vehicles at the equivalent of a $1.20
per gallon, a price we haven't seen at the pump in 20 years.
The last area I will touch on is the industry's work to
accelerate EV adoption by fleet operators including our own
companies. EEI companies have increased the number of EVs in
their fleets by 43 percent just since 2015. We are helping
others make this transition as well. At PG&E, for example, we
are working with transit agencies in Stockton and San Jose to
pilot advanced smart charging and energy storage technologies
to more seamlessly integrate their electric bus fleet charging
with our grid.
These few examples only scratch the surface of everything
we are doing as an industry. The key point I want to leave you
with is this. Our industry is a critical partner in America's
transportation future. From a policy standpoint it is vital
that we continue to look for opportunities to engage the power
sector and leverage this amazing energy grid that we have in
this effort. Our companies are unique in our scale, our reach,
and our expertise and we are committed to partnering and making
this opportunity in this area a reality for all. Thank you
again for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Frank Macchiarola, Group
Director, Downstream and Industry Operations for the America
Petroleum Institute. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MACCHIAROLA
Mr. Macchiarola. Good morning. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. My name is Frank Macchiarola
and I am group director of Downstream and Industry Operations
at the American Petroleum Institute.
The subject of this hearing is important as it raises
policy questions affecting our nation's economic strength,
energy security, and environmental stewardship while presenting
core questions about our everyday mobility. The internal
combustion engine is the backbone of our transportation system
and instituting significant changes to that system presents
complex issues that must be approached with substantial
caution.
The fuel supply chain is highly integrated with the
transportation sector therefore we encourage the development
and evaluation of transportation policy through a holistic
systems-based approach in which vehicles, fuels, and
infrastructure are treated as an integrated system. A strong
oil and gas industry is a vital component of this integrated
system and it is essential for our standard of living. The oil
and gas industry supports approximately 10.3 million American
jobs and nearly 8 percent of the U.S. economy. The industry
also provides more than 98 percent of the fuels we use to
conduct commerce, to travel for work and vacation, and to stay
connected to our family and friends.
America's energy renaissance has allowed us to produce
significantly more of the energy we use today and to help the
United States become a net exporter of gasoline and diesel. At
the same time, the United States has reduced air pollution by
73 percent between 1970 and 2016, even as vehicle miles
traveled nearly tripled and the economy grew during that period
by 253 percent. EIA estimates that liquid fuels will continue
to be the primary transportation source through the next two
decades. The fuels we use must be reliable and affordable and
fully compatible with engines, motor vehicles, and fuel
distribution systems and we must enact transportation and
energy policy based on free market principles providing
consumer choice and greater certainty for market participants.
One policy that distorts free market, conflicts with
integrated approach, and places a burden on the consumer is the
Renewable Fuel Standard. It is an example of the government
placing its finger on the scales to benefit one industry over
another. To be clear, API believes we need all sources of
commercially viable energy including renewables. However, the
statutory requirements of the RFS are unworkable and
unattainable. At the time of the RFS passage in 2007, EIA
significantly overestimated today's gasoline consumption by 12
percent, substantially underestimating oil and gas resources by
70 percent. Furthermore, EIA assumed in 2007 that we would see
a technological breakthrough in production of advanced and
cellulosic biofuels. These fuels have failed to be produced in
meaningful and commercial volumes.
We need to sunset the outdated RFS and we appreciate the
leadership of the chairman and members of this subcommittee in
analyzing potential solutions for comprehensive reform. As we
look at fuels policies including those addressing electric
vehicles the RFS should stand as a cautionary tale to
policymakers. Electric vehicles show some promise in certain
applications and many forecasters expect market-driven growth
in the production and use. While API supports market-driven
activity, we oppose government intervention in the markets to
pick winners and losers as that creates an unlevel playing
field.
In enacting transportation policy we must acknowledge that
vehicles are staying on the road longer and going further on
the fuels we use. New transportation policies that incentivize
shifts in consumer behavior should be considered with caution
as they could impose undue costs on consumers with diminishing
environmental benefits. The ultimate trajectory and level of
market penetration achieved by EVs should not rely on
government interference but rather the free market. It should
depend on consumer acceptance and on the relative energy and
environmental performance of existing conventional automotive
technologies.
The oil and gas industry is committed to providing for our
nation's essential energy needs in the years ahead and we look
forward to working with the Congress on solutions to support
the American consumer. I thank the chairman, ranking members,
and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Macchiarola follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Dr. David Reichmuth, Senior
Engineer, Clean Vehicles Program with the Union of Concerned
Scientists. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID REICHMUTH
Mr. Reichmuth. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus
and Ranking Member Tonko and members of the committee. My name
is Dr. David Reichmuth. I am a senior engineer with the Union
of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy organization
whose primary mission is to ensure that policy is crafted based
on the best available science. I would like to thank you for
the invitation to talk to you today about the benefits of
electric vehicles, or EVs.
The promises of EVs are clear. Drivers can save money,
harmful emissions are reduced, and the use of petroleum can be
minimized. Reducing emissions means public health benefits,
economic benefits, and avoiding the worst impacts of climate
change. Transportation is now the leading source of carbon
dioxide emissions in the United States. Addressing the
emissions from this sector is a critical piece in moving toward
a more sustainable economy and way of life not just for the
United States but worldwide.
Now switching fuels from petroleum to electricity can
provide significant emissions reductions. My colleagues and I
have compared the climate emissions from driving on electricity
versus gasoline. To do so, we considered all the global warming
emissions from driving on electricity versus gasoline and we
considered all the emissions from fueling power plants, getting
electricity to an EV and compared that to the emissions created
extracting crude oil, refining gasoline, distribution to
filling stations, and combustion in a vehicle's engine.
Our most recent analysis shows that cars driving on
electricity in the U.S. have emissions equal to what a gasoline
car that gets 80 miles per gallon would produce. It is true
that emissions from EVs vary depending on where in the U.S.
they are driven, as the emissions from electricity generation
varies regionally. Overall, 75 percent of the people in the
U.S. now live where driving on electricity is cleaner than a 50
mile per gallon gasoline car and these are figures for the
average EV. More efficient EVs of course are even cleaner. Not
only are EVs cleaner than gasoline cars, the gap is growing as
electricity generation shifts away from dirtier fossil fuels to
sustainable lower emission resources.
EVs also have air quality benefits when paired with clean
sources of power. Studies have shown the potential for EVs to
reduce ground level ozone and particulate matter in both urban
and rural areas across the country. But EVs are not just
cleaner than gasoline vehicles, they are cheaper to refuel and
maintain. In a recent UCS analysis we compared the cost to
refuel with gasoline with the cost to recharge an EV. Looking
at the electricity providers in the 50 biggest U.S. cities,
recharging an EV is cheaper than refueling the average new
gasoline vehicle in every city. The average saving is almost
$800 per year on fuel costs.
In addition to lower fuel costs, EV drivers avoid
unexpected shocks to their household budget from spiking
gasoline prices and face significantly lower maintenance costs.
Battery electric vehicles have no engine so no oil changes,
spark plugs, or engine air filter to change. Instead, electric
motors and batteries require little to no attention. This means
less time and less money spent on routine car maintenance.
Now EVs are an important tool to improve public health and
economic vitality, but the EV market, the infrastructure, and
the technology are still relatively new. It has been less than
8 years since the start of mainstream EVs in the United States
and the ability of longer range, lower cost, battery electric
vehicles really only started last year. So, while there is
strong growth in EVs both in the number of models available and
sales volume, it is far too early to end public sector
investments in EVs and in needed infrastructure. Removing
support prematurely will delay the adoption of EVs at a time we
need to be doing exactly the opposite which is accelerating the
transition to cleaner transportation.
Other countries around the world are moving to incentivize
and require electric vehicles and manufacturers will need to
respond in order to compete. Last year, four of the five top-
selling EV models in the U.S. came off of American assembly
lines. Making policy choices in the U.S. that inhibit the
growth of EVs will place domestic car makers at risk of falling
behind, hurt American drivers, and harm U.S. manufacturing. Now
EVs are an important solution to improve air quality and reduce
climate changing emissions. They allow U.S. drivers to use a
cheaper fuel with lower variability in price. The EV market, it
is young but it is growing and the investment that U.S.
Government, the states, automakers, and utilities have made in
EVs will pay dividends if we continue to have smart EV
policies.
I would like to thank you for the invitation to share UCS's
perspective on electric vehicles and I am happy to speak to
those issues or anything else which is of interest to the
committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reichmuth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
And finally, last but not least, Mr. Dylan Remley, Senior
Vice President, Global Partners, on behalf of the National
Association of Convenience Stores and Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America. Sir, you are recognized for 5
minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DYLAN REMLEY
Mr. Remley. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the future policy implications of electric and
conventional vehicles. My name is Dylan Remley. I am Senior
Vice President of Terminal Operations for Global Partners.
Global has one of the largest terminal networks in the
Northeast and we are also one of the largest independent
owners, suppliers, and operators of gasoline stations in the
Northeast with approximately 1,450 locations, 260 of which we
directly operate. I am testifying today on behalf of the
National Association of Convenience Stores and the Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.
Members of NACS and SIGMA, collectively, account for
approximately 80 percent of retail motor fuel sales in the
United States. Fuel retailers are consumer-facing entities that
must adapt to changing consumer demands and to do so we must
change the products and services we offer to the general
public. We have chosen our retail locations with care. We
constantly strive to provide the best possible refueling
services to consumers. For example, Global itself has recently
partnered with Electrify America to install EV charging
stations in some of our stores and we are also exploring a
number of other options with EV providers to meet the ever-
changing needs of our customer base.
However, as more electric vehicles continue to share the
road with conventional vehicles in the years ahead, we urge
policymakers to consider several factors including the
environmental and energy independence implications of this
shift, the impact on marketplace competition, and then the
impact on the Nation's infrastructure. Lawmakers must examine
the well-to-wheels cost and impact of EVs from power plant
energy distribution to battery disposal. How will batteries be
ultimately recycled and then disposed of if it cannot be
recycled? Moving forward now and figuring out not only this
issue but a host of others at a later date does not work.
It is also important for lawmakers to consider energy
security and independence questions. Our nation has made
significant strides to achieve energy independence and
security. We should question the implications of a transition
to electricity-powered vehicles that will come at a significant
cost in the form of new infrastructure and will rely on the
importation of certain raw materials from countries that may
not be considered politically or economically stable. However,
today, what we would most like to emphasize is that
policymakers must consider the current skewed incentives that
exist for EVs that may lead to an anticompetitive refueling
marketplace.
Many states effectively grant utility companies a monopoly
over the provision of electricity in a particular marketplace
and utility companies are guaranteed a rate of return from
their ratepayers. Recently, utility companies have sought
approval to enter the EV recharging business and treat their
capital investments in that business as part of the utility
rate base that all of their customers must pay. The private
sector will have significant difficulty competing with zero
market entry costs. It is inappropriate for utility companies
and states to be regressively funding electric recharging
infrastructure on the backs of ratepayers, the vast majority of
whom do not even drive EVs.
I want to be very clear. Fuel retailers do not have a
problem with a public utility entry in the electric fuel
recharging business provided it is competing for that business
on equal footing with the private sector. A public utility
company should not be able to invest in electric or alternative
fuel recharging infrastructure by using ratepayer funds which
the private sector simply cannot compete with.
Infrastructure concerns including updating the power grid
and the cost of maintaining the Nation's roads and bridges must
also be evaluated. Unlike conventional vehicles which support
infrastructure investments because their owners pay the gas
tax, current EV owners use the country's roads essentially for
free. Lawmakers should ensure the EV recharging and
infrastructure investment is done through the private sector on
a level playing field so that tax and other incentives are not
provided to certain stakeholders to the omission of others.
Finally, given the prime location of retail fueling stores,
the highly competitive nature of our industry, and a wealth of
experience in refueling, we believe that the fuel retailing
industry is well-positioned to meet consumer needs as EVs
continue to enter the marketplace. We encourage Congress and
the states to work with industry and other stakeholders to find
ways to deploy electric charging infrastructure via the
existing privately developed motor fuel marketplace. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Remley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. What a great panel. I
appreciate all your time. It shows you the challenges that we
have in front of us.
So with that I will recognize myself 5 minutes to start the
round of questioning. And this is really for anyone. You all
have been following what we have been doing. Our last hearing
on April 13th talked about the opportunity of high octane fuels
and vehicles optimized to use them. Do you see that as a
benefit to meeting CAFE and environmental emission issues if we
moved to a high octane standard? And this is open to any of the
panelists who may want to answer that question.
Bob, first?
Mr. Dinneen. Sure. Absolutely, Congressman, as I mentioned
in my testimony, we believe that high octane fuels with
optimized engines represent a tremendous opportunity to
generate efficiency gains and carbon reductions. It is the way
of the future and can be one of those future technologies that
is providing consumer choice and savings at the pump.
Mr. Shimkus. Mitch?
Mr. Bainwol. We would agree that octane offers an
opportunity for fuel efficiency gains and we are agnostic about
the source of the octane, but ethanol is a low-cost option.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, Mr. Bainwol, so in our debate we have
talked to, in essence, our big three, but obviously you
represent a broader spectrum of manufacturers who haven't been
in discussions with us yet. Do you think they would eventually
see this as an opportunity for meeting the CAFE and some of the
environmental issues?
Mr. Bainwol. So I think most folks agree that there is a
value to octane and its conversation, I think, is taking place
and will accelerate. Just last week a number of our members met
with Bob and others from the ethanol community, so I think it
is timely, ripe, and we are happy to engage.
Mr. Shimkus. Great.
Mr. Macchiarola?
Mr. Macchiarola. Sure. Mr. Chairman, we believe the idea of
a 95 RON technology-neutral national performance standard is an
intriguing one. Certainly it would have to be coupled in a
conversation about broader RFS reform that we believe must
include a sunset of the program, but again we also think on the
question of 95 RON there are outstanding questions, questions
about timing, the phase-in period of which it would be phased
in, questions about potential costs at retail, potential
mislabeling issues, are all questions that need to be analyzed
and assessed. But again we appreciate your efforts on
comprehensive RFS reform.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Remley.
Mr. Remley. Chairman, if I can just comment briefly, I
think we would agree with a lot of the comments that the rest
of the witnesses had. It is a promising opportunity. I think
the concern just raised by Mr. Macchiarola would also be echoed
at the retail level which is labeling. There are still
questions from OEMs with regards to higher ethanol blends, but
the concept of the 95 RON and higher octane is certainly a
promising development.
Mr. Shimkus. Great, thanks.
I want to move to my next question so I want to go to AAA,
Ms. McKernan. The price of EVs are still high and the long
charging stations makes it difficult to take long trips. I am
from rural Illinois and I represent 33 counties. Over the last
week I spent almost 6 hours on the road every day I was home.
So can EVs ever work for lower income households especially
ones that can only afford a single car?
Ms. McKernan. Well, definitely range anxiety is beginning
to ease and the number of charging stations has increased in
the United States, reached a level of 16,000 in 2017. AAA's
main concern is giving consumers a choice. And so we are not
advocating one way or another that people should drive EVs or
not, we want to provide the most information that we can for
consumers so they have the choice.
Mr. Shimkus. So let me cut you off, I am getting short on
time. But I wanted to ask because you mentioned roads and
bridges, so how do we help--and this is not a Ways and Means
Committee, in fact, my roommate Mr. Brady would be mad if I
asked this question. But how do we then incorporate the
electric vehicles into the funding of our roads and bridges
systems? What is the secret sauce that allows us to help
maintain those in a Highway Trust Fund?
Ms. McKernan. I don't have that specific information. This
particular study didn't cover anything like that. But I would
be happy to have AAA's staff follow up with a response.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I think that is going to be, it is an
important debate if you talk to folks in the Transportation
Committee and also the Ways and Means, is why haven't we done
anything on roads and bridges is this Highway Trust Fund fight.
So this is going to be, whether it is now or the future it is
going to be part of the debate.
Let me go back to Bob for my final question. In your
testimony you suggest that environmental benefits of EVs are
overstated while the environmental benefits of biofuels are not
fully accounted for. How would you suggest fixing that?
Mr. Dinneen. Well, I think they need to look at a full
lifecycle analysis for all fuels and technologies. For ethanol,
Congressman, they count the angels on the head of a pin. They
look at the energy it takes to produce the fuel. They take the
energy that is used in the production of the fertilizer on the
farm and the energy it takes to produce the John Deere hat the
farmer wears. Heck, they even count emissions from overseas
from indirect land use. And for electricity they only are
looking at the carbon not the tailpipe and the source of the
electricity is not considered and that just gives a disparate
view.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. My time has expired. I am going to
move to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McKernan, earlier I mentioned some of the trends that
AAA has identified on potentially changing consumer attitudes
on EVs. Do you have any thoughts on whether there might be a
growing consumer acceptance of EVs?
Ms. McKernan. Yes, there definitely is a growing consumer
acceptance. The more consumers can learn about the technology,
what the capabilities are, and seeing whether or not it can fit
into their lifestyle, I think, is what is helping to change
their attitudes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Dr. Reichmuth and Ms. Cullen, some have suggested that
low penetration of EVs is because consumers do not want them.
Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Reichmuth. If I may, that is not a fair assessment
because the consumers in the marketplace for a new car are not
seeing the same variety of models that they are seeing in
gasoline vehicles. So there are cars that are not available in
every state, the Fiat 500E is only available in two states, for
example. There is no plug-in pickup truck yet so if you are in
the market for a pickup. There are also brands that don't offer
an EV, so you can't get a Jeep or a Lexus plug-in yet. So, when
you just look at the penetration rate, the number, the amount
of sales, it doesn't reflect necessarily the consumer desire to
buy an EV if they can't get that EV on their dealers' lots.
Ms. Cullen. I would also point out that you are talking
about penetration in an extremely large market so while the
percentage might be small in penetration the growth of the
market has been substantial. As I noted, we went from two
vehicles on the market in late 2010 to almost 50 varieties at
different price points today and those offerings are only
increasing. Every major auto manufacturer has announced plans
to diversify their fleets, their price points, the sizes, to
offer the additional segments and performance profiles that
consumers are looking for.
So I think it is also important to note again the market
has grown every year since introduction and that 2017
represents a 71 percent increase in sales over 2015. So this
market is growing, but we are pretty new and we are a small
part of the enormous car park.
Mr. Tonko. And again, Ms. Cullen, one of the biggest
barriers to greater EV adoption has been a lack of charging
infrastructure. You cite a Navigant study that estimates sales
of fast chargers are expected to increase from 20,000 to over
70,000 annually within a decade. What role will this deployment
of fast charging infrastructure have in further EV adoption?
Ms. Cullen. The expansion of DC fast charging will
absolutely facilitate expanded use of electric transportation
and it might be worth just taking a second for those people
that don't live and breathe this that so there are levels of
charging. Level 1 is the outlet in your home. Level 2 at 240
volts is what your dryer or your refrigerator would run after
and that reduces the charging time of an EV by half. A DC fast
charger reduces that charging time again to a point that
enables essentially long distance traveling in a pure battery
electric vehicle.
I would also add that the question--you can also build
range confidence by building in extra battery capacity in the
vehicle. And that is what is happening. We are seeing longer
ranges in battery vehicles and the fact that there are plug-in
hybrids where you have the addition of an internal combustion
engine that can service all your longer distance needs and
perhaps do all of your daily commuting on electricity.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Dr. Reichmuth, a majority of EV charging occurs at
home. Unfortunately, this is not an option for everyone
especially in cities which may have high potential for EV
adoption due to shorter commuting but also have many people
living in apartment buildings, multifamily houses, or in
neighborhoods without dedicated parking spots. So do you have
any suggestions of how to enable this population to access EV
charging infrastructure?
Mr. Reichmuth. Yes. That is an important consideration. So
there is a number of things that are going on. One is the
increase in putting charging into multifamily dwellings, so
apartment buildings, condominiums, and a number of the
utilities are working hard at that right now. We can also take
a look at building codes. Putting at least conduit and the
space for EV charging in parking garages and new facilities,
you don't have to put the wiring, you don't have to put in the
charging equipment itself. You can just put the conduit so you
don't have to rip up concrete or rip up a parking lot to put in
charging later.
And then the last thing is DC fast charging in urban
environments not just for people that don't have a place to
park at home and to charge at home, but also to enable taxi,
ride sharing, and other uses of electric vehicles in the urban
environment, so having that fast charging within the urban
environment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
our panel members for being here this morning. I appreciate
this discussion.
Ms. Williams, the electricity grid is becoming increasingly
complex with electric vehicles being just a part of that
increasing complexity. This presents us both with opportunities
and challenges for the grid. Along those lines, can you
identify any potential cyber threats associated with increased
usage of EVs and what is the industry doing to tackle these
challenges?
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much for that question. So as
you know, the electric utility industry, the energy companies
of America, we take cyber threats extremely seriously. We work
very closely with the government looking at standards, looking
at our controls, looking at specific things we need to do to
make our grid the safest and the most cyber secure that it can
be. Of course when you look at electrification overall, more
points, electrification whether they be electric vehicles or
other things do in fact present additional opportunities for a
hacker to get in and that is why we have got to be so vigilant,
again working closely with government to make sure that our
system is up to code, that we have good monitoring in place,
early detection, and fast response.
We view charging networks or chargers very much like an
appliance and as our homes become smarter, as really the grid
becomes smarter we have to increase the level of vigilance and
make sure that it is up to code in everything that we have in
place. There are NERC standards, there are any number of
standards that we comply with to make sure that they are cyber
secure.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. Well, my background is information
technology and I have said it many, many times, cybersecurity
is not a goal that has a finish line because as soon as you
solve one problem there is a dozen more right on the backside
of it. It is just something we are going to have to remain
vigilant on and I appreciate that.
Mr. Macchiarola, the oil and gas industry has undergone
significant changes due to breakthroughs and technological
advancements. Eastern and Southeastern Ohio, for example, has
benefited greatly from the Utica and Marcellus shale gas plays
and I think the ability to access this cheap oil and gas took
many people by surprise. And I think this example plainly shows
we can't always predict future technological breakthroughs nor
the impact that these breakthroughs will have on the different
sectors of our economy such as the automobile industry.
So as Congress looks at current and future transportation
policies, how can we ensure that we are not jeopardizing the
private sector's ability to innovate and bring about new
technological advancements?
Mr. Macchiarola. That is a great question, Congressman, and
you know firsthand the experience of the shale gas revolution
and in Ohio and your leadership on LNG exports helped bring
that to markets around the world. From our perspective, I think
the point you make is a strong one about the fact that tipping
the scale, of keeping your finger on the scale for government
through mandates or through incentives can have a real
dampening effect on bringing affordable energy to the consumer,
strengthening our energy security.
The example that I highlighted in my testimony, the
Renewable Fuel Standard, is a perfect case of that. The
estimates that we had both on the demand side and on the supply
side totally missed the mark over the past decade and the
result is we have a mandate that can't be met and needs to be
reformed.
Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
Ms. Williams, back to you, I mentioned that I represent
rural Appalachia. It is not uncommon for my constituents to
have to travel 35, 40 miles up hills, down hills, around curves
to go to work, to go check on Mom and Dad, to go to the grocery
store or the hospital. The terrain is hilly and dependability
is a must in automobiles, with light trucks and SUVs and
pickups largely making up the vehicles of choice. While I see
EVs making inroads in the cities, they face a different set of
challenges in my neck of the woods. Do you believe that EVs
will become viable in rural parts of the country that have
weather and terrain and distance challenges like that?
Ms. Williams. I do believe they will become viable in all
parts of our society. Within our own service area we have hills
and lots of varied terrain. We have a lot of agricultural parts
of our service area in our Central Valley and our North Valley.
Some of these areas also end up being some of our most
disadvantaged.
So one of the things that we are doing as we are doing
these pilots to put in more charging networks is going to learn
a great deal about as you put these charging stations in
different parts of our service area, some of which are
disadvantaged communities, some of which are rural, how does it
impact the adoption of electric vehicles, does it make a
difference? We think it will, but it is going to be an
interesting pilot for us to learn from so that we can take
those learnings and then deploy them. As we have heard from
some of the other folks this morning that are testifying,
battery life is increasing and technology is really evolving
and so what we have today may not be exactly what we have 10 or
20 years from now, so I do believe that it will be viable
across the country.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you, ma'am. And Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman--we have a lot of Californians on
this subcommittee--so he recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman and I thank the
panelists, a great set of viewpoints this morning.
Ms. Williams, I appreciate you giving us a shout-out to
Stockton and the work with the RTD out there to electric our
bus systems. What sort of integration challenges do the
electric utilities face and are there grid related benefits to
EV penetration?
Ms. Williams. I do believe there are grid-related benefits.
One of the things that we find in California as we know,
Congressman, is we have plentiful solar renewable resource
available to us, often more than we need in the middle of the
day. And I believe that electric vehicles provide us an
opportunity through smart charging, through incentives to
really, our customers to charge at the right time to take
advantage of that plentiful resource that is there to really
better utilize this incredible energy grid that we have. At the
same time we are seeing second use batteries being grouped and
deployed to become almost like a battery to grid resource. So
in the middle of the night when we don't have the sunshine, the
battery, the second life batteries provide us needed resources
to really smooth out the resource requirements for our system.
Mr. McNerney. So when you refer to wireless smart charging
you are referring to the communication being wireless not the
charging?
Ms. Williams. Correct, the communication, the telematics.
Mr. McNerney. Right. Do you have any rebuttal to Mr.
Remley's comments that the utilities are being guaranteed a
rate of return and building EV infrastructure on the backs of
ratepayers?
Ms. Williams. I do. Energy companies like PG&E Corporation
or PG&E are not guaranteed a rate of return. That is a rate of
return that is set and if you operate your system efficiently
and effectively and deploy your capital and run your business
efficiently you could achieve that but you don't often achieve
that necessarily. As far as the whole approach of the utilities
somehow expanding their monopoly, we believe in competition and
EEI nor PG&E believes that there is one point of view in terms
of what that business model looks like. We look forward to
partnering with third parties in terms of the actual ownership
of the charging network. We view ourselves as an enabler. We
view ourselves as, because of our scale, because of our capital
as spurring this important resource into happening, but we
certainly don't believe that we are the only game in town. We
want to help electric vehicles actually become more of a
reality. Again we see ourselves as an enabler, not as a
monopolistic owner of those charging networks.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Reichmuth, how do EVs lifecycle global warming
emissions compare to that of gasoline vehicles?
Mr. Reichmuth. That is an important question. So with the
research that we have done at UCS we found that, in general,
driving on electricity is much cleaner than driving on gasoline
from a global warming perspective. In our analysis we did an
apples-to-apples comparison, looked at all the emissions from
generating electricity and bringing it to the EV and compared
that to getting crude oil out of the ground, refining it into
gasoline, distributing it to service stations, and then of
course burning it in the car. If you look at cars today on the
road, the EVs on the road, they average emissions equal to an
80 mile per gallon gasoline car and that is higher in places
with cleaner electricity, so over a hundred miles a gallon
equivalent in California.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Bainwol, have the CAFE standards introduced an
explosion of innovation in auto engineering? That is kind of a
leading question, but go ahead and answer it.
Mr. Bainwol. Yes, there has been massive investment in
innovation both on a powertrain side and elsewhere, and
certainly standards certainly bias some of those decisions.
Mr. McNerney. Will the elimination as proposed by Mr.
Pruitt impact that drive to innovation?
Mr. Bainwol. There has not been a final NPRM so we don't
know whether they are going to be eliminated or not. We are
hopeful that this slope continues to rise. We are in favor of
year over year fuel efficiency.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Cullen, do you know if the electric vehicle industry
working to create appliances--let me read this as it is
written. I am trying to innovate here. Do you know if the
electric vehicle industry working to create small motors for
industries such as agriculture is the industry working to
create applications for agriculture?
Ms. Cullen. It absolutely is. There is enormous growth in
mobile equipment in the electric drive field. We are seeing
them in tractors, in forklifts, and you are seeing applications
at ports and other, and airports that the flexibility of
electric drive is that it is very scalable and so that it can
be used in small and light applications as well as larger and
heavy duty ones because we are also seeing an enormous growth
in the medium and heavy duty and the transit bus segment.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expiring.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I will yield back then.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the Chairman Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Joe Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. I am happy to go, but Mr. Duncan was
here before me if you----
Mr. Shimkus. I would like for you to allow Mr. Duncan to go
first.
Mr. Barton. I think Mr. Duncan is fully entitled. He showed
up at his first baseball practice today and that gives him real
priority.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
And Mr. Bainwol, in your testimony you alluded to the
obvious that when gas prices fall the desire to pay more for a
vehicle with higher fuel economy diminishes. The statements
reflect over the ebbs and flows of the demand in the market.
Despite all the incentives to purchase EVs, they still only
represent only 1 percent of all vehicles purchased last year.
Despite the reality of the market, it is clear that government
is trying to push consumers toward purchasing electric
vehicles.
Now I believe that the market determines what people buy
and people buy what suits their needs whether it is safety as a
concern, whether it is size, horsepower, or whatever, and many
people like to drive SUVs. For example, in my district light
trucks, SUVs, pickups, and vans accounted for 63.92 percent of
vehicle sales. Electric vehicles only accounted for 0.05 of the
sales in 2016. Now my office did the math and that equates to
literally 13 electric vehicles in my district, 13--770,000
people and 11 counties in South Carolina, in 2016 that equated
to 13 vehicles.
It is clear my constituents don't really gravitate toward
these vehicles. I am not going to say they don't like them.
They don't gravitate toward them for a lot of reasons, probably
price point being a big part of that, probably the need to
carry things in a pickup or SUV. So the way I see it, when
consumers are determining what vehicle to purchase they look to
see if it fits their needs. I do recognize that the price of
EVs are decreasing and I understand the Tesla Model 3 costs
about $35,000. Let me ask you this. If electric vehicles can be
brought down to a price comparable to that of an average
conventional new car, should the government be providing
massive tax credit to purchase them?
Mr. Bainwol?
Mr. Bainwol. So when we get to a point where the costs have
equalized I think that is a good policy question. We face a
reality today where globally and in this country we have
requirements to meet both CAFE standards as well as the ZEV
mandate in California and a bunch of other states that
represent probably a third of the country. So we have a
compliance reality where electrification really does help. And
so the question here is when this inflection point occurs and
that is a function of range and battery cost, and I think
Bloomberg has estimated that by 2025 the price delta will
equalize and at that point certainly with additional range then
you can see the calculus for a consumer evolving.
Mr. Duncan. I agree. So let me ask you this. If we get rid
of the tax credits and incentives do you truly believe consumer
demand is there for electric vehicles?
Mr. Bainwol. I think consumer demand is coming and we need
for it to come. We do have a compliance reality that is just a
matter of law and so we have got to comply and electrification
is definitely a piece of that compliance. And as the battery
costs come down and range improves then that becomes a viable
compliance approach.
Mr. Duncan. I actually like electric vehicles. I like the
thought process of it. I understand horsepower issues. An
electric motor pushes an aircraft carrier. So I also understand
the simplicity. If you blow an electric motor you unplug it,
put another one in, plug it back in, and the car goes. It is
not like an internal combustion engine. I think the car
manufacturers are recognizing the future as well. I think we
are going to see that. The problem I have is when government
picks winners and losers, when government is forcing consumers
into a certain area like this because of some political beliefs
and philosophical beliefs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other questions, but
thanks for holding the hearing. It has been informative. I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you again to
all of the witnesses for being here, a subject I deeply care
about.
I am going to do my first questions to Mr. Bainwol and to
Ms. Cullen. Can you elaborate on how the global shift to the
electrification of mobility is affecting the U.S. manufacturing
base and what kind of opportunity does this represent for the
auto industry and its workers?
Mr. Bainwol. I would just note that first slide I showed
reflected a growth in unit sales from roughly 50 million units
in 1996 to something approaching 100 million units. And as
other countries right or wrongly determine that electrification
is going to be a big piece of that for us to compete we have
got to have an ability to innovate and to respond to that
growing market.
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Cullen, any comment?
Ms. Cullen. I agree completely with what Mitch just said
there and I think as a matter of manufacturing and employment
this global market is an enormous generational opportunity. The
last time DOE looked at employment numbers they were looking at
in 2015, just looking at the electric drive manufacturing
segment they counted some 215,000 jobs. So that is fully 3
years ago. In that time that segment has grown as has the
entire ecosystem associated with vehicles and infrastructure.
So it is an enormous opportunity for our employment base and
for our global competitiveness.
Mrs. Dingell. As mentioned in your testimony, and to this
committee and the House, the House unanimously passed
legislation that we worked, I worked on, to facilitate the
testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Can you both
talk a bit more about the role EV technology plays in
supporting AV's future?
Ms. Cullen. First of all, thank you for your leadership on
that issue. We are, I think everyone in the industry and
everyone who actually uses roads is interested in the future of
automation and how that changes transportation. I think what
everyone who is looking at automation sees is that
electrification is an optimal partner, because as a congressman
pointed it is a simpler technology so there are fewer pieces to
electrify. It is also more suited to the connectivity that is
essential for automated transportation.
Again and finally, I think because of its drive cycles EVs
are perfect partners for what is seen as the first market for
automated vehicles which is urban shared mobility, sort of your
Lyft vehicle, and that those short drive cycles are perfect for
an urban EV.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I am going to be running out of
time and I have a lot of questions. So let me ask you, switch
to another subject, I want to talk about the important role
that Congress can play to incentivize EV adoption and
deployment. The EV tax credit has played an important role in
this, but should we be looking at tweaking it if necessary to
make it even more effective? We know that today's electric
vehicles cost more than the conventional gasoline powered cars.
Do you believe that the EV tax incentive has helped consumers
afford an EV that they otherwise would not?
Ms. Cullen. Absolutely. The credit has been effective and
it is working as designed by Congress. It is making a new
technology, which has the standard price premiums associated
with new technologies, more affordable to consumers which in
turn is helping the industry build to scale and that is the
global opportunity we are trying to capture.
Mrs. Dingell. So I hear from manufacturers that the tax
credit has been critical to EV sales. Do you think that when
some manufacturers hit the cap and they may need to reduce the
price and potentially lose even more money could this
disincentivize EV protection and could this cap potentially
take us backwards? In your opinion, will auto companies reach
production scale at 200,000 units or do we need a larger more
robust EV market so that all manufacturers can take advantage
of this scale?
Ms. Cullen. I think it is important that Congress take a
look and update that credit to reflect where the scale of the
market is now. I think there is an important role for it to
play going forward and having as many diverse entrants into the
industry is critical.
Mrs. Dingell. We know that about ten states currently offer
EV incentives. Why isn't this doing enough? Why is it so
important for the Federal Government to have a role here to the
EV tax credit and can you even answer why when states who have
these EV mandates said that they were going to put these
vehicles into their fleets they haven't?
Ms. Cullen. I cannot answer that question. I would leave
that to the states. But the federal policy does speak to the
importance of certainty and that is what consumers want, what
manufacturers want, and what industry wants is they need some
certainty to make their decisions and make their investments.
Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since I
allowed Mr. Duncan to go first since he showed up at baseball
practice this morning, I should commend you, the audience that
know this, but in addition to being such a great subcommittee
chairman you are one of the all-time all-stars of the
Republican baseball team and just announced your retirement.
Your son is graduating, I think, the day of the game or the
next day.
Mr. Shimkus is the only, I think this is true, the only
current member of either team that has hit an over-the-fence
home run, blue socks, he was my MVP pitcher a number of years,
pitched the year after he had a heart attack. And you will be
missed. In fact you were missed at the practice today, you not
being there for the first time in 20 years. So in addition to
being a great subcommittee chairman, you are just one of the
best athletes to ever play in the baseball game and we will
miss you.
Mr. Shimkus. How very kind of you. I was able to work on my
nuclear waste bill though this morning so.
Mr. Barton. I don't know if that is a good tradeoff, quite
frankly. Anyway, we aren't here, we are basically here to talk
about electric vehicles.
I have got, really, just two basic questions and I don't
know who to ask them to, there are so many people at the
witness table. My first question is what is the cost of a home
electric vehicle charge station if there is such a thing in
existence? Who can answer that?
Mr. Remley?
Mr. Remley. The costs vary widely. If you are talking about
a Level 1 charger it can be a few hundred to a few thousand
dollars and it ranges----
Mr. Barton. I am talking about at somebody's house.
Mr. Remley. That is correct. It is going to be a few
hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on the vehicle and
a host of other factors. And a DCFC fast charger can be
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Barton. Hundreds of thousands.
Ms. Cullen. Congressman, may I?
Mr. Barton. Sure.
Ms. Cullen. Actually a Level 1 charger is the outlet in
your house. You don't pay extra for that. You can just plug in
your car. It will take longer to charge but you can do that for
free. A Level 2 charger to install it with any sort of smart
technology so that you could set a timer, you could spend a few
hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars depending on how
smart you want it to be.
Mr. Barton. But they are available?
Ms. Cullen. They are.
Mr. Barton. OK. Now what about a commercial charger at a, I
call it a gasoline station. I guess you would call it an
electric station. What would a commercial charger that you
could just drive up and instead of fill up your tank charge
your battery in some reasonable amount of time?
Ms. Cullen. Right. So at the next level, in commercial
facilities whether they are at coffee shops or at gas stations
or anyplace where there is an electricity line you can install
a commercial charging spot. And most people would use either a
Level 2 if it is a place where people are going to be sitting
for awhile like an airport where you are going to leave your
car while you are on a trip. You could plug it in and charge it
at a slower rate.
If you are, say, at Starbucks and you just have 10 minutes
they would be interested in installing a DC fast charge, which
is 480 volts, so that folks who went in to get a cup of coffee
could get several or ten or twelve miles of charge in 10
minutes. And that costs, depending on how, the conduit and how
complicated it is to lay down the line, $50,000 would be----
Mr. Barton. But those both in your home and commercially
there is equipment available today?
Ms. Cullen. Yes, in all price points and capacities.
Mr. Barton. OK.
Mr. Remley. Congressman, if I may, just our personal
experience we are installing them at our convenience stores. A
brand new convenience store having separate chargers requires a
separate, essentially, sub-mini station.
Mr. Barton. It is a what?
Mr. Remley. It is a separate sub-mini station.
Mr. Barton. Sub-mini station.
Mr. Remley. Yes. It requires 500 additional square feet and
the total cost of bringing that in is several hundred thousand
dollars.
Mr. Barton. All right, but not going to be a lot of several
hundred thousand dollar stations installed. This next question
is much trickier. We fund a big chunk of new highway
construction and maintenance through the Highway Trust Fund
which is funded by a cents per gallon federal highway gasoline
tax and in most states have the same thing, they tack on a
state tax. Well, if your electric vehicle, you can't charge
them per gallon so how do you, as we get more electric vehicles
how do we set up a system where they pay into the Highway Trust
Fund? Who wants to tackle that one?
Ms. Cullen. I will have a go at it.
Mr. Barton. OK. You are the lady with the answer today.
Ms. Cullen. Well, first, pure battery electric vehicles
don't use gasoline but plug-in highway vehicles do and they do
pay a gas tax.
Mr. Barton. Well, focus on all-electric.
Ms. Cullen. So for that segment of the fleet we absolutely
want to be part of a comprehensive solution that funds the
infrastructure, the conventional and the infrastructure of the
future that we need, and there are states looking at innovative
ways to do that. And we certainly recognize that the gas tax
system as it is not broken. We didn't break it, but----
Mr. Barton. And nobody has claimed you broke it.
Ms. Cullen [continuing]. The fact is it doesn't serve the
current transportation sector. So I think we need to look at
how everyone contributes and we want to be part of it.
Mr. Barton. Oh, you don't have an answer. Does everybody
who supports electric vehicles at the witness table agree that
electric vehicles in some way should pay proportionately into
the Highway Trust Fund? Is there anybody that disagrees with
that? I think if----
Mr. Bainwol. I would add just not a discordant note, but a
point of complication and that is we have aggressive fuel
standards in force that we have to comply with. I am not making
a value judgment, I am describing what is. And in order to
comply we need some level of electrification over the years to
come as well as with the California ZEV program, and to the
extent we put impediments in the way of adoption of
electrification that makes that challenge a little bit deeper.
So the point is that these policies can be contradictory and it
is a tough thing to manage and our particular challenge is we
need adoption of electrification in order to comply and that is
just a fact of life and anything that makes that more
challenging is a bit of a problem.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time, he was so nice to me so
I gave him a little bit of extra time. So the gentleman's time
has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to start by thanking Geisha Williams from PG&E. PG&E
services part of my district in California and it is always
nice to have a fellow Californian here, although we do have
plenty, I guess, here. We have seen the way that our changing
climate has intensified natural disasters across the country
and recent scientific studies have even been able to attribute
the extent to which climate change has affected specific
extreme events.
Ms. Williams, I know that your utility has felt the impacts
of climate change on your operation. Those impacts include more
intense wildfires and they are difficult for both rate payers
and utilities and I appreciate that the State of California is
taking a look at these issues. I am also pleased that you are
taking tangible climate action that reduces emissions from the
transportation sector to the benefit of both the utility and
the environment. Tell me more about PG&E's work to facilitate
EV deployment, because in our state it really is somewhat of a
mandate.
Ms. Williams. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
It is great to see you again. So we absolutely are facing
climate change issues in the State of California and we
certainly believe that the horrible, devastating wildfires that
we had last year are very greatly attributable to the severe
climate that we are seeing. So we have been on a journey in
California for over a decade now in terms of really looking at
emissions and reducing emissions. My own company has been very
successful. Today, 80 percent of the power that we deliver to
our customers is greenhouse gas-free and that is a great start.
The next big area of focus for the State of California as we
look at how do we continue to drive emissions down is
absolutely the transportation sector.
Forty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the State
of California come from transportation. I mentioned
NOx. I mentioned also particulate matter. There are
such significant air quality issues in the State of California.
Eight of the worst climate air quality, sort of, counties in
the country are in California, so we are all in on dealing with
the air quality issues, the greenhouse gas issues, and we truly
believe that transportation provides us an opportunity to go
through it.
Ms. Matsui. Could I ask, Ms. Cullen, we talked about
California and the Nation about the adoption of the EVs and I
think somebody said one percent across the Nation. And you are
saying, I think you said in California it is 3 to 4 percent; is
that right? Are you the one who said that?
Ms. Cullen. That was Mitch's number.
Ms. Matsui. OK, good. I was wondering, what is a driver of
the adoption in California? Is it policy, is it really a
climate change, what is it? Would you like to comment on that?
Ms. Cullen. It is a combination of factors. Certainly
policy helps to drive adoption. Also, it is one of the largest
car markets. There is a great deal of consumer education also
in California and I think which is an important point that has
been brought up by a lot of folks on this panel and a lot of
the questioners that educated consumers are an important part
of the deployment mix. And I think California has provided the
important nonfinancial and financial incentives, the tax
policy, as well as HOV lane access have also helped to speed
adoption in the state.
Ms. Matsui. OK. As you know I have been supportive of
California's authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own
light duty vehicle emission standards. And I am obviously
concerned by the administration's effort to weaken the current
national standards and the result will be more uncertainty,
which is really bad for the consumers and the automakers and
the environment, and last week the State of California and 17
other states sued the Trump EPA for its decision to revise the
light duty vehicle standards.
I will go back to Ms. Williams. I understand that PG&E is
supportive of the existing standards. Can you explain why you
are supportive and how these standards affect your utility,
broadly speaking?
Ms. Williams. Well, as I mentioned earlier, we truly
believe that we have unique air quality issues in the State of
California with eight of the ten worst air quality counties in
the country, so we truly believe that it is a public health
issue. We also believe that as we look at climate change, as we
look at what we need to do to continue to reduce emissions,
transportation is key to that. And we believe that electric
transportation in particular is going to provide us a great
means of reducing the GHG in the air and improve the air
quality and that is why we are supportive of the California
waiver.
Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
And I don't want to leave you out, Mr. Bainwol. The
automakers are really very important in this and we understand
that. And I really believe that the EVs, I am looking at how we
might do this. Listening to Mr. Duncan, we need to really
expand, we need to have more research and development on how we
expand types of vehicles that can be EVs. And I think we need
to expand that aspect of it and if we give too much preference
or to SUVs and light duty trucks with lower standards, I think
we will have difficulty actually incentivizing people to buy
the EVs. That is a comment on my part, if you want to respond.
Mr. Bainwol. I just note that there is a challenge when the
market and policy don't align and at some level the consumer is
always right. So we need to, I think, to some extent when we
have compliance issues we have got to educate the consumer and
try to drive adoption, but at the end of the day we have got to
satisfy the consumer.
Ms. Matsui. But I think when you drive adoption, you really
have to give more of a sense of the inventory has to be greater
too, that is, we are not there yet.
Mr. Bainwol. Well, the inventory one is coming, but this is
the alignment. You can't produce if people don't want to buy it
and we want them to buy it. We want to produce them and we want
to sell them, but if you produce them and they sit in showrooms
that does no one any good.
Ms. Matsui. But if you make more of the other vehicles then
there would be less incentive to get the EVs.
Mr. Bainwol. Well, I think the big incentive challenges is
that the success of the internal combustion engine has gotten
stronger and stronger. It is up 30 percent in 12 years. So when
you turn in your 12-year-old car and you go to buy a new car
and you are asked to pay a delta for an electrified product,
then you are looking at what you are getting in terms of the
replacement and it is a pretty good----
Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here, very interesting subject.
Mr. Bainwol, I will start with you. We were just talking
about California and their initiatives with the zero emission
vehicles and what they are trying to do with that program. It
has got to have an impact on your marketing and on your
manufacturers and exactly what they are trying to put out there
for consumers. What are the challenges that you see there?
Mr. Bainwol. So California does have a zero emission
vehicle mandate that is rising to as much as 15 percent by
2025, and a bunch of other states follow that mandate and it is
a challenge. When there is asymmetry between the market and
policy it produces cost and so we are working very hard to
drive down costs and to build range and to make it more
attractive so compliance is facilitated, but it is a challenge.
Mr. Carter. What about the hybrids? Is that something that
has helped ease the transition, if you will?
Mr. Bainwol. Hybrids help ease the transition certainly for
the CAFE and GHG programs, but at this point not for the ZEV
programs.
Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Remley, I wanted to ask you, through
the advent of all this all of a sudden now we have a new
anxiety, range anxiety. People are, instead of being concerned
about running out of gas they are concerned about running out
of electricity. Now this is a concern particularly in a rural
area like South Georgia that I represent. I don't see a whole
lot of charging stations in the areas that I represent. What
kind of challenge is this going to present for your industry
and how do you plan to respond to this?
Mr. Remley. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. We
are looking for the opportunity to participate in the EV
rollout. What we are looking for is a free competitive
marketplace to do that. As I said, my company and I know plenty
others are looking to install EV charging at the various
different levels, whether it is Level 1, Level 2 or DCFC fast
charging. It certainly is that rollout and the infrastructure
needs that are going to be required is a significant investment
that is going to need to be made in the country over the years.
I would also like to point out that the current structure
which is both tax incentives and energy charges through the
entire rate base to subsidize a very small selection of
consumers for purchasing these vehicles seems regressive. And
so as I said, from the SIGMA NACS standpoint we are looking for
a level playing field so that we can deploy free market capital
into this exciting new area.
Mr. Carter. I see this as somewhat comparable, if you will,
to what we are trying to do with telecommunications. I suspect
in the rural areas we are going to be the last ones to see this
type of technology and that is going to penalize us in a sense.
What is it going to take? Are we going to be looking at
subsidies or incentives for you to be able to supply those
areas with that?
Mr. Remley. I think that is an important policy
consideration about how rural areas of America will be allowed
to participate in this. As I said, we are looking if there are
subsidies or if there is going to be government support that
that is given to every stakeholder that is currently involved
in fueling the motoring public. We firmly believe over decades
of experience that our industry has the best corners and the
best locations to fuel the motoring public and we are merely
just looking to participate in that fueling and that change on
a level playing field.
Mr. Carter. OK. Ms. McKernan, let me ask you. You are
consumers. You are the people who belong to your organization,
what are their concerns? Is it price? Is it range anxiety? What
are the people out there mainly concerned about? Is it just
that it is something new that they aren't familiar with or?
Ms. McKernan. Well, I think actually it is probably a
combination of everything that you just mentioned. Range
anxiety definitely plays a role, but for some people EVs may
fit into their lifestyle if they don't have as far to drive. It
could be that they have a multiple car household. Most
households do have more than one vehicle. Learning about the
technology, and that is why it is so important for us to
provide the information for consumers and our members is
because we think the more that they learn about the technology
and that they have a wide range of choices when buying these
vehicles that the adoption of this will----
Mr. Carter. I am not trying to be funny, I am serious. Are
you all going to have electric rescue vehicles? When somebody
runs out of electricity are you going to send them--they call
AAA and they come and they can plug into your little vehicle
there and recharge and then take off again?
Ms. McKernan. We actually have piloted a little bit with
some vehicles that go out and can charge electric vehicles. But
yes, I mean AAA will move as the technology continues to grow
so that we can continue to serve our members.
Mr. Carter. Wow, this is fascinating. Thank all of you for
being here, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. And again
the chair does thank you all for being here. And seeing that
there are no further members wishing to ask questions for this
panel, I would like to thank all of you. Before we conclude I
would like to ask for unanimous consent to submit the following
documents for the record: An op-ed article by a guy named Mitch
Bainwol and a letter from Growth Energy. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. In pursuant to committee rules, I remind
members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record and I ask that witnesses submit their
response within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions.
And I think I have one I want to send, so please do that.
Without objection, this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
I would like to thank Mr. Shimkus for his ongoing and
comprehensive review of fuels and vehicles policy. There is a
lot of ground to cover, but we are learning a lot about where
we are and what we need to do in order to ensure affordable and
reliable transportation for the American people.
Our goal is to take full advantage of any emerging
opportunities that come with the growth of electric vehicles,
or EVs, in the years ahead, while heading off any potential
problems. And today, we will explore how EVs fit into the
personal transportation picture. I thank our witnesses,
including Dylan Remley of Global Partners, which has operations
in my home state of Oregon.
I will say at the outset that I echo Mr. Shimkus' concerns
about the viability of EVs in rural America. The range of
today's EVs wouldn't get you even halfway across my district,
and the electrification revolution has yet to make a real
impact on the larger work vehicles that many of my constituents
need and use on a regular basis. So, there is a lot more that
needs to happen before EVs can work for everyone.
That said, EVs are slowly but surely addressing their
shortcomings. Sticker prices are still too high but are coming
down, range is still too short but is increasing, and charging
times are still too long but are improving.
At the same time EVs are ramping up, refiners and
automakers are actively pursuing ways to improve the
conventional internal combustion engine in order to remain
competitive.
This kind of competition, not just between car companies
but also between car types, is good for consumers. Indeed, over
the last twenty years, we have essentially gone from the
internal combustion engine as the only choice for new car
buyers, to a world where hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and all-
electric vehicles are also available and come in many models.
I drive a hybrid on both coasts because it's what works
best for me. Others may stick with conventional cars, while a
small but growing number are choosing EVs and plug-ins. But
consumers win when there are a number of cost-effective options
to choose from.
As the vehicle mix changes, it is incumbent for Congress to
revisit past policies and make sure they are up-to-date. Is
CAFE working as intended? Does the Renewable Fuel Standard need
an update? Should high octane fuels and vehicles be given a
chance? Can the nation's electric grid handle the load? Is
refueling infrastructure policy working?
These and other questions will be addressed by today's
diverse panel and I thank them for their participation and
yield the balance of my time.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]