[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY COULD HELP MITIGATE AND
ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
(116-3)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-381 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Vice Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure \1\................... 3
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, prepared statement................................. 157
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air Resources Board:
Oral statement............................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center:
Oral statement............................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Thomas P. Lyon, Professor, Stephen M. Ross School of Business,
University of Michigan:
Oral statement............................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Ben Prochazka, Vice President, Electrification Coalition:
Oral statement............................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Nancy N. Young, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Airlines
for America:
Oral statement............................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Panel 2
Kevin DeGood, Director, Infrastructure Policy, Center for
American Progress:
Oral statement............................................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 106
James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
McWane, Inc.:
Oral statement............................................... 107
Prepared statement........................................... 109
Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project,
Center for Strategic and International Studies:
Oral statement............................................... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 118
----------
\1\ Hon. Carbajal delivered the prepared statement of Hon. DeFazio, who
was unable to attend the hearing due to a snowstorm in Oregon.
Lynn Scarlett, Vice President, Public Policy and Government
Relations, The Nature Conservancy:
Oral statement............................................... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 121
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Post-hearing supplements to testimony submitted by Ben Prochazka.
Article, ``Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide,'' Science, Vol. 213, No. 4511, August 28, 1981,
submitted for the record by Hon. Perry of Pennsylvania......... 159
Statement of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association, submitted for the record by Hon. Graves of
Missouri....................................................... 169
Statement of Ian J. Jeffries, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of American Railroads, submitted for the
record by Hon. Graves of Missouri.............................. 170
Comments of the Southern Environmental Law Center, submitted for
the record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon........................... 174
Letter of February 22, 2019, from Matthew J. Strickler, Secretary
of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted for
the record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon........................... 181
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Daniel
Sperling....................................................... 185
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Daniel Sperling.......... 185
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Daniel Sperling............. 187
Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia for Vicki Arroyo..... 187
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Vicki
Arroyo......................................................... 188
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Vicki Arroyo............. 188
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Vicki Arroyo................ 192
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Vicki Arroyo................. 193
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Vicki Arroyo................. 193
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Thomas P. Lyon............... 198
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Thomas P.
Lyon........................................................... 199
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Thomas P. Lyon............... 199
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Ben
Prochazka...................................................... 200
Question from Hon. Lloyd Smucker for Ben Prochazka............... 201
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Nancy N.
Young.......................................................... 201
Question from Hon. Garret Graves for Nancy N. Young.............. 202
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Kevin
DeGood......................................................... 203
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Kevin DeGood................. 203
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for James M.
Proctor II..................................................... 204
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for James M. Proctor II.......... 205
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Whitley Saumweber............ 206
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Whitley
Saumweber...................................................... 206
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Lynn
Scarlett....................................................... 207
Question from Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Lynn Scarlett...... 207
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 22, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
FROM: Staff, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
RE: Full Committee Hearing on ``Examining How Federal
Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate
Change''
Purpose
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
(Committee) will meet on Tuesday, February 26, 2019, at 10 a.m.
in HVC-210, the Capitol Visitors Center, to receive testimony
related to ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could
Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change.'' The purpose of
this hearing is to examine the role the transportation sector
plays in global warming, understand the dual track approach of
mitigation and resiliency, and learn from individuals in the
public and private sectors whom have demonstrated pragmatic
solutions for reducing carbon emissions and building resilient
infrastructure.
The first panel will focus on ways to mitigate the effects
of climate change, by reducing carbon emissions to reduce the
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The
Committee will hear from representatives of the California Air
Resources Board, Georgetown Climate Center, Stephen M. Ross
School of Business at the University of Michigan,
Electrification Coalition, and Airlines for America. The second
panel will address how to make infrastructure more resilient
and protect people, infrastructure, and ecosystems from the
impacts of climate change. The Committee will hear from
representatives of the Center for American Progress, McWane
Inc., Center for Strategic and International Studies, and The
Nature Conservancy.
Background
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) estimates that human activities have caused
approximately 1.0 +C of global warming above pre-industrial
levels, and are likely to cause a 1.5 +C increase between 2030
and 2052 if warming continues at the current rate.\1\ Impacts
from global warming are already apparent.\2\ Unless we take
action to quickly reverse course, these trends will persist for
centuries and will continue to cause further long-term changes
to the environment, such as sea level rise, changing
precipitation patterns, more acidic oceans, and increasing
frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Global warming of 1.5 +C: Summary for Policymakers.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. October 2018.
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation
THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECTOR'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING
In 2017, the emissions from transportation accounted for
about 28.7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
making it the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.\4\ Historically, electricity generation has been the
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but the
replacement of many coal plants with cheaper natural gas and
rising vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has recently pushed
transportation into the forefront as the largest contributor.
Within the U.S. transportation sector, passenger vehicles
and freight trucks added together account for 83 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation contributes only 10 percent
of emissions. Other modes such as rail and shipping play a
minor role.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2017. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2019. Table 2-10.
\5\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2017. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2019. Table 2-13.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PASSENGER VEHICLES, LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES, AND FREIGHT TRUCK MITIGATION
There are three methods to reduce emissions from passenger
vehicles and trucks, which combined account for 83 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions, and a robust decline in emissions
will require all three methods.
1. Improved Vehicle Efficiency--Reducing the amount of
fuel necessary to move a vehicle will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Traditionally, Congress has used CAFE standards to
reduce fuel consumption and related carbon emissions, although
the current Administration is considering changes to these
standards with a final rule pending.\6\ CAFE standards are
within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Switch to Fuel with Less Carbon: Shifting away from
fossil fuels and toward electricity, fuel cells, biodiesel, and
fossil fuels with less carbon content than gasoline or diesel
can reduce emissions. In the current market place,
electrification is viewed as the most plausible replacement for
fossil fuel and has the lowest carbon profile.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To find the impact of carbon reduction from switching to a
hybrid or electric car in your State see this link: https://
afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
3. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Reducing the number of
miles driven will reduce carbon emissions. Providing incentives
for more efficient travel planning, eliminating the need for
some trips, and shifting to more efficient modes will reduce
vehicle miles traveled.
AVIATION MITIGATION
Aviation emissions come largely from commercial carrier jet
fuel. According to the IPCC, aviation represents approximately
2 to 3 percent of the total annual global CO2 emissions from
human activities.\7\ While the United States does not currently
have standards for aircraft emissions (generally or carbon
dioxide specifically), the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) supports several emission-reduction programs and the
industry has taken on initiatives to reduce emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ European Union Aviation Safety Agency, European Aviation
Environmental Report 2019, available at https://www.easa.europa.eu/
eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/219473_
EASA_EAER_2019_WEB_HI-RES.pdf; see also EPA's most recent final GHG
inventory report, issued in April 2018, US commercial aviation is only
2 percent of the nation's domestic GHG emissions inventory. EPA
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a
specialized UN agency made up of 192 member states, is the
primary international body for regulating global aviation
standards. In 2016, ICAO reached an agreement on the (1) first
international carbon dioxide standards for newly built aircraft
and (2) first-of-its-kind carbon offsetting scheme known as the
Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
Aviation (CORSIA).\8\ CORSIA is an emissions offsetting program
aimed at achieving carbon neutral growth after 2020 for
operators that fly internationally and produce more than 10,000
metric tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions. CORSIA has the
support of the United States, U.S. airline industry, and 73
other ICAO member nations representing 75.96 percent of the
international aviation industry.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ International Civil Agency Organization, ICAO Council Reaches
Landmark Decision on Aviation Emissions Offsetting (June 27, 2018),
available at https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Council-reaches-
landmark-decision-on-aviation-emissions-offsetting.aspx
\9\ National Business Aviation Association, Carbon Offsetting and
Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA): Introduction &
Expectations on the Submission of Emissions Monitoring Plan (Oct. 16,
2018), available at https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/events/
20181011_Overview-of-CORSIA-EMP_NBAA-BACE-2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
1. CORSIA Implementation--To comply with the recent ICAO
agreements, the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are required to develop regulations regarding aircraft
design standards, emissions data collection, and monitoring. In
addition, the agencies are tasked with implementing the new
carbon offsetting system for U.S aircraft operators. Unlike how
the Clean Air Act sets standards for other modes, here, the EPA
must consult with the FAA on developing any emissions standards
for aircraft, giving the FAA a central role in creating and
enforcing the new ICAO environmental standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See ICAO, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN)
Program--The CLEEN program is a collaboration between the FAA
and industry to drive the development of new aircraft and
engine technologies that increase fuel efficiency, reduce
emissions, decrease noise, and advance sustainable aviation
fuels. During the first iteration of CLEEN, the FAA partnered
with five companies and had a total investment value of more
than $250 million by end of the original agreement in 2015.\11\
Through cost-sharing partnerships with industry, CLEEN projects
developed technologies that reduce noise, emissions, and fuel
burn. The second iteration, CLEEN II, currently has the FAA
partnered with eight companies and is scheduled to continue
through 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Federal Aviation Administration, Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program (2018), available at https://
www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/
aircraft_technology/cleen/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) Program--Through
participation in the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE)
Program, airports can use Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
funds and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue to finance
low-emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate
electrification, and other airport air quality improvements.
Through September 2018, this program funded 105 projects at 51
airports and is expected to reduce ozone emissions by 1,192
tons per year over the next five years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Federal Aviation Administration, Voluntary Aviation Lower
Emissions Program (VALE) (2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/
airports/environmental/vale/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NextGen Implementation--The FAA continues to develop
and implement NextGen technologies and procedures to modernize
the air traffic control system. NextGen programs include
Performance-Based Navigation procedures (GPS-satellite based
flight paths) and Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM)
deployment (a surface management solution), which will reduce
aircraft fuel burn and create a more predictable and efficient
flight and ground transportation system at airports.\13\ The
TFDM system alone is expected to create 313 million gallons of
fuel savings and reduce more than three million metric tons of
carbon emissions over the life of the system.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ United States. Cong. House. Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Subcommittee on Aviation. Hearing on Putting U.S.
Aviation At Risk: The Impact of the Shutdown Feb. 13, 2019. 116th
Congress 1st sess. p. 12 (Statement of Paul Rinaldi, President,
National Air Traffic Controllers Association).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
(CAAFI)--CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine
manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, international
participants, and U.S. government agencies working to promote
alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation. CAAFI has led
efforts in research and development, environmental assessment,
fuel testing, and demonstration and commercialization of
alternative aviation fuels. CAAFI efforts contributed to the
creation of testing protocols and new alternative fuel
specifications that have enabled approvals for aviation to use
new fuels in commercial service. According to the FAA, this is
helping to pave the way to large-scale production and use of
these fuels. This leadership has also helped make aviation a
major target market for the alternative fuels sector.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ United States Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Plan, submitted to ICAO, June 2015. Available at: https://www.icao.int/
environmental-protection/Lists/ActionPlan/Attachments/30/
UnitedStates_Action_Plan-2015.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMERCIAL AVIATION
U.S. airlines have increased fuel efficiency by more than
125 percent between 1978 and 2017, and they have moved 28
percent more passengers and cargo in 2016 than 2000, using 3
percent less fuel.\16\ This reflects the industry's interest in
maximizing fuel efficiency, largely attributed to the fact that
fuel consistently ranks as their largest or second largest
expense.\17\ Furthermore, the U.S. airline industry has
committed to ICAO goals to increase fuel efficiency and reduce
its environmental footprint. These goals include (1) achieving
annual fuel efficiency improvement of 1.5 percent starting in
2010, (2) achieving carbon neutral growth starting in 2020, and
(3) reducing net carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent over
2005 levels by 2050.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Airlines for America, Policy Priority: Energy and the
Environment (2018), available at http://airlines.org/policy-priorities-
learn-more/#energy
\17\ See Victoria Bryan, Higher Wages, Fuel Prices Turn Up Cost
Pressure on Airlines, Reuters, Feb. 14, 2018, available at https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-wages-inflation-analysis/higher-
wages-fuel-prices-turn-up-cost-pressure-on-airlines-idUSKCN1FY292
\18\ Airlines for America, A4A's Climate Change Commitment,
available at http://airlines.org/a4as-climate-change-commitment/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve these goals, airlines are investing in fleet
design standards with greater fuel efficiency, prioritizing the
adoption of NextGen technologies, and developing industry
coalitions such as the CAAFI to promote and deploy sustainable
aviation fuels within the commercial aviation industry.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine
manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, international
participants and U.S. Government agencies working to promote
alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARITIME MITIGATION
The maritime industry is taking steps to mitigate its
environmental impacts. Overall, the maritime industry is
responsible for approximately 2.6 percent of global CO2
emissions from fossil fuel uses.\20\ However, the industry is
working to reduce those emissions through several means,
including slow steaming, conversion to low sulfur fuels, and
the implementation of mandatory emission reductions in 2020.
There has been worldwide cooperation across the maritime
industry to pursue that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The International Council on Clean Transportation, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From Global Shipping, 2013-2015 (October 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency
The impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and
extreme weather events can have a serious impact on our ports,
airports, rail lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, locks, canals/
channels, waste water systems, transit systems, pipelines,
public buildings, and other critical infrastructure. Climate
trends affect the design of transportation infrastructure,
which is expensive and designed for long life (typically 50 to
100 years). As climatic conditions shift, portions of this
infrastructure will increasingly be subject to climatic
stresses that will reduce the reliability and capacity of
transportation systems and other infrastructure.
HIGHWAYS
Climate resiliency activities are eligible for Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) funding, including vulnerability
assessments and design and construction of projects or features
to protect assets from damage associated with climate change.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act
(P.L. 112-141) required states to develop risk-based asset
management plans for the National Highway System and to
consider alternatives for facilities repeatedly needing repair
or replacement with federal funding. The Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94) added a new
requirement for states and metropolitan planning organizations
consider projects and strategies to ``improve the resiliency
and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or
mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation'' as part
of their planning process.
WATER RESOURCES
The United States has over 95,000 miles of coastline and
approximately 3.4 million square miles of ocean within its
territorial sea. Some 53 percent of the total U.S. population
lives on the 17 percent of the land in the coastal zone, and
these areas become more crowded every year. Demands on coasts
are increasing, and as coastal areas become more developed,
these communities are vulnerable to hurricanes, storm surges,
and flooding events.
Similarly, inland communities are vulnerable to a changing
climate, especially communities that rely on rivers and
streams, and associated water resources infrastructure, for
transportation, water supply, power, and flood protection. For
example, in 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute
for Water Resources released a report on the impacts of climate
change to the Ohio River Valley--home to more than 27 million
people who live within this 204,000 square mile area.\21\ This
report modeled how increasingly potent storms could cause
increased river levels and the likelihood of flooding in low-
lying areas; how more frequent and heavy droughts could reduce
river volumes in localized areas, adversely impacting
navigation and power generation that all rely on river flows;
and the possible economic losses from the potential events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio River Basin Alliance,
Ohio River Basin--Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation
Strategies through Regional Collaboration with the ORB Alliance (May
2017), available at https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/
orba/USACE%20Ohio%20River%20Basin%20CC%20Report_MAY%202017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER RESILIENCY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Through the biennial Water Resources Development Acts, the
Committee has taken initial steps to ensure that the impacts of
climate change are taken into account in the planning, design,
and construction of water resources development projects, such
as flood risk reduction projects and hurricane and storm damage
reduction projects, as well as to promote greater use of
natural and nature-based infrastructure systems that seek to
mimic nature's resiliency and reduce the effects of extreme
weather events, and seek to develop integrated water resources
projects that address multiple project purposes. Similarly, the
Committee amended the Clean Water Act in the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) to make
projects increase the resiliency of water-related
infrastructure from the impacts of natural and man-made
disasters, including extreme weather events and sea-level rise.
FEMA RESILIENCY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In 2017, Executive Order 13690--the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FFRMS), which amended the longstanding
floodplain management Executive Order 11988, was repealed. In
2018, Congress enacted language in the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L.
115-232) to establish minimum flood mitigation requirements for
all military construction within the 100-year floodplain.
The FFRMS was developed with significant interagency
coordination during the Obama Administration. It was intended
to assist in reducing the risk and cost of future flood
disasters by ensuring that Federal investments in and affecting
floodplains were constructed to better withstand the impacts of
flooding. The FY19 NDAA language (Sec. 2805(a)(4)) is a similar
step toward resiliency--albeit limited to the Department of
Defense--requiring construction of non-mission critical
buildings to two feet above the base flood elevation (BFE) and
construction of mission-critical buildings to three feet above
the BFE.
Congress advanced two additional provisions to incentivize
greater resiliency for future projects receiving Federal
funding via the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
First, in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018
(P.L. 115-254), the Committee authorized the National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) fund which will be
funded as a six percent set aside from disaster expenses. This
will be a more consistent stream of funding for PDM, allowing
for greater investment in public infrastructure mitigation
before a disaster. Additionally, DRRA clarifies what may be
eligible for mitigation funding, ensuring Federal investments
are cost effective and reduce risk. Until enactment of DRRA,
PDM grants were inadequately and inconsistently funded by
annual and supplemental appropriations.
Second, in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 (P.L.
115-123), Congress authorized the President to adjust the
Federal cost share for FEMA Public Assistance grants on a
sliding scale for States and Tribes that have invested in
measures that increase readiness for, and resilience from, a
major disaster (Sec. 20606).
MARITIME RESILIENCY
The U.S. Arctic, as defined in statute \22\, encompasses
U.S. territory north of the Arctic Circle and along the Alaskan
coast, including the Aleutian Islands. Three Arctic seas--the
Bering, the Chukchi, and the Beaufort--border Alaska, and these
seas have historically been frozen for more than half the year.
The U.S. Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone contains 568,000 square
nautical miles (SNM), of which less than half is considered by
NOAA to be ``navigationally significant.'' The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has designated 38,000 SNM
of the navigationally significant areas as survey priority
locations in the Arctic and estimates that it could take up to
25 years to conduct modern hydrographic surveys in the priority
locations, if resources remain at their current level.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, as amended (Public
Law 98-373).
\23\ NOAA National Ocean Service, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
economy/arctic/, accessed February 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, most cargo ship traffic is not trans-Arctic;
rather it is regional, focusing on the transport of natural
resources and general cargo to and from widely dispersed
communities. While there has been a recent increase in shipping
activity, that increase is more related to a rise in commodity
prices than with the melting of Arctic ice.\24\ However, the
January 2019 Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth smallest in
the 41-year record, six percent below the 1981-2010
average.\25\ While all areas of the Arctic are seeing increased
vessel activity, the Northern Sea Route along the Eurasian
Arctic coast continues to account for the bulk of Arctic
shipping activity.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ronald O'Rourke, Congressional Research Service. Changes in
the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress. February 7, 2019.
\25\ National Snow & Ice Data Center, https://nsidc.org/
arcticseaicenews/, accessed February 19, 2019.
\26\ O'Rourke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous governmental and academic reports have identified
infrastructure and operational challenges to maritime
transportation in the U.S. Arctic, including limited satellite
coverage and architecture to support voice and data
communications, the lack of a deep-draft port (accommodating
ships with a draft of up to 35 feet), hazardous weather and ice
conditions, and the lack of channel marking buoys and other
floating visual aids to navigation, which are not possible due
to continuously moving ice sheets.\27\ In order to ensure safe
and efficient maritime transportation in the region, it is
necessary to conduct surveys to improve nautical charts,
improve communications capabilities, improve weather
forecasting and modeling, construct a deep-draft U.S. Arctic
port, and develop community and regional emergency response
networks in preparation for vessel and aircraft accidents and
environmental damage related to increased ship traffic and
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Arctic Council (2009) Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment; U.S.
White House (2013) National Strategy for the Arctic Region; U.S.
Government Accountability Office (2014) Maritime Infrastructure: Key
Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next
Decade; Alaska Arctic Policy Commission (2015) Final Report; U.S.
Committee on the Marine Transportation System (2016) A Ten-Year
Prioritization of Infrastructure Needs in the U.S. Arctic; Council on
Foreign Relations (2017) Arctic Imperatives, Reinforcing U.S. Strategy
on America's Fourth Coast; Center for Strategic and International
Studies (2017) Maritime Futures, the Arctic and the Bering Strait
Region; Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (2018)
Identifying Potential Gaps in the U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Capabilities;
U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System (2019) Revisiting
Near-Term Recommendations to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs in the
U.S. Arctic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While climate change is causing the Arctic to become an
emergent area, it will not solely affect the polar regions.
Rising sea level projections mean that port infrastructure at
all latitudes could be at risk of inundation, higher storm
surge, and loss of economic function costing hundreds of
millions if not billions of dollars to mitigate threats or
rebuild/relocate existing infrastructure.
Witness List
PANEL I
Dr. Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air
Resources Board
Ms. Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown
Climate Center
Professor Thomas P. Lyon, Stephen M. Ross School
of Business, University of Michigan
Mr. Ben Prochazka, Vice President,
Electrification Coalition
Ms. Nancy Young, Vice President, Environmental
Affairs, Airlines for America
PANEL II
Mr. Kevin DeGood, Director, Infrastructure
Policy, Center for American Progress
Mr. James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, McWane, Inc.
Dr. Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean
Security Project, Center for Strategic and International
Studies
Ms. Lynn Scarlett, Vice President, Policy and
Government Affairs, The Nature Conservancy
EXAMINING HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY COULD HELP MITIGATE AND
ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Salud O. Carbajal
(Vice Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Carbajal. The committee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare
recess during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Welcome, everyone. Unfortunately, due to an unusually heavy
snow storm in Oregon, the chairman remains stuck and is unable
to attend today's hearing.
This is the latest evidence, many will say, that climate
change increases extreme weather events, and those events
negatively affect our transportation system. Today I will
deliver the following remarks on behalf of Chairman DeFazio.
Today we bring the full committee together for our second
hearing of the year, to examine how Federal infrastructure
policy could help mitigate and adapt to climate change. The
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has traditionally
worked in a bipartisan manner. We don't always agree, but we do
always strive to find common ground.
Today we tackle a topic that has divided Congress for a
long time. I urge every member of this committee to approach
today's hearing with an open mind and a willingness to listen
and learn, and to respectfully engage with each other and
today's panel.
The transportation sector is now the largest contributor to
global warming. Within the transportation sector, passengers
and freight vehicles contribute 83 percent of the global
warming emissions. I intend to respond appropriately to this
challenge as we move legislation and direct investment to
transportation activities this Congress.
I suspect many on both sides of the aisle will want to spar
over the Green New Deal. While proponents tout it as critical
to avoiding a climate crisis, others have called it a plan that
will undermine our economy and way of life. It is difficult to
reconcile these two portrayals, but it is not what we are here
to do today. If you want to debate the underlying arguments or
ideas of the Green New Deal, this is not the venue.
The authors of the Green New Deal set an ambitious goal,
one which I support, but their plan encompasses issues far
beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. In fact, it was
referred to 11 committees, and the resolution provides no
details. Rather than debate this resolution, our job is to find
pragmatic approaches to address the challenges of our changing
climate.
I believe our best chance of mitigating further damage and
creating sustainable, resilient infrastructure is to look for
areas of common ground.
Many would be surprised to learn that my district is not so
different from our ranking member's district. His district is
the 40th largest district in the Nation at 18,198 square miles.
My district is the 41st largest district in the Nation at
17,274 square miles. We both have population areas. The ranking
member has the northern suburbs of Kansas City, while I have
two university towns. Moreover, we both have large rural
constituencies who make an honest living in agriculture, in Mr.
Graves's district, and in timber, fishing, and agriculture in
my district.
Ranking Member Graves and I represent similar people,
facing similar struggles, and worrying about similar things,
some in the rural areas and some in more urban areas. We owe it
to our constituents to be pragmatic, thoughtful, and
deliberate.
Also on this committee are members with vastly different
districts. Mr. Espaillat's district, parts of Manhattan and the
Bronx, is so small and dense that one can stroll from one side
of the district to the other with a leisurely walk. On the
other side of the spectrum, it takes a lengthy plane ride to
get across Mr. Young's vast district.
Today I want the witnesses to offer pragmatic, yet
effective, solutions to climate change that reflect these
differences and that will inform the committee's efforts to
mitigate carbon emissions and provide for resilient
infrastructure in different disparate districts.
Despite the differences among Member districts, our
constituents rely on airports, bridges, drinking water,
highways, ports, public buildings, rail, transit, tunnels, and
wastewater systems. Protecting critical infrastructure unites
us, and firmly within this committee's jurisdiction. I want to
be proactive, working with all Members to address this
challenge.
I would also ask that Members give thoughtful consideration
to the options presented today, and look for areas of future
opportunity. For example, many of today's witnesses will
support electrification of passenger and freight vehicles
because of the overwhelming contribution to global warming
emissions by today's fleet.
Some Members may be tempted to blast away at this idea,
raising concerns about the economic consequences. Before they
do, they should know that over four-fifths of battery electric
vehicles and nearly two-thirds of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles are assembled in the United States. I think we can all
agree we should support more domestic manufacturing.
So let's get down to business. If you want to do the hard,
messy work of legislating to reduce carbon emissions from
transportation, and build resilient infrastructure in an effort
to tackle global warming, I look forward to working with you. I
welcome our witnesses who are here to inform us of pragmatic,
but effective, strategic strategies this committee can take.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
The following are opening remarks as prepared for delivery by
committee Vice Chair Salud O. Carbajal, on behalf of Chair Peter A.
DeFazio, who was unable to attend today's hearing due to a snowstorm in
Oregon.
Welcome. Unfortunately, due to an unusually heavy snowstorm in
Oregon, the chairman remains stuck there and is unable attend today's
hearing. This is the latest evidence that climate change increases
extreme weather events and those events negatively affect our
transportation system. I will deliver the following remarks on behalf
of the chairman.
Today we bring the full committee together for our second hearing
of the year, to examine how Federal infrastructure policy could help
mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has traditionally worked in a bipartisan
manner--we don't always agree, but we do always strive to find a common
ground. Today, we tackle a topic that has divided Congress for a long
time. I urge every member of this committee to approach today's hearing
with an open mind and a willingness to listen and learn, and to
respectfully engage with each other and today's panel.
The transportation sector is now the largest contributor to global
warming in the U.S. Within the transportation sector, passenger and
freight vehicles contribute 83 percent of global warming emissions. I
intend to respond appropriately to this challenge as we move
legislation and direct investment to transportation activities this
Congress.
I suspect many Members on both sides of the aisle will want to spar
over the Green New Deal. While proponents tout it as critical to
avoiding a climate crisis, others have called it a plan that will
undermine our economy and way of life. It is difficult to reconcile
these two portrayals, but that is not what we are here to do today.
If you want to debate the underlying arguments or ideas of the
Green New Deal, this is not the venue. The authors of the Green New
Deal set an ambitious goal, one which I support, but their plan
encompasses issues far beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, in
fact it was referred to eleven committees, and the resolution provides
no details. Rather than debate this resolution, our job to is find
pragmatic approaches to addresses the challenges of our changing
climate.
I believe our best chance of mitigating further damage and creating
sustainable, resilient infrastructure is to look for areas of common
ground. Many would be surprised to learn that my district is not so
different from the ranking member's district. His district is the 40th
largest district in the nation at 18,198 square miles. My district is
the 41st largest district in the nation at 17,274 square miles.
We both have populous areas, the ranking member has the northern
suburbs of Kansas City, while I have two university towns. Moreover, we
both have large rural constituencies who make an honest living--in
agriculture in Mr. Graves's district--and timber, fishing, and
agriculture in my district.
Ranking Member Graves and I represent similar people, facing
similar struggles, and worrying about similar things, some in rural
areas and some in more urban areas. We owe it to our constituents to be
pragmatic, thoughtful, and deliberate.
Also on this committee are members with vastly different districts.
Mr. Espaillat's district, parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, is so small
and dense that one can stroll from one side of the district to the
other with a leisurely walk. On the other side of the spectrum, it
takes a lengthy plane ride to get across Mr. Young's vast district.
Today, I want the witnesses to offer pragmatic, yet effective,
solutions to climate change that reflect these differences and that
will inform the committee's efforts to mitigate carbon emissions and
provide for resilient infrastructure in disparate districts.
Despite the differences among Member districts, our constituents
rely on airports, bridges, drinking water, highways, ports, public
buildings, rail, transit, tunnels, and wastewater systems. Protecting
critical infrastructure unites us, and is firmly within this
committee's jurisdiction. I want to be proactive, working with all
Members to address this challenge.
I would also ask that Members give thoughtful consideration to the
options presented today, and look for areas of future opportunity. For
example, many of today's witnesses will support electrification of
passenger and freight vehicles because of the overwhelming contribution
to global warming emissions by today's fleets.
Some Members may be tempted to blast away at this idea, raising
concerns about the economic consequences. Before they do, they should
know that over four-fifths of battery electric vehicles and nearly two-
thirds of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are assembled in the United
States. I think we can all agree we should support more domestic
manufacturing.
So let's get down to business. If you want to do the hard, messy
work of legislating to reduce carbon emissions from transportation and
build resilient infrastructure in an effort to tackle global warming, I
look forward to working with you. I welcome our witnesses who are here
to inform us of pragmatic, but effective, strategies this committee can
take.
Mr. Carbajal. I will now turn it over to Ranking Member
Graves.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we
can all agree that we want clean air and clean water for our
communities, and we have to be prepared for the challenges that
are posed by a sometimes harsh environment.
And as a farmer myself, I know that the environment is
important for both quality of life, and it is obviously
important for the economy. And I also know we need to work
together to find solutions that actually work.
We don't have to live in a fairy tale. And that is where
ideas like the Green New Deal come from. There is no other way
to describe this idea to completely make over our
transportation network.
Who actually believes that we can make aviation unnecessary
by building some vast high-speed rail system? Because right
here in the real world, the poster child, obviously, for high-
speed rail in California has simply run off the tracks right
before our eyes. And by the way, this massive shift would put
11 million people in the aviation sector out of jobs, or out of
work.
There are some real consequences of pursuing the goals of
this fantasy proposal. And that is just one example of the
Green New Deal goals and the trillions of dollars it would
likely cost.
Infrastructure is an issue that we can find common ground
and bipartisan agreement on, with real-world solutions. In
recent years, we have passed some really good bipartisan
infrastructure legislation that has addressed environmental
issues.
For instance, the FAA reauthorization, among other things,
established the FAA industry partnership for developing low-
energy and low-emission technologies. The Disaster Recovery Act
focused on making our communities more resilient to disasters.
And we passed three Water Resources Development Acts that
address ecosystem restoration, flood risk reduction, and storm
risk reduction projects.
Instead of taking the Government-knows-all or one-size-
fits-all approach, these laws provide the State, local, and
private-sector partners with the tools and flexibility to
address their needs and to innovate.
In fact, it is the private sector that is responding to
industry-driven and consumer-driven market demands for cleaner
energy and cleaner technology. As a result, we continue to have
more fuel-efficient cars, trains, trucks, aircraft, and to
develop cleaner alternative fuels.
The airline industry, represented here today, is making
considerable progress in reducing emissions, and I look forward
to hearing more about their efforts.
The freight rail industry is making progress, implementing
technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel
efficiency, and reduce their carbon footprint.
At the Federal level we need to ensure that our partners
have the ability to keep innovating. We don't need sweeping
mandates that ignore economic reality and differing needs
within our communities. And that heavy-handed approach, which
is envisioned in the Green New Deal, just simply doesn't work,
and it just drives entire industries and communities right into
the very earth that we are trying to protect.
Today I hope our panelists are going to talk about real,
practical, and bipartisan solutions within this committee's
jurisdiction which will build the infrastructure, and improve
and respond to our environment.
[Mr. Graves's prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
We can all agree that we want clean air and clean water for our
communities, and that we have to be prepared for the challenges posed
by a sometimes harsh environment.
As a farmer, I know that the environment is important to both
quality of life and the economy.
I also know that we need to work together to find solutions that
actually work.
We don't live in a fairy tale. That's where ideas like the Green
New Deal come from. There's no other way to describe this idea to
completely make over our transportation network.
Who actually believes that we can make aviation ``unnecessary'' by
building some vast high-speed rail system? Because here in the real
world, the poster child for high-speed rail in California has run off
the rails right before our eyes. And by the way, this massive shift
would put 11 million people with aviation-related jobs out of work.
Those are some of the real consequences of pursuing the goals of this
fantasy proposal.
That's just one example of the Green New Deal's goals and the
trillions of dollars it would likely cost.
Infrastructure is an issue where we can find common ground and
bipartisan agreement on ``real world solutions.''
In recent years, we passed good bipartisan infrastructure
legislation that addressed environmental issues.
For instance, the FAA bill, among other things, establishes an FAA-
industry partnership for developing low-energy and low-emission
technologies. The Disaster Recovery Reform Act focuses on making our
communities more resilient to disasters. And we passed three Water
Resources Development Acts that address ecosystem restoration, flood
risk reduction, and storm risk reduction projects.
Instead of taking the ``government-knows-best,'' ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach, these laws provide our State, local, and private sector
partners with the tools and flexibility to address their needs and to
innovate.
The fact is that the private sector is responding to industry-
driven and consumer-driven market demands for cleaner energy and
cleaner technology. As a result, we continue to have more fuel-
efficient car, truck, train, and aircraft engines, and to develop
cleaner alternative fuels.
The airline industry, represented here today, is making
considerable progress in reducing emissions, and I look forward to
hearing more about their efforts.
The freight rail industry is also making progress, implementing
technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel efficiency, and
reduce its carbon footprint.
At the Federal level, we need to ensure that our partners have the
ability to keep innovating.
We don't need sweeping mandates that ignore economic reality and
the differing needs of our communities.
That heavy-handed approach, envisioned by the Green New Deal,
doesn't work. It just drives entire industries and communities right
into the very earth we're all trying to protect.
Today, I hope our panels can talk about real, practical, and
bipartisan solutions--within the Committee's jurisdiction--for building
infrastructure, and improving and responding to our environment.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And with that, I look forward to
hearing from all of our witnesses, and I would yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Graves. I would
like now to welcome the witnesses on our first panel. We first
have Dr. Daniel Sperling, board member, California Air
Resources Board; Ms. Vicki Arroyo, executive director,
Georgetown Climate Center; Professor Thomas P. Lyon, with the
Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; Mr.
Ben Prochazka, vice president, Electrification Coalition; and
Ms. Nancy Young, vice president, environmental affairs,
Airlines for America.
Thank you to each of you for being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the committee would request that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes each.
With that, Dr. Sperling, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL SPERLING, BOARD MEMBER, CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD; VICKI ARROYO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN
CLIMATE CENTER; THOMAS P. LYON, PROFESSOR, STEPHEN M. ROSS
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; BEN PROCHAZKA, VICE
PRESIDENT, ELECTRIFICATION COALITION; AND NANCY N. YOUNG, VICE
PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA
Mr. Sperling. Good morning, distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My
name is Dan Sperling. I am a professor of engineering and
environmental science and policy and founding director of the
Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of
California, Davis. I am also a board member for the California
Air Resources Board, holding the transportation seat for the
past 12 years, first appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
I am here to share experiences from California, and my
insights from over 30 years studying the transportation system
of this country. Let me frame the challenges before us.
The number-one priority for California, like the rest of
America, is to maintain and repair our deteriorating road
infrastructure. That is widely accepted. The point of my
testimony, however, is to address the additional goal of
aligning transportation spending with environmental goals, as
well as with social goals.
First, we need to acknowledge that our transportation
system is failing. Not only are our roads deteriorating, but
congestion, traffic deaths, transit ridership, and greenhouse
gases are all worsening. And many people are marginalized with
poor access to jobs, health, and education. We can fix this. We
have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do so, thanks to the
waves of transformational innovations starting to sweep through
transportation.
I refer to these innovations as the three transportation
revolutions: electrification, shared mobility, and automation.
The challenge is to refocus and restructure how we fund and
manage our transportation system, such that we direct these
many innovations toward the public interest.
The State and Federal DOTs were called upon in the 20th
century to build and operate a massive new highway and rail
transit system. They were amazingly successful with this
engineering mission. But the organizational culture that was
created, and the set of rules and formulas that were put in
place are now outdated and, frankly, have been for some time.
As we approach reauthorization of the FAST Act, we need a
paradigm shift in how we address transportation. It means
focusing on new formulas and performance standards to stimulate
innovation, expand the mission of our transportation
institutions, and knock down silos within transportation.
Back to California. We have made extraordinary progress in
some ways. We instituted the most successful cap and trade
program in the world, an effective low-carbon fuel standard,
and a variety of requirements for electrification of cars and
buses. Together these initiatives continue to fund many
billions of dollars in electric cars, trucks, buses, as well as
charging stations and hydrogen stations, and much more. I
provide a description of these many programs in my written
testimony.
We have been less successful in addressing vehicle use,
both passenger and freight. We are now shifting our programs
and incentives in California to fix this shortcoming. I would
characterize California's evolving strategy on vehicle use as
fourfold.
One, encourage more mobility and accessibility. That means
more passenger miles traveled, but at the same time reducing
vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled.
Number two is create more choice for travelers, and that
means electric scooters, bikes, pooled services by Lyft, Uber,
Via, and others, car sharing, and much more.
Number three is increase investment in protected lanes in
infrastructure for these scooters and bikes.
And number four is to electrify all passenger vehicles and
passenger services, as well as most of the freight vehicles, as
well.
In conclusion, transportation is in desperate need of a
fix. Fortunately, innovation is sprouting everywhere in
transportation. In a major way, for the first time in half a
century, California is pioneering some initiatives, but so are
many others. Much more can be done, especially in urban areas,
but also in rural areas, as well. Our top priority should be to
reform Federal and State policies to incentivize change to
encourage innovation to flourish.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Sperling's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air
Resources Board
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Daniel Sperling. I hold two different positions: (1)
Distinguished Professor of engineering and environmental science and
policy and founding Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies
at the University of California, Davis; and (2) Board member for the
California Air Resources Board, holding the transportation seat (first
appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in February 2007). CARB, as
we call it, is the agency in California principally responsible for
administering its climate policies.
I am here to share thoughts on what California is doing to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, what we have learned, and
what the Federal Government might do, with a focus on new approaches to
funding and incentives. The opportunity exists for the first time in
half a century to create a truly sustainable transportation--
economically, environmentally and socially.
California has been a pioneer in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
while improving the economy and the mobility and accessibility
of its residents . . .
California is home to some of the world's strongest environmental
protections, while growing to become the fifth largest economy in the
world. California policies have created markets for energy efficiency,
energy storage, low carbon fuels, renewable power and zero-emission
vehicles. California is home to nearly half of the zero-emission
vehicles in the U.S., 40 percent of North American clean fuels
investments, the world's best known electric car manufacturer, and the
world's leading ride-sharing services.
California has demonstrated that one can invest in clean energy,
efficient buildings and sustainable transportation, to gain a healthy
environment while also growing the economy. Since 2010, California's
economy, per-capita income and the size of the private workforce have
all grown significantly faster than the national average, while at the
same time reducing its carbon emissions back to the level they were at
in 1990.
California is not an island--an especially important understanding
in crafting solutions to climate change, a global problem. With ports,
industries, water supplies, wild fires, and many communities all
vulnerable to climate change, California aims to be a leader and model.
California's strategy is to employ a suite of policy approaches,
combining carbon pricing with other complementary programs, including
market-based compliance mechanisms, performance standards, technology
requirements, and incentives.
A large variety of approaches are needed to grow the economy, solve
environmental problems, and adapt to climate change. We have learned
over the past decade that climate change is happening more quickly and
with greater impact than we imagined, and that we need to pay special
attention to transportation. What we see in California is that, despite
the rapidly growing number of low and zero emissions vehicles,
emissions are stubbornly rising.
The important role of transportation and its link to land use. . . .
California's transportation system underpins its economy. The
extensive freight system moves trillions of dollars of goods each year
and supports nearly one-third of the State economy and more than 5
million jobs.
Transportation is also the largest source of GHG, criteria, and
toxic diesel particulate matter emissions in the State (mobile sources
account for almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in
California, 85 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 90 percent of diesel
particulate matter). This is not unique to California.
Where and how population grows will also have implications for
traffic congestion, demand for new infrastructure (including roads,
transit, and active transportation infrastructure), and demand for
maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure. Historic patterns of
growth continue to shape the country. While California has grown to be
the fifth largest economy in the world, with world-class cities and
thriving communities, many residents have no choice but to spend
significant time and money driving from place to place.
The way we grow imposes and often reinforces long-standing racial
and economic injustices by placing a disproportionate burden on low-
income residents, who end up paying the highest proportion of their
wages for housing and commuting. These residents also often live in
communities with the most health impacts from lack of active
transportation infrastructure and transportation pollution. Communities
are at the heart of California's efforts to address climate change:
urban and rural ones, and big and small ones. We cannot meet our goals
without re-envisioning the way we plan and build them.
Innovative California initiatives in place . . .
I'd like to present a sampling of major California initiatives to
reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions, which also bolster the
economy, enhance public health, revitalize disadvantaged communities,
improve mobility, and strengthen resilience to disasters and changing
climate, are often the same strategies that reduce transportation
sector GHG emissions.
California's Sustainable Communities Program, SB 375, is
a law that sets targets for metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from passenger transportation. The law has been highly
successful at motivating leaders and community groups to reframe how to
align transportation and environmental strategies and investments--
truly a paradigm shift for the transportation community. What we
learned, though, is that strong carrots and perhaps some sticks are
needed to go the next step of accomplishing actual change at the local
level.
One example of going the next step: a variety of
policy and funding processes are being explored to infuse
environmental criteria more deeply into transportation funding
decisions.
As we continue to develop new approaches to
transportation planning, it is important that we continue to
measure and assess what we have. The transportation system is
rapidly changing, so it's important that we have up-to-date
data to inform our decisions
California is investing in infrastructure that supports a
suite of low-carbon transportation choices.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is structured to
incentivize the supply of transportation fuels that are lower
emitting and supports zero-emissions technology. For example,
zero emissions technology use is credited to the low carbon
fuel supplier, such as the electric utility or transit agency.
Those credits are valued at over $0.10 per kWh; they are used
to fund electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fuel stations,
and are expected to be converted into rebates to electric
vehicle buyers (estimated to be about $2000 per vehicle).
The California Energy Commission has committed $276
million for charging infrastructure and $141 million for
hydrogen stations, to be fully spent within about 3 years.
Funding from the Volkswagen settlement, $1.2 billion,
is being made available in California over 10 years mostly for
electric vehicle charging stations, electric transit and school
buses, electric trucks, electric forklifts and other equipment
at ports, electric airport ground support equipment, electric
ferries and tug boats, and low NOx combustion engine trucks,
locomotives, and ships.
Proceeds from California's Carbon Cap and Trade program
are used for investments and incentives to reduce emissions from
transportation. Of $9.4 billion available for public spending since
2012, more than $7 billion is being used to reduce GHG emissions from
transportation, through a variety of programs. These include incentives
and funding for clean cars, buses, and trucks, and off-road vehicles,
high speed rail, active transportation, and more. Innovative efforts
include linking affordable housing, transit, bike paths, car sharing,
and urban greenery.
Recent increases in California's gasoline/diesel tax
(SB1) provides billions of transportation dollars to support
California's air pollution, climate and public health priorities.
Over $800 million is allocated to active
transportation, Sustainable Communities planning grants,
transit and rail investments, and a new Congested Corridors
program.
``The Solutions for Congested Corridors'' program
provides competitive funding based on performance measures tied
to funding. The program requires that regions have an adopted
Sustainable Communities Strategy (based on SB375) as part of
their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Project applications
are scored and selected based on metrics for accessibility,
economic development, job creation and retention, air pollution
and greenhouse gas emission reductions; and efficient land use.
Looking to the future, we need to rethink how transportation dollars
are spent . . .
In California alone over $1.1 trillion will be spent on
transportation infrastructure over the life of current transportation
plans--yet these spending plans often do not reflect key sustainability
goals. Federal and State governments, including California, need to
update transportation funding to better align projects with health,
equity, economic, and environmental priorities.
In California 24 counties have passed local
transportation sales tax measures, which comprise a significant
portion of many regions' transportation funds. These measure
often list specific projects, locking them in for years or
decades. Often, these measure do not fully fund their listed
projects, with the result that they go on to capture a region's
otherwise-flexible State and Federal funds. While some of these
projects or measures have been remarkably supportive of
sustainability goals, others are not.
Fiscally sustainable and equitable methods for funding
the transportation system are needed; they should be designed and
adopted in a manner that aligns transportation goals with environmental
and health goals. This alignment can be achieved through project
performance criteria, funding formulas that account for environmental
outcomes, and road user charges that account for congestion and
environmental externalities.
Funding programs could be created to fund pilot tests of
strategies for improving transportation efficiency, such as shuttles,
enhanced transit service, pooling facilitated by ride-hailing,
protected bike lanes, and bike- and scooter-sharing, possibly to make
travel easier in key zones that are currently highly congested, such as
urban downtowns.
Looking to the future, we also need to use policy to direct new
mobility services toward the public interest . . .
New mobility options offer an extraordinary opportunity to improve
accessibility to jobs, school, health and more. Outside dense core
cities, public transit is not efficient and does not serve many people
well. An important goal is to improve mobility and accessibility for
everyone--but to do so in a way that reduces vehicle miles traveled. It
is possible and desirable--but only if the right policies are put in
place. If we don't intervene, the likely outcome is higher costs for
travelers and infrastructure, greater environmental impacts, and
reduced accessibility and mobility by the most disadvantaged segments
of our population. California is just beginning to pursue policies that
direct these many new services, technologies, and business models
(including demand-responsive ride-hailing companies, micro-transit vans
and small buses, and micro-mobility options such as dockless scooters
and bikes) toward the public interest. These initiatives include:
Regulations to accelerate the use of electric vehicles
and passenger ``pooling'' by Lyft, Uber, and other ``transportation
network companies'' are being adopted in response to a new law, SB 1014
(2018)--the Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program--which calls for
innovative ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This new program will
be aligned with future changes to the Advanced Clean Cars automaker
regulations, as well as the SB 375 program--the Sustainable Communities
and Climate Protection Act (which requires regional GHG reductions from
passenger transportation).
Pilot testing of innovative ideas and services to speed
the adoption of clean, efficient transportation solutions. Promote the
use of pilot projects that bring together innovators, technical
experts, community members, and decisionmaking partners to find
creative solutions for accelerating a change in travel choices away
from single-occupancy vehicles while improving accessibility and access
to opportunity, particularly for low-income communities.
In our capital city of Sacramento, the regional
metropolitan planning organization, SACOG, is developing a
``Green Means Go'' pilot program that incentivizes and
accelerates infill development, reduces vehicle miles traveled,
and increases electric vehicle use within designated ``Green
Zones'' or opportunity areas. Green Zones complement SACOG's
Civic Lab pilot program, which focuses on targeted innovative
transportation solutions and new ideas that can be scaled up
throughout the region.
Emerging public private partnerships are also helping to
pave the way, and incentive funding to explore innovative solutions are
key,
For example, the Car-Free Living Program is a first-
of-its-kind partnership that encourages residents to use public
transportation and ride share, providing a more affordable
alternative to car ownership. The real estate developer is
enthusiastic because they do not provide as much (expensive)
parking garage spaces. New residents who participate in the
Car-Free Living Program receive a $100 monthly transportation
credit per apartment to use with Getaround, Clipper card
(transit fare card in the San Francisco Bay Area), and Uber.
Any resident can also catch a ride in an UberPool from
Parkmerced to nearby public transit stations for a flat rate of
$5.
In conclusion . . .
Transportation is in need of a fix, not just because of greenhouse
gas emissions, but also because of degrading road infrastructure,
worsening traffic congestion, declining transit ridership, and large
numbers of people with poor access to jobs, health, and education.
Transportation is also an opportunity. Innovation is everywhere.
California is pioneering some initiatives, as are others. But much more
can be done. Reforming Federal and State policies to encourage
innovation and incentivize change should be a top priority. Funding
should be used to support initiatives that promote environmental,
social, and economic goals.
Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Sperling.
Ms. Arroyo, you may proceed.
Ms. Arroyo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to share what
States and cities are doing to promote clean and resilient
transportation. I am Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the
Georgetown Climate Center, and professor from practice at
Georgetown Law.
I also currently chair the Executive Committee of the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, and
recently chaired TRB's Task Force on Resilience and
Sustainability. My comments are my own.
As the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes clear, the
U.S. is experiencing serious impacts of climate change. There
is an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon transportation
system, not only to fight climate change, but to protect public
health, provide mobility options, and catalyze economic growth
and investment.
States and cities are working to make this transition
happen by promoting adoption of cleaner vehicles and fuels,
improving public transportation, and enacting pathways to fund
clean transportation innovation: just a few examples.
California is investing in transit electric vehicles and
clean buses, and requiring investment in disadvantaged and
underserved communities using funds from their State cap and
trade program that covers transportation fuels. Oregon law
makers are working to adopt a similar program.
Twelve States from New England through the mid-Atlantic
plus DC participate in the Transportation and Climate
Initiative, or TCI, which our center facilitates. Ten TCI
jurisdictions recently announced a bipartisan agreement to
design a regional low-carbon transportation policy proposal
that would cap and reduce carbon emissions from transportation,
allowing participating States to invest proceeds in low-carbon
and more resilient transportation options.
Due to policies and market shifts, the electricity sector
is decarbonizing, leaving the transportation sector the largest
source of emissions. A key strategy for reducing these
emissions is to switch to zero-emission vehicles. TCI States
collaborate on regional, interstate corridor planning, with
over 2,500 miles of EV corridors designated by FHWA. Federal
funding to support implementation would be helpful.
Beyond funding, Federal action could allow EV charging
icons at highway logo signs, and exempt EV charging stations
from current restrictions on commercial activity along the
interstate right-of-way.
Zero-emission buses provide opportunities to expand
benefits of clean transportation. Last year FTA provided over
$80 million for 52 electric bus transit projects in 41 States.
States are also exploring opportunities for zero-emission ships
and trucks. Washington State plans to use 45 percent of its VW
settlement funds to electrify public vessels, including ferries
which are responsible for significant air pollution. Hydrogen
fuel cells provide another option for zero-emission green
transport.
Beyond clean fuels, States and cities are also working to
reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting more compact,
livable communities, and providing options such as transit,
biking, and walking. For example, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
system's GoPass allows easy payment for different transit
services, even integrating microtransit and scooters.
Arlington, Virginia, where I lived, has enjoyed tremendous
economic growth, while holding emissions down by implementing
transit-oriented development, including bike paths and more,
taking roughly 50,000 vehicle trips off the road each work day.
Increasing the Federal match for public transit operating
expenses from current levels of 50 percent would help in these
efforts, which provide multiple benefits.
In addition to being the largest source of emissions,
transportation is quite vulnerable to climate impacts. Since
1980 the U.S. has experienced 241 extreme weather events,
costing $1.6 trillion.
There is a tremendous human toll, as well. My mother and
other family members lost their homes in Katrina. Our work on
Katrina, Irene, and Sandy identified opportunities to improve
how communities can rebuild.
Vermont faced challenges with Federal reimbursement in
building back culverts and bridges to withstand future storms
after Irene. Incorporating lessons from this and other recent
disasters, some Federal funds are now flowing to more resilient
investments.
LA SAFE, Louisiana's program initially funded through
disaster recovery dollars, works with parishes to design
customized projects that improve community resilience, like
``complete streets'' and nature-based flood mitigation.
Building on reforms in MAP-21, the FAST Act, and the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act, funding recipients should be
required to consider how climate change will affect
infrastructure, making investments designed to withstand future
conditions.
Beyond infrastructure, improving operations and evacuation
protocols can save lives. In 2004, my father's, Sidney
Arroyo's, heart failed during a stressful evacuation from New
Orleans in anticipation of Hurricane Ivan, which struck Alabama
instead. The next year many people chose not to leave New
Orleans before Katrina, some recalling the evacuation
challenges the year before, others without access to
transportation or not willing to leave behind beloved pets.
Congress swiftly acted to pass the Pet Evacuation and
Transportation Standards Act--yes, it spells PETS--and it saved
lives in subsequent storms. Congress should again act more
comprehensively, joining States and communities in addressing
climate change, while preparing communities for the disruptive
challenges to come. Thank you.
[Ms. Arroyo's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown
Climate Center
Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
the steps that states and cities are taking to reduce greenhouse gas
pollution from transportation and to make our communities more
resilient to the serious consequences of climate change.
Many states and cities are taking bold action to reduce emissions
and improve resilience, offering both substantial progress in the fight
against climate change and examples of successful action that others
could emulate and that the federal government could be helpful in
scaling up. However, more action is needed.
I'm Vicki Arroyo and I serve as Executive Director of Georgetown
Climate Center, which is based at Georgetown University Law Center. I
am also a member of the full-time faculty, serving as a Professor from
Practice and as Assistant Dean for Centers and Institutes.
The nonpartisan Georgetown Climate Center was established over ten
years ago to serve as a resource to states on issues relating to
climate change policy and clean energy and to inform the federal
dialogue with the lessons of the states.\1\ We work with state and city
officials on a bipartisan basis at their request to support their
transition to cleaner energy sources in important sectors, including
the power sector and transportation, and to prepare for the impacts of
a changing climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ About Us, Georgetown Climate Center, https://
www.georgetownclimate.org/about-us/index.html (last visited Feb. 19,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also currently Chair of the Executive Committee of the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences,
and recently chaired TRB's Task Force on Resilience and Sustainability
\2\ which made recommendations regarding how TRB might incorporate
considerations of a changing climate and the role of transportation--
and impacts to transportation infrastructure--into its important work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ TRB Executive Committee, National Academies of Sciences
Engineering Medicine (2019), http://www.trb.org/CommitteeandPanels/
ExecutiveCommitteeOverview.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I am proud of these roles and affiliations, my comments today
are my own.
Given the urgent need to address climate change, it's my privilege
to be with you today to share examples of what states and cities are
doing to promote cleaner transportation options and to prepare for
climate impacts. I hope these examples will help inform your own work.
As the Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in November,
describes, the United States is already experiencing serious impacts of
climate change--and the risks to communities all across the country are
growing rapidly.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
in the United States--Summary Findings, National Climate Assessment
(2018), https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings, along with those in the 2018 Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, are clear and should be a call
to immediate action. Even if we manage to limit planetary warming to
just 2 degrees C, the world will still face increased chances of
economic and social upheaval from more severe flooding, droughts,
heatwaves, and other climate impacts as well as devastating
environmental consequences, the IPCC report warns.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Global Warming of 1.5 +C, IPCC (2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/
sr15/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientific consensus as described in the IPCC Special Report is
that countries around the world must rapidly decarbonize their
economies, cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to near
zero by 2050.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id.; Climate Assessment, Volume II, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet the current trends are going in the wrong direction. Despite
our increasing understanding of the narrowing window to act, U.S. GHG
emissions increased by 3.4 percent in 2018, according to a January
report from the Rhodium Group. Clearly more action is needed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Energy & Climate Staff, Preliminary U.S. Emissions Estimates
for 2018, Rhodium Group (Jan. 8, 2019), https://rhg.com/research/
preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The encouraging news is that many states and cities have committed
to taking action. They are taking steps to reduce emissions through
legislation, executive orders, and pledges made in collaborations such
as the US Climate Alliance--now covering roughly half the US population
and GDP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Climate Alliance Fact Sheet, United States Climate
Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org/us-climate-alliance-fact-
sheet (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony, I will be focusing on the transportation sector,
which is the largest contributor of GHG emissions in the United
States,\8\ and is already facing significant impacts from climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (last visited Feb. 19,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal standards have been important in increasing efficiency and
reducing emissions, yet transportation-sector emissions are increasing
as more vehicle miles are driven, more freight is transported in
trucks, and airline travel continues to grow. Transportation is
becoming an increasingly large share of U.S. economy-wide emissions as
the power sector decarbonizes as a result of market shifts and
policy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Transportation Sector Emissions, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation (last
visited Feb. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an urgent need, therefore, to transition to a low-carbon
transportation system. Such a transition would not only reduce
emissions and fight climate change, it also would bring additional
important benefits, including protecting public health by reducing
conventional air pollution, providing more mobility options, and
driving innovation and economic growth through policy action and
through public and private investment.
State Leadership Reducing Emissions from Transportation:
Fortunately, states and cities in the US are already investing in
low-carbon transportation solutions, and innovation by governments and
the private sector has created opportunities to enable low-carbon
economic growth.
States are enabling the transition to zero-emission, electric
transportation--promoting adoption of cleaner vehicles and fuels;
developing strategies to improve public transportation while reducing
vehicle miles traveled and congestion; and enacting pathways to fund
this clean transportation innovation--including by pricing the
emissions that cause climate change.\10\ Cities across the country are
also reducing air pollution and GHGs through land use policies; by
increasing transportation options through investments in public
transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and new mobility solutions;
and by switching to alternative fuels such as electricity, hydrogen,
and natural gas. Many cities are committing to deep decarbonization by
transitioning to zero-emission public fleets,\11\ including replacing
100 percent of their fossil-fueled buses with electric transit
buses.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 38566 (West 2017).
\11\ Climate Mayors Electric Vehicle Purchasing Collaborative,
Climate Mayors (2018), https://driveevfleets.org/.
\12\ Zero Emissions Vehicles, C40 Cities, https://www.c40.org/
networks/zero-emission-vehicles (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state funding for low-carbon transportation investments
Here are some specific examples:
California's economy-wide cap-and-trade program covers
transportation fuels and uses the proceeds generated from selling
allowances to invest in transit, electric vehicles, and clean transit
buses. It also requires investment in projects serving disadvantaged
and underserved communities to ensure that the benefits of this new,
low-carbon transportation system are more equitably shared.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CCI Funded Programs, California Air Resources Board (Aug. 31,
2018), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-workprogramscalifornia-climate-
investments/cci-funded-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon lawmakers are considering adopting an economy-wide cap-and-
trade program that could be linked to California's program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ H.B. 2020, 80th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Northeast, the Transportation and Climate Initiative of 12
northeast and mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia
(``TCI'') was launched in 2010. Facilitated by our Georgetown Climate
Center, TCI has worked to develop the clean energy economy in the
region, improve transportation, and reduce carbon emissions in the
transportation sector.
Projects over the years have included eliminating barriers to the
use of cleaner transportation fuels and technologies; sharing best
practices in promoting smart growth; understanding freight flows into
and through the region to consider ways to enhance efficiency and
reduce congestion and air pollution; and even working to defeat a
patent troll who tried to inhibit sharing of platforms that provide for
real-time information on arrivals of subways and buses.
Since 2012, TCI jurisdictions have explored potential regional
policy solutions with analysis that demonstrated the economic benefits
of moving to cleaner transportation alternatives. In 2015, the TCI
jurisdictions announced plans \15\ to work together on potential
market-based policies and in 2017 \16\ began to conduct extensive
public outreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Five Northeast States and DC Announce They Will Work Together
to Develop Potential Market-Based Policies to Cut Carbon Emissions from
Transportation, Transportation & Climate Initiative (Nov. 24, 2015),
https://www.transportationandclimate.org/main-menu/five-northeast-
states-and-dc-announce-they-will-work-together-develop-potential-
market.
\16\ Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States Seek Public Input As They
Move Toward a Cleaner Transportation Future, Transportation & Climate
Initiative (Nov. 13, 2017), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
northeast-and-mid-atlantic-states-seek-public-input-they-move-toward-
cleaner-transportation-future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, TCI regional outreach engaged 500 diverse stakeholders--
including from businesses, local governments, community groups, and
NGOs--and over 100 state officials in a series of regional listening
sessions, with further outreach through statewide efforts in
Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Listening Session Summary Report, Transportation & Climate
Initiative (Nov. 13, 2018), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
tci-news-and-updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those efforts led to a landmark announcement on December 18th, 2018
by nine states plus DC to work together on a bipartisan basis to design
a regional low-carbon transportation policy proposal. The proposed plan
would cap and reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of
transportation fuels and allow each TCI jurisdiction to invest the
proceeds in low-carbon and more resilient transportation
infrastructure.\18\ This approach is modeled on the successful Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which has reduced emissions and
generated substantial economic benefits in the region. Analysis of the
first ten years of the RGGI program estimates that the program has
created a net economic benefit of $4 billion dollars for the
participating states, while reducing carbon emissions from the power
sector by nearly 50 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Nine States and D.C. to Design Regional Approach to Cap
Greenhouse Gas Pollution from Transportation, Transportation & Climate
Initiative (Dec. 18, 2018), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
nine-states-and-dc-design-regional-approach-cap-greenhouse-gas-
pollution-transportation.
\19\ The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
on Nine Northeast and Atlantic States, Analysis Group: Economic,
Financial And Strategy Consultants (Apr. 17, 2018), https://
www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/uploadedfiles/content/insights/
publishing/
analysis_group_rggi_report_april_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the TCI effort can offer similar large benefits and
are proud to support this bipartisan group of states in this important
initiative.
TCI states are not alone in working to cut transportation
emissions--or in recognizing the importance of sustainable funding
sources to support needed investments in low-carbon and more resilient
transportation infrastructure.
Other states are exploring mileage-based user fees. The state of
Oregon conducted two pilots and has now expanded to launch a permanent
voluntary program to charge drivers for road usage.\20\ Several other
states, including California and Hawaii, are conducting research or
pilot programs to assess the feasibility of mileage-based user fees as
an alternative or complement to motor fuel taxes.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ About, OReGO, http://www.myorego.org/about/ (Feb. 19, 2019).
\21\ Susan Handy & Marlon Boarnet, A Framework for Projecting the
Potential Statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) Reduction from State-
Level Strategies in California, National Center For Sustainable
Transportation (Mar. 2017), https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/State-Level-VMT-Strategies-White-Paper_FINAL-
03.2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state action to support electric and zero-emission vehicles:
For many years now, states have been leaders in supporting a
transition to zero-emission vehicles that reduce air pollution, improve
public health, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Today this committee
is hearing from California, given its leadership. But critical
investments and policy support for zero-emission vehicles are underway
in states and cities across the country. Indeed, it is becoming more
widely recognized that moving from a transportation system entirely
dominated by petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric and other zero-
emission transportation options can provide significant benefits for
both the environment and the economy.
It is important to understand that switching to electric vehicles
significantly reduces GHG emissions even when emissions from power
plants that generate the electricity for the electric vehicles are
included. For example, in Oregon, a recent analysis showed that an
electric vehicle in 2018 would be the equivalent of a gas car with 94
MPG rating.\22\ Even in Missouri, where (as of 2015 data) coal power
makes up more than 75 percent of electricity generation,\23\ an
electric vehicle would be equivalent to a 35 miles per gallon gas
vehicle.\24\ And of course, the opportunities for emissions reductions
from adopting electric vehicles will improve throughout the country as
the electricity grid decarbonizes (due to fuel switching and the
falling prices of wind and solar power for baseload and peak power
generation).\25\ As the grid becomes cleaner, an electric vehicle sold
this year will effectively become lower- and lower-emitting throughout
its life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ David Reichmuth, New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to
Get Cleaner, Union of Concerned Scientists (2018), https://
blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-
continue-to-get-cleaner?_ga=2.65610987.430581647.1520949632-
566757794.1516988670.
\23\ State Energy Analysis Tool, Georgetown Climate Center, https:/
/www.georgetownclimate.org/clean-energy/sea.html (last visited Feb. 19,
2019).
\24\ Reichmuth, supra note 22.
\25\ See, e.g., Robert Walton, Utility Dive, Xcel solicitation
returns `incredible' renewable energy, storage bids (January 8, 2018)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/xcel-solicitation-returns-incredible-
renewable-energy-storage-bids/514287/; Hawaiian Electric Company Press
Release: ``New solar-plus-storage projects set low-price benchmark for
renewable energy in Hawaii'' (January 3, 2019) https://
www.hawaiianelectric.com/new-solar-plus-storage-projects-set-low-price-
benchmark-for-renewable-energy-in-hawaii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric vehicles thus present a very important opportunity for
reducing emissions and helping states and cities--along with the United
States--reach GHG emission reduction commitments. Eventually--and
perhaps within the next decade--electric vehicles will be cheaper to
buy and to drive than gas vehicles. However, as is the case with many
new technologies, public sector support through research, early
deployment, and infrastructure installation will be vital to enabling
this market to grow. Continued federal support will be critical in this
regard to complement, expand upon, and scale the efforts underway in
states throughout the country.
incentives for zero-emission vehicles:
States across the country are providing incentives to drivers to
lower the upfront cost of zero- emission vehicles, including battery
electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Fourteen states currently
offer a financial incentive, such as a tax credit, and many electric
utilities and local or regional governments offer additional financial
or non-monetary incentives to drivers.
Some jurisdictions are exploring ``fee-bate'' structures--a
revenue-neutral incentive mechanism where more polluting vehicles pay a
fee inversely proportional to vehicle emissions and lower polluting or
zero-emission vehicles receive an incentive or rebate.\26\ The District
of Columbia will be implementing a version of a fee-bate starting in
2020, at which time the District of Columbia Department of Motor
Vehicles will assess vehicle title excise tax based on the fuel
efficiency of the vehicle, with vehicles that are more fuel efficient
than a benchmark level receiving a discount and vehicles that are less
fuel efficient paying an additional amount.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Natalie Mims & Heidi Hauenstein, Feebates: A Legislative
Option to Encourage Continuous Improvements to Automobile Efficiency,
Rocky Mountain Institute (Feb. 2008), https://www.rmi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_
Feebate_final.pdf.
\27\ District of Columbia Code 50-2201.03(j)(1A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One challenge with reducing emissions from the United States fleet
of 250 million passenger vehicles is the long lifecycle of
vehicles.\28\ The average age of passenger vehicles in operation (as of
2017) was 11.6 years, with many vehicles kept in operation for two
decades or more.\29\ One way to incentivize the retirement of low-
efficiency older vehicles would be for the federal government to
develop a scrappage and replacement program designed to reduce vehicle
emissions. Such a program could learn valuable lessons from the Car
Allowance Rebate System or ``Cash for Clunkers'' program of 2009, which
was primarily designed as an economic stimulus, but still resulted in
improved fuel economy of the vehicle fleet. A federal program could
also learn from the scrap and replace programs implemented by two Air
Quality Management Districts in California, which provide significant
financial incentives to low-income residents who trade in an
inefficient vehicle for zero- or near-zero emission replacement.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other
Conveyances, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://www.bts.gov/
content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances (last
visited Feb. 20, 2019).
\29\ Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the
United States, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://
www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-
united-states (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
\30\ Clean Cars 4 All, California Air Resources Board (Feb. 5,
2019), https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/cc4a/cc4a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
electric vehicles charging along interstate corridors:
One area where states are working together is the deployment of
fast charging stations along highway corridors. Given ``range anxiety''
concerns, corridor fast charging is critical to grow the market for
electric vehicles. People need to know that they can charge their
vehicles, such as my 2018 Chevy Bolt, Bluebell, before they will use
the vehicles for long distance trips.
The Pacific Coast states have collaborated since 2011 to develop
the West Coast Electric Highway, a network of DC fast charging stations
along Interstate 5 and other major roadways.\31\ This project was first
funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since the
initial wave of funding, Washington, Oregon, and California have used
public-private partnerships and state grant funding to build out EV
charging infrastructure along corridors. The West Coast Electric
Highway effort is notable for its focus on expanding consumer awareness
of EV charging through outreach and branding. The states have shared
their lessons with other regions, including states participating in the
Transportation and Climate Initiative in this region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ West Coast Electric Highway, Idaho National Laboratory:
Advanced Vehicles, https://avt.inl.gov/project-type/west-coast-
electric-highway (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCI states have worked to develop EV charging infrastructure since
the start of the regional partnership, and have collaborated since 2016
on regional interstate corridor planning. The focused effort on
corridor planning has included engagement with the Federal Alternative
Fuel Corridors Program, including a regional nomination resulting in
over 2,500 miles of EV corridors designated by U.S. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in the first round of designations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Department of Transportation Designates Electric Vehicles
Corridors in the Transportation and Climate Initiative Region,
Transportation & Climate Initiative (Nov. 3, 2016), https://
www.transportationandclimate.org/us-department-transportation-
designates-electric-vehicles-corridors-transportation-and-climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Transportation and Climate Initiative has been a valuable forum
for electric vehicle corridor planning, due to the leadership of state
departments of transportation and given the inherent need to
collaborate across state lines to allow residents to travel seamlessly
and conveniently between cities, for work, and to tourism destinations.
The TCI states have worked together to share best practices, engage
with EV charging business and electric utilities, and apply together
for grant funding programs.
The TCI states have also worked together to conduct a regional
analysis to identify priority locations for additional EV charging
infrastructure investment. The technical analysis--launched in 2018--
includes an Excel-based tool that can be used to identify which highway
exits may be good candidates for additional charging infrastructure
investment, as well as an interactive GIS map that displays fast
charging infrastructure along corridors in the region and priority
investment locations.\33\ This corridor analysis was developed by the
Georgetown Climate Center and M.J. Bradley & Associates to support the
TCI states and was expanded to include Virginia, which joined TCI in
September 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The regional EV corridor analysis is publicly available at no
cost from Georgetown Climate Center. EV Corridor Analysis Tool for
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, Georgetown Climate Center (July 26,
2018), https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/ev-corridor-analysis-
tool-for-northeast-and-mid-atlantic-states.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the inter-mountain west states, another bipartisan coalition of
governors from eight states launched the Regional Electric Vehicle Plan
for the West, or ``REV West,'' with governors signing an MOU with the
goal to promote a network of EV corridors.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Regional Electric Vehicle (REV) West Program, U.S. Department
of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, https://
afdc.energy.gov/laws/11874 (last visited Feb. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity for Federal Leadership and Support
While state and regional initiatives such as these are important in
their own right and as models, the federal government can play a
critical role in providing funding to stimulate greater investment in
EV fast charging along highway corridors. The FAST Act instructed the
U.S. Federal Highway Administration to designate corridors for
alternative fuels (including electric vehicles), but did not provide
any direct funding for infrastructure investment to support the build-
out of designated or pending corridors.\35\ Given that electric
vehicles are a new technology with limited penetration in the vehicle
market, there are very few viable business cases for investment in DC
fast charging--particularly along highway corridors--in the absence of
some public sector funding to support investment. Nevertheless,
significant additional investment in EV fast charging will be needed to
provide the minimum level of coverage necessary for the market to
mature.\36\ Once a minimum level of EV fast charging coverage is in
place and EV sales increase, consumer demand for charging will drive
private investments. In order to jump-start this critical transition to
transportation electrification, targeted public funding is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 151 (2015).
\36\ Eric Wood, New EVSE Analytical Tools/Models: Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Projection Tool (EVI-Pro), National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (Jan. 24, 2018), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/
70831.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential federal investment could expand on strategic planning
efforts underway in states and regional partnerships to ensure that
federal funding is strategically invested to grow the market for EVs
while spurring economic development and improving transportation. For
example, several states, including California, Washington, and New
York, have undertaken modeling and analysis to better understand which
highway corridors have been developed by the private market and which
are the highest priorities for public funding to support a
comprehensive network of EV charging.\37\ One strategy that this
committee might consider is targeting investment in EV charging in
rural and remote corridor locations which are currently underserved by
the private market, as a business and economic development opportunity
for those locations that would also provide access to EVs to a wider
range of communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Washington State
Department of Transportation (2019), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/funding/
partners/evib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to strategically targeting geographic locations, a
federal funding program could also provide additional public benefits
by including requirements or incentives that ensure driver convenience
and a robust private market for charging stations. There is an
opportunity for such a federal program to incorporate lessons learned
and policies from ongoing state efforts. States participating in the
multi-state ZEV Task Force have worked to identify policy outcomes that
can be achieved through requirements for EV charging stations installed
with public funding. For example, states are exploring open payment
requirements, to ensure that drivers know how much they will pay for a
charge, can easily use a credit card to pay for charging, and are not
required to have a charging station network membership. We've all
gotten used to driving up to a gas station and knowing that we can pay
with a credit card (for example), without the requirement of becoming a
member of a fuel provider like Exxon or Shell. But that is not always
the case with EV charging, which can create inconvenience and
confusion. Similarly, requirements that charging station hardware,
software, and network services be inter-operable could create a more
flexible business market that allows for innovation and avoids stranded
assets. I would encourage Congress to engage with states and U.S.
national laboratories considering these issues when developing
potential infrastructure funding programs.
Federal Support for Technical Analysis
Federal technical and financial support could also help states and
metropolitan planning organizations better identify gaps in EV charging
infrastructure. This could include expansion of existing tools, for
example the corridor analysis tool built to inform northeast and mid-
Atlantic states \38\ or the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection
(EVI-Pro) tool built by the California Energy Commission and National
Renewable Energy Laboratory to assess charging infrastructure
needs.\39\ The federal government could support a study (using EVI-Pro
or other methodology) of specific charging infrastructure needs to
support long-distance trips on a national level. This analysis has
already been conducted for California, Colorado, and Columbus, Ohio,
through existing programs or partnerships.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ EV Corridor Analysis Tool for Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
States, supra note 33.
\39\ CEC EV Infrastructure Projection (California), National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://maps.nrel.gov/cec/
?aL=0&bL=cdark&cE=0&lR=0&mC=36.8708321556463%2C-116.34521484375001&zL=6
(last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
\40\ Eric Wood, supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-financial Policy Opportunities:
Currently the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
does not allow state DOTs to easily add an EV charging station logo to
specific service (food/fuel/lodging) signs. The current manual is
somewhat unclear on this subject, which has been vexing to many state
agencies looking to develop EV charging signage guidance.\41\ One
potential solution would be to create a new category of highway logo
(specific service) signs for EV charging. This would improve EV driver
convenience and provide a significant consumer awareness benefit.
California has already taken this approach, modifying its state manual
to create a new category for EV charging station logos, and other
states are interested in this issue as well. It is important at a
minimum that the federal manual maintain flexibility for states to
experiment with the best ways to provide logo signs for electric
vehicles as we develop an appropriate federal standard.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``To qualify for a GAS logo sign panel, a business should
have: (1) Vehicle services including gas and/or alternative fuels, oil,
and water; (2) Continuous operation at least 16 hours per day, 7 days
per week for freeways and expressways, and continuous operation at
least 12 hours per day, 7 days per week for conventional roads; (3)
Modern sanitary facilities and drinking water; and (4) Public
telephone.'' U.S. Dep't of Transp., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices Sec. 2J.01.10 (Dec. 2009).
\42\ Cal. Dep't of Transp., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices Sec. 2J.01 (Nov. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress might also consider the feasibility and potential benefits
and costs of exempting EV charging stations and renewable power
installations from federal restrictions on commercial activity in the
interstate right-of-way. These restrictions have been identified as a
barrier in reports, including the recent Transportation Research Board
Report to Congress on the Future of the Interstate Highway report.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future, Transportation Research Board
(Feb. 6, 2019), http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178485.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities for Research and Development:
While there are many exciting developments underway that are
helping to expand the uses of EVs and other low-carbon transportation
options, there are still technical and logistical barriers where
federal support of pilot programs, research, or public-private
partnerships might be helpful.
As we scale up the use of new transportation fuels and technologies
over time, research and pilot deployments can help ensure that federal
funds are invested efficiently in projects and technologies that reduce
emissions, provide energy security, and stimulate economic growth.
Additionally, research programs can effectively identify issues that
might arise in the future. For example, the federal government could
support additional research into questions on how the different zero-
emission or alternative fueling and charging infrastructures complement
or interact with one another at individual sites or throughout the
transportation system. There is significant investment in hydrogen
fueling infrastructure in California and other states, due to the
significant opportunity for hydrogen to serve as an energy-dense zero-
tailpipe emission fuel source for vehicles.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ California Air Resources Board, California's Hydrogen
Transportation Initiatives, https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/
hydrogen/hydrogen.htm (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For electric vehicle charging, key questions include the
opportunities for managed EV fast charging (e.g., providing options for
drivers where the cost and speed of charging vary based on electric
grid capacity). A related topic for additional research is the
interaction of EV charging with on-site storage to minimize
distribution grid impacts. Electrify America and Tesla are making major
investments in on-site storage co-located with DC fast charging
facilities. This is an area where transportation system research--in
conjunction with battery storage research underway at the U.S.
Department of Energy and U.S. national laboratories--could prove
valuable.
zero-emission electric transit buses
Moving beyond passenger vehicles, zero-emission transit buses
provide opportunities to expand access to cleaner electric
transportation, cutting GHG emissions in addition to the smelly and
dangerous fumes that affect riders and communities, including those
that have been disproportionately harmed by air pollution.
Cities across the country have added electric buses to transit
fleets and made commitments for additional procurements. Electric bus
pilots are underway everywhere from Anchorage, Alaska,\45\ to Honolulu,
Hawaii.\46\ Here in the District of Columbia, the District Department
of Transportation has added 14 electric buses to its Circulator
service, which serves commonly traveled routes in the District and
costs only $1 to ride.\47\ In Texas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit is
piloting electric buses on its free downtown D-Link route.\48\ These
cities, and many others, are using phased pilots and early deployment
to test this new technology and address any concerns related to bus
performance, charging reliability, and operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Casey Grove, Alaska's First Electric Bus for Public Transit
Read for Anchorage Streets, Alaska Public Media (Jan. 15, 2018),
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/01/15/alaskas-first-electric-bus-for-
public-transit-ready-for-anchorage-streets/.
\46\ Press Release, Electric Bus Demonstration Showcases
Unstainable Ground Transportation Future for Hawaii, Hawaii.gov (Apr.
11, 2018), http://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/electric-bus-demonstration-
showcases-sustainable-ground-transportation-future-for-hawaii/.
\47\ New DC Circulator Electric Buses, Circulator, https://
www.dccirculator.com/new-electric-buses/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
\48\ Dana Branham, Dart's Fleet of Electric Buses Roll Out in
Downtown Dallas, Dallas News (July 10, 2018), https://
www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2018/07/10/darts-fleet-electric-
buses-roll-downtown-dallas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many cities have set ambitious economy-wide GHG emission reduction
goals and are increasingly making commitments to fully electrify their
transit fleets as a strategy to reduce transportation emissions. For
example, Los Angeles, California, has committed to fully electrify its
fleet by 2030;\49\ the Minneapolis and Saint Paul transit agency in
Minnesota has announced a 2040 full electrification goal;\50\ and the
New York Metropolitan Transit Agency--the largest transit fleet in the
United States with more than 5,500 buses--has announced a target of
transitioning to a zero-emission fleet by 2040.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Council File: 17-0739, LA City Clerk Connect (Nov. 9, 2017),
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/
index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0739.
\50\ Metro Transit's 100% Electric Bus Fleet Target Is a Big Step,
Fresh Energy (Dec. 10, 2018), https://fresh-energy.org/metro-transit-
100-percent/.
\51\ Phil McKenna, New York City Aims for All-Electric Bus Fleet by
2040, Inside Climate News (Apr. 26, 2018), https://
insideclimatenews.org/news/26042018/nyc-air-pollution-electric-bus-
public-transportation-mta-clean-technology
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While electric transit buses provide significant air quality and
GHG reduction benefits, along with lower operating and maintenance
costs, transit bus electrification is impeded by the higher upfront
purchase cost of electric buses and charging infrastructure, a limited
economy of scale in manufacturing, and additional routing and charging
requirements for fleet managers and operators.
To offset the higher upfront costs, many states are providing
funding to transit agencies to support bus electrification. States such
as Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia have identified transit bus
electrification as a priority for investment with the funding received
from the Volkswagen diesel emissions settlement. Rhode Island has
already launched early deployments of electric transit buses purchased
with VW settlement funding \52\ and has prioritized routes that travel
through neighborhoods that currently suffer from higher levels of air
pollution.\53\ While these state investments will help to grow the
number of zero-emission buses on the road, the scale of funding
distributed to states from the VW settlement--$2.9 billion over ten
years, distributed across the 50 states and U.S. territories--will not
be sufficient to meet states' clean energy and climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ State of Rhode Island Press Release, Raimondo, Congressional
Delegation Unveil RIPTA's First Electric Buses (October 22, 2018)
https://www.ri.gov/press/view/34479
\53\ State of Rhode Island, supra note 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit
Administration's Low- or No-Emission (``Low-No'') Grant program has
been instrumental in providing the funding needed by transit agencies
to add zero-emission buses to their fleets. In the 2018 funding period
alone, over $80 million in funding was awarded to support 52 electric
transit bus projects in 41 states. The projects supported with this
funding include electric bus deployment across a range of geographies,
from the Philadelphia metro area--where the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is adding electric buses--to rural
Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will add
electric buses to rural fleets statewide.
The funding also allows transit agencies to innovative and explore
different methods of recharging buses--whether at a central depot or
in-route--as well as opportunities to power buses with renewable
energy. For example, the 2018 FTA funding for Broward County Transit
will not only replace aging buses with battery electric buses models,
but will also include solar power installation.
Due to the significant interest from cities and transit agencies,
demand for electric bus funding from the ``Low-No'' Grant program far
exceeds available funding levels. For fiscal year 2018, Congress
appropriated an additional $29.45 million in funding--bringing the
total to $84.45 million, but applications from transit agencies still
exceeded 6 times the available funds.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ ``FTA received 149 eligible proposals from 42 states
requesting $557 million in Federal funds.'' U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fiscal Year 2018 Low or
No Emission Grant Program Project Selections, (October 12, 2018)
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/
grants/grant-programs/118881/fy18-low-no-project-selections-and-
guidance.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity for Federal Leadership and Support
Electric transit buses are already competitive with diesel buses on
a total cost of ownership basis (when including fuel and maintenance
costs), and will reach cost parity over the coming years.\55\ However,
funding support and technical assistance are critical in the near term
to offset the higher upfront costs and additional logistical
challenges. As the cost of lithium ion battery packs continues to fall,
and bus manufacturers increase the scale of production of electric
transit buses, costs of buses will continue to decline, and electric
transit buses may ultimately provide a lower cost alternative. In the
near term, however, additional federal funding for converting
combustion engine fleets to zero-emission electric propulsion would
provide valuable support to local and state governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
Lower CO2, C40 (Mar. 29, 2018), https://c40-production-
images.s3.amazonaws.com/other_uploads/images/1726_BNEF_C40_
Electric_buses_in_cities_FINAL_APPROVED_%282%29.original.pdf?1523363881
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
zero emission ferries and marine transport
In addition to electrifying passenger vehicles and transit fleets,
states are exploring opportunities for zero-emission marine transport.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee announced his Washington Maritime Blue
2050 Initiative in 2017 to create and expand a sustainable ocean
industry through the combined use of electric ferries and ships and
zero-carbon-emissions port terminals.\56\ Washington State plans to use
around 45 percent of its VW settlement money to fund the
electrification of public vessels, with a particular focus on ferries,
recognizing that in Washington State, ``ferries account for more than
half of the air pollution generated by harbor vessels.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Tara Lee, Leading in the Maritime Sector: Washington Launches
Maritime Blue 2050 Initiative, Washington Governor Jay Inslee (Dec. 12,
2017), https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/leading-maritime-sector-
washington-launches-maritime-blue-2050-initiative.
\57\ The Washington State Plan notes that Converting diesel to all-
battery electric ferries will significantly reduce diesel and carbon
emissions, improve fleet reliability, virtually eliminate engine noise
that can harm marine animals, and reduce ferry operating costs by up to
20 percent. Brett Rude & Mike Boyer, State of Washington Volkswagen
Beneficiary Mitigation Plan, Department of Ecology: State of Washington
(Nov. 2018), https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/
1802023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen fuel cells may provide another viable option for zero-
emission marine transport. A study undertaken by Sandia National
Laboratories concluded in July 2018 that it is both technologically and
economically feasible to build research vessels powered by hydrogen
fuel cells.\58\ The first commercial ship running on hydrogen and
producing zero pollution was built in 2017.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Sandia National Laboratories, Diesel Doesn't Float This Boat--
Team Designs Zero-Emission Research Vehicle, Phys.org (July 2, 2018),
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-diesel-doesnt-boatteam-zero-emissions-
marine.html.
\59\ Anna Hirtenstein, There's Now Vessel That Produces Zero
Pollution, Bloomberg (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2017-11-29/oceans-get-zero-emission-ship-in-step-toward-
cleaner-cargo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States could explore additional international
partnerships for research and development and implementation. For
example, Norway and Finland have deployed battery-electric ferries, and
Norway is currently piloting hydrogen ferries.\60\ Norway has passed
legislation to make its fjords zero emissions zones by 2026, only
allowing electric ships into its waters.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Tjalve Magnusson Svedndsen, The First Hydrogen Ferry in
Norway, Christian Michelsen Research, https://www.cmr.no/projects/
10568/hydrogen-ferry/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
\61\ Fred Lambert, Norway Is Making Its Fjords `The World's First
Zero Emission Zone at Sea', Electrek (May 4, 2018), https://
electrek.co/2018/05/04/elecitrc-ferries-norway-fjords-worlds-first-
zero-emission-zone/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
decarbonizing medium- and heavy-duty trucks
As the movement of goods on our country's highway corridors
continues to increase with the growth of e-commerce, decarbonizing
truck transport will be critical to meeting state and national climate
commitments. For both long-haul and local delivery by heavy-duty and
medium-duty vehicles, a number of low- or zero-emission vehicle and
fuel types may serve different use cases.
For reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, natural gas- and
propane-fueled vehicles offer a promising and potentially low-cost
alternative. For reducing GHG emissions, the federal government could
play a key role in enabling the deployment of battery electric and
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Many vehicle and engine manufacturers have announced plans to
release battery electric trucks over the coming years, and hydrogen
truck pilots offer a promising alternative. The U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has supported
significant research and development efforts for hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, including through partnerships with U.S. national
laboratories and private sector businesses, and has set ambitious goals
for reducing the price of hydrogen fuel cells.\62\ This investment in
hydrogen as a transportation fuel is as part of a broader opportunity
role for hydrogen fuel in a decarbonized United State energy system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office Accomplishments and
Progress, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-technologies-
office-accomplishments-and-progress
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One critical challenge for both of these zero-emission technology
types is the development of sufficient charging or fueling
infrastructure along highway corridors. Similar to passenger vehicles,
a minimum level of infrastructure coverage needs to be in place in
order for the market to grow to the scale necessary to support private
investment and unsubsidized growth.
Heavy duty battery-electric trucks provide unique charging
infrastructure and electric grid challenges. For example, the electric
semi-truck specifications suggested by Tesla might require over 1 MW
capacity charging per plug--equivalent to a Walmart SuperCenter. A
truck stop depot with 10 of these chargers could have a peak electrical
load similar to an industrial facility, but will often be located in a
rural area far from available electrical power capacity.
The federal government could play a critical role expanding
research and pilot programs to determine the most cost effective and
efficient means of providing this type of vehicle charging, including
the role of stationary storage batteries and co-location of renewable
power generation. This work could incorporate the freight corridor
planning underway in many states through the FHWA Alternative Fuel
Corridor program, and could engage key stakeholders, including electric
utilities, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, and
vehicle manufacturers.
reducing emissions by providing greater mode choices
In addition to supporting infrastructure to enable a transition to
zero- and low-emission vehicles, the federal government can play a key
role in reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled by improving
transportation efficiency; by promoting more compact, livable
communities; and by providing more transportation choices, including
public transit, biking and walking. While states generally control land
use planning decisions, the federal government has a critical role to
play through its administration of transportation funding and
infrastructure investment.
Many states are confronting the challenge of reducing air pollution
and emissions while experiencing increases in vehicle miles traveled.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently released a report on
the state's emissions over the last 25 years and strategies needed to
meet the state's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The report
found that while Minnesota has successfully reduced its overall
emissions while growing its economy, the state missed its 2015 emission
reduction target; and transportation is now the largest source of
emissions in the state. The report suggests that the trends of
residents driving more miles and preferring larger vehicles are
preventing a greater reduction of emissions, and suggests that
additional transportation mode choices can be an effective strategy for
the state moving forward.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Anne Claflin & Fawkes Steinwand, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
Minnesota: 1990-2016 7, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Department
of Commerce (Jan. 2019), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/
files/lraq-2sy19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state support for bicycle and pedestrian transportation
There are many examples of state leadership in developing
``complete streets'' that allow for safe and efficient movement of
pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to vehicles. New Jersey has a
nationally recognized complete streets policy that includes significant
engagement with counties and municipalities. New Jersey Department of
Transportation provides training to its own engineers and planners,
along with those from local agencies, on complete streets policies. New
Jersey Department of Transportation also provides incentives through
its Local Aid and Economic Development grant program to municipalities
that meet Complete Streets policy objectives.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Complete Streets: Workshop and Training, Department of
Transportation, https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/
completestreets/training.shtm (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many states' active transit projects are funded through federal
programs, including the Capital Investment Grant program,
Transportation Alternatives Program, and Surface Transportation Block
Grant.
public transportation and transit oriented development
Investment in public transit, including light rail systems, bus
rapid transit, traditional bus routes, and new mobility applications
such as dynamic-routing micro-transit provide additional transportation
choices and can stimulate economic development while reducing
emissions. Cities and states throughout the U.S. are pioneering
innovative ways of making transit more convenient and accessible, while
harnessing the benefits of transit for community development and
economic growth.
In Dallas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system has
introduced the ``GoPass,'' a simple system that allows easy payment for
different transit services while allowing frequent users to
automatically take advantage of monthly or daily ride discounts when
available.\65\ The GoPass was originally introduced nearly five years
ago. DART introduced both the ``cash to mobile'' option and fare
capping last year. These two items especially help low income
populations. Last month, DART introduced GoPass 3.0 which begins to
fully integrate other modes into the app, such as micro-transit
services and scooters. The entire trip can be paid for on the app
rather than bouncing back and forth between apps. This month DART is
introducing Uber Pool as backup to the micro-transit services already
offered, to make sure that the response times are maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ When using a GoPass, transit riders ``never pay more than the
price of a day pass in one day, or the price of a monthly pass in one
month'' through an automated payment system. Dallas Area Rapid Transit,
GoPass Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.gopass.org/customer-
service/questions-answers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington, Virginia, where I live has seen significant economic
development and population increases over recent decades, but has
successfully decoupled this growth from greenhouse gas emissions by
implementing transit-oriented development, in which mixed use
developments are clustered near Metro stations.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview, NOAA:
National Center For Environmental Information (2019), https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To encourage more cities and regional governments to invest in
critical public transit infrastructure, the federal government might
consider increasing the federal match for public transit projects, from
current levels of 50 percent (compared to 80 percent for road projects
funded by the Highway Trust Fund).
Transportation System Resilience
Despite innovation in the transportation sector and a shift to
cleaner sources of electricity, including improved vehicles and fuels
as a result of federal and state policy, we are already seeing the
effects of climate change. Extreme weather events are becoming more
frequent and intense, creating new challenges for infrastructure
agencies that must consider how to prepare assets for these changing
conditions and to do so on very limited budgets.
Since 1980, the U.S. has experienced 241 extreme weather-related
events with costs of more than $1 billion. The total estimated cost of
these events adds up to more than $1.6 trillion. And the frequency and
scale of these major disasters is increasing. Nearly one-third of total
costs have come from events in just the past 5 years.\67\ In 2017
alone, extreme weather events cost the U.S. over $300 billion, in large
part due to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.\68\ These disasters
have caused significant damages to infrastructure, which in some cases
has led to years-long recovery efforts.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ NOAA, Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.
\68\ Chris Mooney & Brady Dennis, Extreme Hurricanes and Wildfires
Made 2017 the Most Costly U.S. Disaster Year on Record, Washington Post
(Jan. 8, 2018) https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/08/hurricanes-
wildfires-made-2017-
the-most-costly-u-s-disaster-year-on-record/.
\69\ For example, Vermont experienced an estimated $250-300 million
in infrastructure damage resulting from Tropical Storm Irene. Vermont's
challenges of rebuilding culverts more resiliently during the recovery
period, due to barriers at the time in federal law and disaster
recovery programs, is explored in the report. Lessons Learned from
Irene: Climate Change, Federal Disaster Relief, and Barriers to
Adaptive Reconstruction, Georgetown Climate Center (Dec. 20, 2013),
https://www.georgetownclimate.org/reports/lessons-learned-from-irene-
climate-change-federal-disaster-relief-and-barriers-to-adaptive-
reconstruction.html. In New York, the many transportation-related
impacts resulting from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, summarized in the
report Transportation During and After Sandy, have led to numerous
efforts to improve resilience in transportation infrastructure. Sarah
Kaufman, et al., Transportation During and After Hurricane Sandy, Rudin
Center For Transportation: NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
(Nov. 2012), https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/
sandytransportation.pdf. See, e.g., Post Hurricane Sandy Transportation
Resilience Study in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, U.S.
Department of Transportation (Oct. 2017), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/sustainability/resilience/publications/hurricane_sandy/
fhwahep17097.pdf; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey--PATH
System Resiliency and Recovery Improvements, Georgetown Climate Center:
Adaptation Clearinghouse (Jan. 16, 2015), https://www.adaptation
clearinghouse.org/resources/port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-
path-system-resiliency-and-recovery-improvements.html. In Colorado,
severe rains and flooding in September 2013 caused major road damage
and wash-outs along US 34, which provides sole access to some areas.
Recovery and reconstruction efforts extended into 2018, but resulted in
a more resilient design of the highway. See US 34 Big Thompson Canyon,
Colorado Department of Transportation, https://www.codot.gov/projects/
floodrelatedprojects/us-34-big-thompson-canyon-1 (last visited Feb. 20,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many of you know from the communities you represent, the human
toll from these events is huge. In 2005, many members of my family,
including my mother, sister and brother-in-law, aunt and uncle, lost
homes in Katrina. The year before, my father Sidney Arroyo died during
a stressful evacuation from Hurricane Ivan. The human and economic toll
of these events is staggering. It is vital that we capture lessons on
how to improve infrastructure and operations to get people out of
harm's way in advance of storms and to build back differently as these
events become more common and more severe.
Our work in communities after Hurricanes Katrina, Irene and Sandy
demonstrate opportunities to improve how communities rebuild after
storms.
what states are doing
Many states and local governments are learning from recent extreme
events and are working to prepare their infrastructure systems for
additional impacts of climate change. We are seeing more dedicated
funding for resilient investments. Innovative steps include nature-
based resilience strategies to help mitigate impacts of flooding and
heat, new committees and task forces to examine climate change impacts
and to design infrastructure to be more resilient, and new requirements
to account for climate change in state or local planning and
investments. For example, legislation and voter initiatives in
Massachusetts, California, and Miami have committed funding for
programs and projects that will build resilience in communities and
infrastructure systems. In Massachusetts, state legislation authorized
hundreds of millions of dollars for critical infrastructure protection
and adaptation, implementation of the state's integrated hazard
mitigation and climate adaptation plan, and other state and local
resilience measures as part of a $2.4 billion package.\70\ Legislation
in California (and subsequent voter approval) authorized over $4
billion in bonds for conservation and resilience, parks and recreation,
and water projects, including $443 million specifically for climate
change preparedness and habitat resiliency, and $550 million for flood
protection.\71\ And in Miami, voters approved a bond package with
nearly $200 million for projects to mitigate impacts of sea-level rise
and flooding.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ An act promoting climate change adaptation, environmental and
natural resource protection, and investment in recreational assets and
opportunity, ch. 209, 2018 Mass. Sess. Laws.
\71\ California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection,
and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, Ch. 852, 2017-2018 Cal. Sess.
Laws (subsequently approved by voters in June 2018 as Prop. 68).
\72\ Adam Aton, Climate funding passes; vulnerable cities get new
mayors, E&E News (Nov. 8, 2017), https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/
2017/11/08/stories/1060065971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and local governments are also showing commitment to
resilience through planning and programs, task forces and studies, and
new design requirements and development and zoning regulations. The
Louisiana's Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments (LA SAFE)
Program, initially funded through disaster recovery dollars in 2012,
works with parishes to co-design customized projects and programs that
will improve community resilience like ``complete streets'' and nature-
based flood mitigation projects.\73\ California's Climate-Safe
Infrastructure Working Group, established pursuant to legislation
passed in 2016,\74\ completed its recommendations in 2018 for how the
state can better integrate climate science into engineering and
design.\75\ New York State established formal statewide sea-level rise
projections by regulation in early 2018,\76\ implementing an important
aspect of the state's Community Risk and Resiliency Act (2014), which
is designed to integrate considerations of climate change impacts to
proposed projects in certain funding and permitting processes overseen
by state agencies.\77\ Maryland expanded its ``Coast Smart'' program in
2018, now requiring that state-funded local projects (in addition to
state capital projects) be sited and designed according to the state's
``Coast Smart'' criteria, which were also updated in 2018 pursuant to
the legislation.\78\ And a range of local governments in places like
Houston, Broward County, and New York City are implementing new
floodplain and zoning regulations and design requirements to ensure
that infrastructure investments and other development either avoid
high-risk areas or are built to withstand future storms and
conditions.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Louisiana's Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments, LA
Safe, https://lasafe.la.gov/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
\74\ Climate change: infrastructure planning, ch. 580, 2015-2016
Cal. Sess. Laws.
\75\ Paying It Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe Infrastructure
in California, California Natural Resources Agency (Sept. 2018), http:/
/resources.ca.gov/climate/climate-safe-infrastructure-working-group/.
\76\ NY Envtl. Conserv. Law Sec. 490 (2018).
\77\ New York Community Risk and Resiliency Act (S06617B),
Georgetown Climate Center: Adaptation Clearinghouse (Sept. 22, 2014),
https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/new-york-community-
risk-and-resiliency-act-s06617b.html.
\78\ For more information, see Georgetown Climate Center, Maryland
HB 1350/ SB 1006--Sea Level Rise Inundation and Coastal Flooding--
Construction, Adaptation, and Mitigation.
\79\ Houston voted to update its Floodplain Management Ordinance,
now regulating new development in the 500-year floodplain instead of
just the 100-year. City of Houston, Ord. No. 2018-258 (Apr. 4, 2018).
Broward County is now using ``future conditions'' maps that account for
the impacts of sea-level rise on groundwater levels when approving
drainage and other water management infrastructure, which will help
ensure that infrastructure lasts in the future. Broward Cty., Fla.,
Ordinance No. 2017-16 (May 23, 2017). In New York City, the Mayor's
Office of Recovery and Resiliency developed new Climate Resiliency
Design Guidelines to be used in the planning and design of city capital
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what can congress do?
In its recent report, the Committee for the Study of the Future
Interstate Highway System highlighted the importance of preparing the
Interstate Highway System and other roads and bridges for the impacts
of climate change and more intense weather events.\80\ Congress should
act on these recommendations to ensure that major federal
infrastructure investments, including but not limited to the Interstate
Highway System, are built to withstand flooding, increased heat, and
other climate change impacts. Congress can build on steps already taken
in MAP-21 and the FAST Act (integrating resilience and risk
considerations in transportation planning processes), and in the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act (authorizing a set-aside funding source
from disaster expenses for pre-disaster mitigation grants for public
infrastructure projects that will improve resilience, among other
provisions designed to foster long-term resilience as part of disaster
recovery).\81\ To ensure fiscal responsibility, recipients of federal
funding should be required to consider how climate change will impact
their infrastructure systems and assets in the future, and ensure that
their investments are designed accordingly to withstand future
conditions. States should be provided with the tools and information
they need to adequately integrate these considerations into capital
decision-making processes, and with strong incentives to engage in
resilience planning and to modify codes and standards ahead of
disasters to facilitate resilient rebuilding when funds are
available.\82\ It is more important than ever to ensure that federal
dollars are spent wisely and not wasted on investments that will not be
built to last under future climate conditions and a ``new normal'' that
includes increasingly severe weather events.
In addition to infrastructure, we should understand that resilience
to impacts depends on people as well and developing strategies to
evacuate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A
Foundation for the Future (2018).
\81\ Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018,
H.R. 302, Div. D, 115th Cong. (2018). For example, the DRRA also
clarifies that predisaster hazard mitigation funds may be used to
establish and implement the latest hazard-resistant designs and
criteria (modifying 42 USC 5133(e)), and it adds new evaluation
criteria for predisaster hazard mitigation assistance awards, including
the extent to which potential grantees have adopted the latest hazard-
resistant designs and codes, and ``the extent to which the assistance
will fund activities that increase the level of resiliency'' (modifying
42 USC 5133(g)). It also clarifies that Public Assistance funds can
reimburse costs of rebuilding facilities according to ``the latest
published editions of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications,
and standards. . .'' or ``in a manner that allows the facility to meet
the definition of resilient'' (which is to be developed by FEMA
rulemaking) (modifying 42 USC 5172(e)).
\82\ Standards-setting organizations like the American Society of
Civil Engineers have been engaging for several years in discussions
about how to modify infrastructure design to account for changing risk
profiles as a result of climate change. ASCE's Committee on Adaptation
to a Changing Climate recently published a new Manual of Practice with
guidance for engineers and others involved in infrastructure
decisionmaking to assist with integrating adaptive design and
minimizing lifecycle costs given a changing climate. Climate-Resilient
Infrastructure: Adaptive Design and Risk Management, Committee on
Adaptation to a Changing Climate, ASCE; Edited by Bilal M. Ayyub,
Ph.D., P.E. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Katrina, more than 1800 people who stayed behind died. Some
didn't leave because of the difficulty in evacuating the year before
during Ivan, Others didn't have affordable options for transportation
or shelter, and still others didn't want to leave their pets behind
after discovering that public transport and shelter options prohibited
animals. Because of those hard lessons, Congress passed the Pet
Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act--yes, ``PETS''--which no
doubt has saved lives of countless pets and people in more recent
storms.
New programs like ``Evacuteers'' in New Orleans have sprung up to
make sure people (and pets) can get out of harm's way, and portions of
the I-10 twin spans, after sections were knocked out in Katrina, have
been elevated.
There is more to be done to prepare our communities for the changes
we're experiencing now that will accelerate and worsen over time, even
while states and cities work to do their share to tackle the emissions
contributing to a changing climate.
Thank you for considering how Congress might support them in these
efforts.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Arroyo.
Professor Lyon, you may proceed.
Mr. Lyon. I wish to thank the chairman, ranking member, and
other members of the committee for inviting me to today's
hearing. My name is Tom Lyon, and I am a professor of economics
at University of Michigan, with appointments in both the Ross
School of Business and the School of Environment and
Sustainability. The views I am presenting today are my own
personal views and do not represent those of the university or
any funders of my research.
There is no question that U.S. infrastructure is in bad
shape. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives U.S.
infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus, with roads receiving
a D. The time is ripe to come together to improve the
situation.
And it is wise to consider how infrastructure funding might
affect greenhouse gas emissions. Total carbon emissions from
the U.S. transportation sector rose 22 percent between 1990 and
2017. And in 2017 transportation surpassed electricity as our
largest emitter.
My remarks today make two main points: first, market-
oriented solutions offer incentives for innovation and cost
reduction that can help to contain the social costs of
addressing climate change; second, the history of U.S.
Government policy for alternative fuels displays an
inconsistency that illustrates why it is wise to be cautious
about picking particular technology solutions.
Economists have long advocated market-based solutions to
environmental problems. This approach minimizes the total cost
of achieving a given level of environmental protection, and
provides dynamic incentives for innovation in pollution
control.
A famous example of a market-oriented policy is congestion
pricing, used in London since 2003. A related example comes
from Los Angeles, where single-occupancy vehicles can use the
high-occupancy vehicle lane by paying a toll that depends on
the level of highway congestion. Theseprograms use market
mechanisms to reduce congestion at a much lower cost than
building more highways.
Another market-based policy is funding roads through a tax
on vehicle miles traveled, as has been supported by Chairman
DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves. Economic research suggests
that if the current schedule of increases in fuel economy
standards is maintained, and if the VMT, vehicle miles traveled
tax, is differentiated for urban and rural driving, then the
VMT tax is likely to outperform a gasoline tax.
Market-based instruments allow for innovation and
flexibility on the part of the private sector. This is
especially important in the heavy truck market, which relies
primarily on diesel fuel. Cummins and Tesla are producing
electric heavy trucks. Toyota is testing heavy trucks powered
by hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas trucks are also being
developed. It is too early to tell which of these fuels will be
best, so it is important for policy to allow for flexibility.
Mandating a specific technology could lock the industry into an
inferior option.
This brings me to my second point. U.S. policy towards
alternative fuels has vacillated over time, as favored
technologies rose and fell. Policy support has switched from
methanol to natural gas to battery electric vehicles to
hydrogen to hybrid electric vehicles to biofuels, and now back
to battery electrics. This has sent confusing signals, making
it hard for the auto industry to make long-term investment
plans for alternative fuel vehicles.
A market-oriented approach would take a modest view of
Government's ability to lead the deployment of any particular
technology. Mandating technology choices in downstream markets
risks creating cycles of hype and disappointment, or creating
lock-in to an inferior technology.
When it comes to encouraging the adoption of electric
vehicles, research suggests that financing electric charging
stations is more effective than subsidizing vehicle purchases
directly. However, there are many possible sources of funding
for charging stations, and a thoughtful approach to creating
public-private partnerships seems warranted.
It may also be useful to require compatibility in charging
standards across manufacturers, which would decrease
duplicative investments and expand the size of theelectric
vehicle market.
In summary, economic analysis cautions against picking
technological winners, and supports the use of market-based
instruments that allow flexibility and encourage innovation.
This is especially important for medium and heavy-duty trucks,
where multiple technologies all offer promise, and for the
deployment of fueling infrastructure for alternative fuels such
as electricity.
Thank you again for allowing me to share my views, and I
look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Lyon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Testimony of Thomas P. Lyon, Dow Chemical
Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce, University
of Michigan
I wish to thank the chairmen, ranking members and other members of
the Subcommittees and full Committee for inviting me to today's
hearing. My name is Thomas Peyton Lyon and I hold the Dow Chemical
Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce at the University
of Michigan, with appointments in both the Ross School of Business and
the School of Environment and Sustainability. I am an economist by
training, and at the Ross School my home department is Business
Economics and Public Policy. At Michigan I teach an MBA-level graduate
course entitled ``Energy Markets and Energy Politics.'' I have served
as Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise and
as Associate Director for Policy and Social Science at the UM Energy
Institute. In the latter capacity I helped to launch the
Transportation, Economics, Energy and Environment (TE3) conference,
which for the last 5 years has brought together top academic
researchers with leaders from industry and government to discuss these
important issues. I have received research grants on transportation
from the Sloan Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I am currently the President of the Alliance for Research on Corporate
Sustainability (ARCS), an international alliance of top business
schools that have a commitment to understanding the links between
business and sustainability.
There is little question that U.S. infrastructure is in bad shape.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)'s 2017 Infrastructure
Report Card gave U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of D+. Transit
received a D^, Roads a D, and Bridges a C+; Rail topped the list at a
grade of B. The relatively good performance of rail is largely due to
private industry investment by the rail freight industry, although
Federal funding also contributes. Passenger rail, in contrast, exhibits
a ``large and growing backlog of capital needs.'' (ASCE, p. 75). ``More
than two out of every five miles of America's urban interstates are
congested and traffic delays cost the country $160 billion in wasted
time and fuel in 2014. One out of every five miles of highway pavement
is in poor condition.'' (ASCE, p. 77) ``The U.S. has been underfunding
its highway system for years, resulting in a $836 billion backlog of
highway and bridge capital needs . . . The Federal Highway
Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway, and
bridge improvements returns $5.20 in the form of lower vehicle
maintenance costs, decreased delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved
safety, lower road and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions
as a result of improved traffic flow.'' (ASCE, p. 78) Similarly,
``Despite increasing demand, the nation's transit systems have been
chronically underfunded, resulting in aging infrastructure and a $90
billion rehabilitation backlog.'' (ASCE, p. 89)
Total greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector
rose from 1,469.1 million tons of CO2-equivalent (MMTCO2E) in 1990 to
1,794.2 (MMTCO2E) in 2017 (USEPA, 2019, p. 2-3), an increase of 22
percent. Although emissions dropped sharply in 2008 and 2009 as a
result of the Great Recession, they have been rising again since 2013.
In fact, as of 2017, the transportation sector in the U.S. has
surpassed the electricity sector as the largest emitter of greenhouse
gases, as shown in the figure below (from USEPA, p. ES-24). Light-duty
vehicles account for 60 percent of transportation emissions, with
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles accounting for 23 percent of the
total.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-
greenhouse-gas-emissions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There are many opportunities to reduce transportation sector
emissions, including reducing travel demand, making greater use of
public transit, switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles, and adopting
a wide range of alternative fuels such as electricity, hydrogen,
biodiesel, and compressed natural gas. Emerging connected and automated
vehicles (CAVs) offer opportunities to improve highway safety and fuel
efficiency, although they may ultimately increase overall fuel
consumption (Stephens et al., 2016).
My remarks today will make two main points. First, market-oriented
solutions offer incentives for innovation and cost-reduction that can
help to contain the social costs of addressing climate change. Second,
the history of U.S. government policy for alternative fuels displays an
inconsistency that illustrates why it is wise for government policy to
be cautious about picking particular technology solutions.
the value of market-oriented policies
Economists have long argued for market-based instruments for the
solution of environmental problems, such as emissions fees (Pigou,
1920) or systems of tradable permits (Montgomery, 1972). The advantages
of this approach are that it minimizes the aggregate cost of achieving
a given level of environmental protection (Baumol and Oates, 1988), and
provides dynamic incentives for the adoption and diffusion of cheaper
and better pollution control technologies (Milliman and Prince, 1989).
One of the most prominent applications of the approach was the U.S.
sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program, which is credited with reducing
acid rain in the Northeastern U.S. at a cost lower than initially
projected (Schmalensee and Stavins, 2013).
In the transportation sector, a prominent example of a market-
oriented policy is the use of congestion pricing, as was famously done
in London beginning in 2003 (Leape, 2006) and more recently in
Gothenburg, Sweden (Hysing et al., 2015). Because London exempted
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), the congestion tax has also increased
their use (Morton et al., 2017).
A less familiar example comes from Los Angeles, where beginning in
2013 the High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on Interstate I-10 has been
converted to a High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) facility, under the city's
ExpressLanes program (Bento et al., 2017). The program allows Single-
Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) to travel in the HOV lane by paying a toll
that ranges from $0.10 to $15.00 depending on the level of congestion
on the highway. The toll is adjusted dynamically to keep travel speeds
in the HOV lane at roughly 45 miles per hour. The program uses market
mechanisms to reduce congestion at a much lower cost than highway
expansion.
Another market-based policy is funding roads through a tax on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as has been supported by Chairman DeFazio
and ranking member Graves.\2\ Oregon has experimented with such a
policy, California has initiated a pilot project, and other States have
shown interest as well (Langer et al., 2017). Economic research
suggests that a VMT tax can have substantial benefits. Parry and Small
(2005) calculate that the optimal VMT tax would be more economically
efficient than the optimal gasoline tax, would raise more revenue, and
would be better at reducing congestion and accidents than a gasoline
tax. However, a gasoline tax would more directly target the
environmental performance of vehicles, as well as the increased
accident hazards created by driving heavier and less fuel-efficient
vehicles (Anderson and Aufhammer, 2013). Langer et al. (2017) use a
unique dataset on individual driver behavior to estimate the effects of
a VMT, and conclude that its performance is likely to be very similar
to that of a gasoline tax in terms of overall social welfare. However,
if the Obama-era increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards are maintained, and if the VMT is differentiated for urban
and rural driving, then the VMT outperforms a gasoline tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-rep-sam-graves-
consistent-support-vmt-funding-approach
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A crucial advantage of market-based instruments is that they allow
for innovation and flexibility on the part of the private sector. This
is of particular importance with regard to the heavy truck market,
which currently relies primarily on diesel fuel. As mentioned above,
medium-and heavy-duty trucks only produced 23 percent of the emissions
from the transportation sector in 2016, but the relative impact of
trucks is likely to increase over time as the efficiency of light-duty
vehicles continues to improve (see the figure below, which is from
USEPA 2019, p. 3-23).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Different companies are pursuing different technological solutions
for reducing carbon emissions from trucks. Cummins and Tesla are
producing electric heavy trucks.\3\ Toyota is testing heavy trucks
powered by hydrogen fuel cells.\4\ Natural gas trucks could also offer
climate advantages, but these are dependent on reduced leakage of
methane across the supply chain and engine efficiency improvements
(Camuzeaux et al., 2015). It is too early to tell which of these fuels
will prove to be best in particular uses, so it is important for policy
to allow for flexibility as innovation advances. Mandating a particular
type of technology for these vehicles could lock the industry into an
option that ends up being less than optimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2017/08/29/take-that-
tesla-diesel-engine-giant-cummins-unveils-heavy-duty-truck-powered-by-
electricity/#7dabd12278f1
\4\ https://www.trucks.com/2017/10/12/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-
electric-truck-hits-road/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
history of alternative fuels policy
U.S. policy toward alternative fuels has vacillated over time as
favored technologies become the ``fuel du jour'' and then lose ground
to a new alternative. The pattern is illustrated in the following
figure (from Melton et al., 2016, p. 3).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
President Reagan was a promoter of methanol, a fuel that quickly
fell out of favor. A few years later, California imposed a zero-
emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, with the expectation that this would
drive deployment of electric vehicles, but the policy had little impact
on actual deployment. Hydrogen fuel cells attracted attention with the
passage of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 1990, whose purpose was to ``accelerate efforts to
develop a domestic capability to economically produce hydrogen in
quantities that will make a significant contribution toward reducing
the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels.'' The Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) was launched in 1993, with the goal
of producing a new set of highly fuel-efficient vehicles, and
emphasizing hybrid diesel-electric vehicles. Each of the big domestic
manufacturers produced fully operational concept cars that got at least
72 miles per gallon, but a lack of ongoing support meant that none
actually made it to market. Government attention shifted back to
hydrogen in 2003 with President George W. Bush's ``Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative,'' which provided $1.2 billion of funding to develop
hydrogen fuel cells. This was bolstered by the FreedomCAR and Vehicle
Technologies Partnership between the Department of Energy and the U.S.
Council for Automotive Research (consisting of Ford, GM, and Chrysler).
At around the same time, however, political attention began to turn to
biofuels, and the 2002 Renewable Fuels Standard provided strong policy
support for corn-based ethanol, the climate benefits of which have been
questioned by numerous authors (DeCicco et al., 2015; Hill et al.,
2016). In 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an
executive order creating a low-carbon fuel standard, and the climate
benefits of this policy have also been questioned (Holland et al.,
2009).
This history of jumping from one favored technology to another in
rapid succession has sent a confusing set of signals to the automobile
industry, making it difficult for the auto industry to make long-term
investment plans for alternative fuel vehicles. As Melton et al. (2016,
p. 8) point out, ``goals are often announced . . . without
consideration for factors such as supply constraints, rate of
innovation adoption, and consumer acceptance.'' It is little wonder
that these government-led calls to action might be considered non-
credible by industry actors and investors.
What lessons are to be drawn from this experience? One response
would be to build government capacity in technology assessment and
forecasting, hoping to render future government programs more credible
(Melton, et al., 2016). A market-oriented approach would take a more
modest view of government's ability to lead the deployment of any
particular technology. Of course, it is widely acknowledged that
government needs to play a key role in fundamental research and
development (Jaffe et al., 2005), and that this may entail funding a
wide range of promising early stage technologies. However, attempts to
dictate technology choices to downstream markets run the risk of either
creating cycles of hype and disappointment (Melton et al., 2016) or
creating ``lock in'' to an inferior technology (Cowan, 1990). An
alternative could be to create more research tournaments by offering
prizes for technological breakthroughs (Taylor, 1995), such as the
Breakthrough Prizes funded by Silicon Valley leaders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/11/news-
breakthrough-prizes-2019-award-winners-biology-physics-math/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What might these considerations imply for the financing of electric
charging stations, a potentially important infrastructure policy? Li et
al. (2017) find that funding charging stations instead of subsidizing
vehicle purchases would have been twice as effective in encouraging the
adoption of electric vehicles. This is promising, but it is not obvious
that such funding must be provided by the Federal Government. There are
many possible sources of funding for charging stations, including
vehicle manufacturers such as Tesla, electric utilities,\6\ employers,
retail establishments, and municipalities, as well as State and Federal
Governments. In light of this array of options, a thoughtful approach
to creating a public/private partnership seems warranted. It is also
worth noting that the less costly policy of mandating compatibility in
charging standards would decrease duplicative investment in charging
stations by car manufacturers and increase the size of the electric
vehicle market (Li, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/constancedouris/2017/11/08/who-
should-pay-for-electric-vehicle-chargers-who-should-profit/
#4c8518d34aa5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, economic analysis cautions against picking
technological winners and supports the use of market-based instruments
that allow flexibility and encourage innovation. This is especially
important for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, where multiple
technologies all offer promise, and for the deployment of fueling
infrastructure for alternative fuels such as electricity.
references
American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure Report Card
2017. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/
02/Full-2017-Report-Card-FINAL.pdf
Anderson, Michael L., and Maximilian Auffhammer. ``Pounds that
kill: The external costs of vehicle weight.'' Review of Economic
Studies 81, no. 2 (2013): 535-571.
Baumol, William J., and Wallace E. Oates, The Theory of
Environmental Policy. Second edition. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
Bento, Antonio, Kevin Roth, and Andrew Waxman. ``Avoiding traffic
congestion externalities? The value of urgency.'' University of
Southern California Working paper, 2017.
Camuzeaux, Jonathan R., Ramo'n A. Alvarez, Susanne A. Brooks,
Joshua B. Browne, and Thomas Sterner. ``Influence of methane emissions
and vehicle efficiency on the climate implications of heavy-duty
natural gas trucks.'' Environmental Science & Technology 49, no. 11
(2015): 6402-6410.
Collantes, Gustavo, and Daniel Sperling. ``The origin of
California's zero emission vehicle mandate.'' Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice 42, no. 10 (2008): 1302-1313.
Cowan, Robin. ``Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological
lock-in.'' The Journal of Economic History 50, no. 3 (1990): 541-567.
DeCicco, John M., Danielle Yuqiao Liu, Joonghyeok Heo, Rashmi
Krishnan, Angelika Kurthen, and Louise Wang. ``Carbon balance effects
of U.S. biofuel production and use.'' Climatic Change 138, no. 3-4
(2016): 667-680.
Holland, Stephen P., Jonathan E. Hughes, and Christopher R.
Knittel. ``Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards?''
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1, no. 1 (2009): 106-46.
Hysing, Erik, Lotta Frandberg, and Bertil Vilhelmson.
``Compromising sustainable mobility? The case of the Gothenburg
congestion tax.'' Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58,
no. 6 (2015): 1058-1075.
Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A tale
of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy.''
Ecological Economics 54, no. 2-3 (2005): 164-174.
Langer, Ashley, Vikram Maheshri, and Clifford Winston. ``From
gallons to miles: A disaggregate analysis of automobile travel and
externality taxes.'' Journal of Public Economics 152 (2017): 34-46.
Leape, Jonathan. ``The London congestion charge.'' Journal of
Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (2006): 157-176.
Li, Jing. ``Compatibility and investment in the U.S. electric
vehicle market.'' Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management (2019).
Li, Shanjun, Lang Tong, Jianwei Xing, and Yiyi Zhou. ``The market
for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design.''
Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4,
no. 1 (2017): 89-133.
Melton, Noel, Jonn Axsen, and Daniel Sperling. ``Moving beyond
alternative fuel hype to decarbonize transportation.'' Nature Energy 1,
no. 3 (2016): 16013.
Milliman, Scott R., and Raymond Prince, ``Firm incentives to
promote technological change in pollution control,'' Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989): 247-65.
Montgomery, W. David. ``Markets in licenses and efficient pollution
control programs.'' Journal of Economic Theory 5, no. 3 (1972): 395-
418.
Morton, Craig, Robin Lovelace, and Jillian Anable. ``Exploring the
effect of local transport policies on the adoption of low emission
vehicles: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge and Hybrid
Electric Vehicles.'' Transport Policy 60 (2017): 34-46.
Pigou, Arthur Cecil, The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan
and Company, 1920.
Schmalensee, Richard, and Robert N. Stavins. ``The SO2 allowance
trading system: the ironic history of a grand policy experiment.''
Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2013): 103-22.
Stephens, T.S., J. Gonder, Y. Chen, Z. Lin, C. Liu, and D. Gohlke.
Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs
of Connected and Automated Vehicles. National Renewable Energy Lab.
(2016) Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-67216.
Taylor, Curtis R. ``Digging for golden carrots: An analysis of
research tournaments.'' The American Economic Review (1995): 872-890.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2017. (2019) EPA-530-P-19-001.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Professor Lyon.
Next, Mr. Prochazka, you may proceed. But first, let me
just say that I apologize for getting your name placard wrong.
We are going to fix that in a minute. Please proceed.
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Graves, and distinguished members of the committee. And my last
name is often mispronounced, so at least we got that correct
today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prochazka. So I want to thank you all for the
opportunity to talk about this important issue. As a son of a
dad who spent 25 years working for the FAA, my experience
started real young with transportation.
So I am the vice president of the Electrification
Coalition, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to
accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles around the
country in an effort to reduce the economic and national
security threats posed by U.S. oil dependency. We are a sister
organization of Securing America's Future Energy, which leads a
broader approach with the same core mission, and works for all
fuels.
You have a copy of my written testimony, and I am happy to
answer questions after. But today's hearing is an opportunity
to summarize a few key points: one, the hope that EVs can be a
bipartisan issue; two, EVs are going to help diversify our
transportation fuels; three, there are successes from around
the country to highlight; and four, we hope to share several
policy recommendations that could support EV adoption.
Currently 92 percent of the U.S. transportation sector is
powered by oil. Supply is determined by a cartel, and traded on
an unfair and unfree oil market, meaning disruption anywhere
affects prices everywhere. We need aggressive policy
interventions that are going to diversify transportation fuels,
an issue that should be at the top of every lawmaker's list.
Through transportation electrification, we can power the
way we move, while also improving our economic and national
security. Electricity is diverse, American-made, low-cost,
ubiquitous, and stable. And when used for transportation, it is
fundamentally cleaner than internal combustion engines,
regardless of the source. And as the grid gets cleaner, so do
EVs.
And not only do EVs reduce pollution, oil dependence, and
cost, they have incredible acceleration, and are actually fun
to drive.
EV adoption is also growing rapidly, last year hitting 1
million sold, and in 2019 will have almost 50 models available.
Battery costs are dropping. Charging is getting faster. And now
buses, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles, and class 8 vehicles
are going electric.
Despite the advantages of electrification, barriers both
real and perceived remain. Consumer knowledge is low. Upfront
costs can be higher. Local, State, and Federal policies can
remain in flux. But the Electrification Coalition and others
are working to reduce these barriers at all levels.
In Orlando we worked with area theme parks and Enterprise
Rent-a-Car to launch the Nation's first EV rental car program,
providing an extended EV test drive. In Fort Collins and
Loveland we launched Drive Electric Northern Colorado, our
first accelerator community. By coordinating fleet transition,
increased charging, and consumer education in one location, we
accelerated adoption to three times the national average.
The Electrification Coalition was also the lead
implementation partner for the Smart City Challenge. Seventy-
eight cities responded, offering innovative ideas to electrify
transportation, showing that communities were hungry for
solutions. Seven finalists were selected: Portland, San
Francisco, Denver, Austin, Kansas City, Columbus, and
Pittsburgh. And now all are leading examples for
electrification. The winner, Smart Columbus, and with our
partnership, is now a thriving EV ecosystem that is
substantially increasing EV adoption.
Our daily commutes are also going electric. Greensboro,
North Carolina, has become one of the largest fleets on the
east coast, recently launching 16 buses. It is going to
eventually eliminate 2 million gallons of diesel.
In Chicago, for every bus they deploy, they expect to save
about $25,000 in annual fuel costs. Imagine extending that to
the 70,000 city buses and 400,000 school buses operating
nationwide. If just half were to go electric, it would save $6
billion annually, and cut over 400 billion gallons of lifetime
diesel use.
And in partnership with Climate Mayors, a group of 400
mayors, we launched the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing
Collaborative, which provides tools to make transition easier.
From Cape Canaveral to Houston, L.A., and San Diego, they have
committed to purchase over 500 EVs in the next year.
We have several main recommendations. One, we should retain
30D, the Federal tax credit to purchase EVs. With some of the
companies already reaching the cap, we support lifting the cap
with a stakeholder-negotiated sunset.
Charging infrastructure must meet an electric future.
Funding DOT Alternative Fuel Corridors program can improve
signage, expand nationwide charging, and show consumers
considering an EV that charging is increasing, nationwide. We
should also renew and extend the 30C Federal tax credits per
additional EV charging.
We also need to expand electric bus adoption. We recommend
low- or zero-interest loans that can demonstrate the payback of
lower operational costs. Programs like the FTA's Low or No
Emmission grant program should be continued and expanded, and
we must also look for opportunities to create incentives and
paths to accelerate medium and heavy-duty vehicle
electrification.
Each year the U.S. military spends at least $81 billion to
protect global oil supplies. Roughly--it is roughly 28 cents
for every gallon we use. Policies that diversify our
transportation fuels are a small price, compared with the
opportunity to strengthen our economic and national security, a
goal everyone should support.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate and
look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Prochazka's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ben Prochazka, Vice President, Electrification
Coalition
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.
My name is Ben Prochazka, and I am the Vice President of the
Electrification Coalition, a nonpartisan, non-profit group of business
leaders committed to promoting policies and actions that facilitate the
deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale in order to combat the
economic and national security dangers caused by our nation's
dependence on oil. The Electrification Coalition is comprised of
leaders representing the entire value chain of the electrified
transportation system. These leaders believe federal infrastructure
policy can and must do much more to accelerate our economy's transition
away from oil as the only transportation fuel which we believe is
critical to providing choice to consumers and businesses and
strengthening our economy and national security.
The Electrification Coalition is a sister organization of Securing
America's Future Energy, or SAFE. For over a decade, SAFE has been
committed to strengthening America's national and economic security by
reducing U.S. oil dependence. While we are here today to talk about
electric vehicles (EVs) and the EC's continued role in their adoption,
SAFE supports efforts to bring greater fuel diversity to U.S. consumers
and businesses attempting to remain fuel neutral when possible but
assist certain fuel types as necessary. In 2006, SAFE formed the Energy
Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a nonpartisan group of business and
former military leaders in support of long-term policy toward this
goal. The ESLC is co-chaired by Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and CEO of
FedEx, and General James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine
Corps (Ret.).
Today's timely hearing provides an opportunity for us to share some
examples of early market successes of EVs and challenges to EV
adoption, explain why EVs should have strong bipartisan support, and to
encourage this committee to help accelerate EV adoption (including
transit buses, passenger, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles) and to
increase the number of available charging station locations and signage
across the country.
the challenge of u.s. oil dependence and transportation
The United States is the single-largest oil consumer in the world.
We consume, as a nation, approximately one-fifth of daily global
supply, 70 percent of which is used to power our transportation system.
Since 92 percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. transportation
system comes from oil, businesses and consumers have no alternatives
available at scale when oil prices spike. With the uniquely global
nature of oil pricing, a supply disruption anywhere impacts prices
everywhere. This is exacerbated by the opaque and unfree oil market
dominated by the OPEC cartel, which controls 83 percent of the world's
proven oil reserves.
Such market manipulation often leads to rapid fluctuations in oil
prices--both upwards and downwards--and wreaks havoc on our businesses,
our cities, and the average American's pocketbook, ultimately straining
the entire U.S. economy. Although oil prices were comparatively low in
2018, the volatile nature of the oil markets means American household
budgets will almost certainly be pressured by higher prices in the
near-to-medium-term future--and likely with little warning--and that
the tax cut given by President Trump just as tax cuts by Presidents
Bush and Obama will be sent to OPEC members and to purchase higher cost
oil than to the pockets of average Americans.
Additionally, higher oil prices significantly added to the U.S.
federal debt between 2002 and 2012, and every U.S. recession over the
past 40 years has been preceded by, or coincided with, an oil price
spike. Despite the recent increase in domestic oil production, the
United States sent more than $133 billion abroad in 2018 to pay for
oil, often to countries that neither share American strategic interests
nor values. The economic importance of oil also creates adverse
national security challenges. Notably, more than 50 percent of daily
oil supplies pass through one of seven major chokepoints, many in
unstable regions, particularly the Middle East. In addition, the U.S.
military spends at least $81 billion per year to protect global oil
supplies--accounting for 16 percent of DoD base budgets. If this cost
is spread over the roughly 19.8 million barrels of oil consumed daily
in the U.S., the implicit subsidy for petroleum consumers comes out to
$11.25 per barrel of crude oil, or $0.28 per gallon.
why electric vehicles are the solution to oil dependence:
Electric vehicles have the potential to dramatically reduce our
nation's oil dependence. By utilizing electricity to charge rapidly
improving battery technology, we can power our transportation sector
with a diverse, domestic, price stable, and fundamentally scalable
energy supply. In addition, this approach is fundamentally cleaner even
when the electricity is generated by coal but as we have seen in the
last few years the mix of fuels to power electricity continues to get
cleaner.
Electric vehicles provide a range of other benefits, which are
addressed in detail later in this testimony but can be briefly
mentioned here. Fewer moving parts means there are lower maintenance
costs for EVs, while also allowing local and state governments to meet
air quality challenges like non-attainment zones. Additionally, thanks
to the ubiquity of U.S. electricity infrastructure, much of the
nationwide fuel delivery network for EVs is already in place.
state of the electric vehicle market:
The vehicle manufacturing and charging infrastructure industry have
seen important progress in recent years as investments have grown, with
several OEMs committing billions more dollars to develop new models.
Today, 50 light-duty EV models are already available to American
consumers and cumulative light-duty EV sales growing quickly, as we
recently surpassed 1 million units in the United States since January
2011. This is also being matched with increased investments from the
private sector and utilities to expand the number of charging stations
and speed of the chargers, reaching almost 50,000 chargers at the end
of 2020.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Electrified transportation is rapidly expanding in the commercial
and transit sectors as well, with plug-in hybrid and battery electric
trucks ranging in size from Class 1 to Class 8 already operating on
city streets around the country. Today there are electric delivery
vehicles carrying packages for FedEx and UPS, plug-in electric garbage
trucks operating in Seattle and Sacramento, a Class 8 yard truck in
Buffalo, and 16 electric buses bringing commuters to work in
Greensboro, NC. Those 16 buses in Greensboro alone are estimated to
eliminate nearly 2 million gallons of diesel usage. Considering there
are approximately 70,000 city buses and 400,000 school buses in the
U.S., the potential for fuel savings and air quality improvements
nationwide are tremendous. The commercial and transit sectors are
increasingly driving electric--and Americans are increasingly seeing
the shift happening on their daily commutes, as more than 13 percent of
all transit agencies either have EV buses in service or on order.
We look forward to 2019 as a key transitional year when available
light-duty EVs meet more consumer needs while approaching cost parity
over the life of the vehicle with petroleum-powered vehicles.
Additionally, there are exciting signs from industry of a growing list
of vehicle options in almost every segment of the market, providing an
electric vehicle solution for almost every lifestyle.
While growth in the EV market is promising, there is still
significant work that must happen to ensure EVs can meaningfully
improve the economic and national security of the United States by
providing the needed fuel diversity in transportation. Transitions like
this are difficult, there is no guarantee of success, and there is much
to be done to make sure we accelerate these critical changes, but there
are tremendous signs of hope and the stakes cannot be higher.
the electrification coalition's accelerator programs
From coast to coast, the EC has worked with federal, state, and
local policymakers to create scalable and replicable programs across
the United States to accelerate the adoption of EVs.
Our work has included deep learning experiences in cities and
through public and private sector partnerships in Colorado, Georgia,
Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York. Our
efforts have expanded access to infrastructure, created an EV rental
car program with Enterprise Rent-a-Car, launched regional and national
bulk procurement initiatives that can reduce the administration and
real costs of vehicle acquisition, and initiated the nation's first
full ecosystem efforts that united diverse partners through ``EV
accelerator'' communities that serve as models for successfully driving
EV adoption. These initiatives have provided us with the opportunity to
develop a growing list of case studies and best practices that will
make it easier for the next communities to drive adoption at even
greater rates.
To realize these gains, the Electrification Coalition has worked
tirelessly at the local and state levels to bolster EV adoption. In
2013, the Electrification Coalition created Drive Electric Northern
Colorado, its first accelerator community. Accelerator communities are
cities or regions where all of the necessary public and private
stakeholder partnerships are combined with the appropriate business
environment, regulatory support, and consumer education to achieve
substantially higher EV sales. The first accelerator community achieved
EV sales three times the national average by implementing this combined
approach. The accelerator community model was later replicated in
Rochester, NY, and its success has encouraged New York to launch
similar communities across the state.
In addition, the Electrification Coalition worked with the Florida
Energy Office and major private sector partners in Orlando such as
Enterprise Rent-a-Car to create one of the nation's first EV rental
programs, called Drive Electric Orlando. This program has already
provided thousands of the state's visitors with first-hand experience
in driving EVs, thereby building confidence in and comfort with the
technology, dispelling myths, and allowing drivers to discover the
overall benefits of EVs.
On a larger scale, the Electrification Coalition is acting as a
technical and strategic advisor to Smart Columbus, the winner of the
U.S. DOT's Smart City Challenge. This $50 million endeavor--funded
through $40 million from U.S. DOT and $10 million from the Paul G.
Allen Family Foundation--is breaking down the barriers to EV adoption
in the Midwest and working to significantly accelerate EV adoption by
consumers and fleets. Smart Columbus is simultaneously sharing and
implementing national best practices, leveraging over $510 million in
private-sector investment, and developing new innovations to achieve
substantially increased EV adoption in the Columbus region.
Further demonstrating the local-level EV programs, the
Electrification Coalition is engaged with several initiatives to spur
collaboration and information sharing between and among U.S. and
international cities. These include the Mobility Innovation Challenge
and the Global Pilot EV Cities Initiative. Through these initiatives we
have learned that cities are facing immense transportation challenges
for which electrification provides an immediate and achievable
solution.
The EC is also the technical advisor for the Climate Mayors EV
Purchasing Collaborative, a nationwide bipartisan collaboration of
mayors who are committing to electrify city fleets. This initiative is
designed to reduce the barriers to electrification for our nation's
municipal fleets, thereby accelerating the transition. Already, 19
founding cities and two counties have publicly committed to the
purchase of 376 EVs, representing more than $11 million in EV
investment.
At the state level, the EC developed the Zero Emissions Vehicle
(ZEV) State Scorecard to provide a single, comprehensive, and data-
driven ranking of the key policies being implemented in ZEV MOU states
to support increased EV adoption. As the ZEV MOU states are among the
nation's leaders in policies that accelerate the adoption of EVs, the
scorecard provides the ability to assess the policies and actions that
most effectively impact EV adoption at the state level.
This is all necessary because while EV purchases have increased,
they are yet to reach a tipping point. Perception issues continue to
persist, as high numbers of consumers have neither driven an EV nor
know about the lower fuel and maintenance costs they offer. Similarly,
auto dealerships often don't prioritize EV sales with strong knowledge
about the available EV models, meaning electric cars are not being
integrated into showrooms. Attracting consumers to EVs will also help
solve current infrastructure issues, as every vehicle sold will
contribute to a developing value chain system that feeds into
infrastructure investment, creating jobs and boosting local economies
in the process.
electricity is diverse in source and domestically produced:
There could not be a more domestic or bipartisan solution to the
issue of oil dependence in our transportation sector than vehicle
electrification.
Electricity is generated from a diverse set of largely domestic
sources. These sources include nuclear, coal, natural gas, and
renewables such as wind, water, and solar. An electrified
transportation sector can maximize the electric grid's diverse
generation capacity and, when the availability of resources for
generating electricity change, electricity generation can shift to
power EVs with other alternatives. Moreover, whereas oil supplies are
subject to a wide range of geopolitical risks, domestic and localized
electricity production unquestionably benefits local economies while
creating jobs for American workers.
Operating a vehicle on electricity is considerably less expensive
and energy-intensive than operating a conventional internal combustion
vehicle. In large part, this is due to the higher efficiency of
electric motors. Conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles
convert only approximately 20 percent of the energy stored in gasoline
into power for the wheels. In contrast, EVs convert approximately 60
percent of the electrical energy from the grid into power for the
wheels. Miles traveled by EVs also emit less CO2 and other emissions
than vehicles powered by petroleum fuels. As noted, this is true even
with today's mix of electricity-generating resources in the U.S.--which
will only get cleaner as alternative generation options are integrated
into the grid.
Additionally, North Carolina is home to one of the world's largest
deposits of lithium, a core component of EV battery technology.
Millions of dollars have been raised and invested in recent months to
further expand production of this strategic mineral in the state, and
is an example of how effective policies have the potential to leverage
emerging investments from the private sector.
electricity prices are low and stable:
Electricity prices are substantially less volatile than gasoline or
diesel prices, increasing by an average of less than 2 percent per year
in nominal terms since 2000. The electric power system is designed to
meet peak demand at any time from existing generation sources--meaning
throughout most of the day, and particularly at night, consumers demand
significantly less electricity than the system can deliver. Assuming
that charging patterns are well-managed, the system has substantial
spare capacity to meet new demand from EVs parked at homes and other
locations during nighttime hours.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This low cost and price stability, which stands in sharp contrast
to the price volatility of oil or gasoline, exists for at least two
reasons.
First, the retail price of electricity reflects a wide range of
costs, only a small portion of which arise from the underlying cost of
the source. The remaining costs are largely fixed. This is
significantly different from gasoline, where the cost of crude
represents a significant percentage of the cost of retail gasoline.
Second, although real-time electricity prices can be volatile
(sometimes highly volatile on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis),
they are nevertheless relatively stable over the medium and long term.
Therefore, in setting retail rates, utilities use formulas that will
allow them to recover their costs, including occasionally high peak
demand prices for electricity, but which effectively insulate the
retail consumer from the hour-to-hour and day-to-day volatility of the
real-time power markets.
By isolating the consumer from price volatility, electric utilities
are providing EV drivers the very stability that oil companies cannot
provide to consumers of gasoline.
the power sector has substantial spare capacity:
Because large-scale storage of electricity has historically been
impractical, the U.S. electric power sector is effectively designed as
an 'on-demand system.' In practical terms, this has meant that the
system is constructed to be able to meet peak demand from existing
generation sources at any time. However, throughout most of a 24-hour
day--particularly at night--consumers require significantly less
electricity than the system is capable of delivering. Therefore,
assuming charging patterns are appropriately managed, the U.S. electric
power sector has substantial spare capacity that could be used to power
electric vehicles without constructing additional power generation
facilities. In fact, the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory found that the existing grid has enough capacity to
accommodate more than 150 million EVs without significant system
upgrades.
Unlike many proposed alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, the
nation already has a ubiquitous network of electricity infrastructure.
No doubt, electrification will require the expansion of charging
infrastructure, additional functionality, and increased investment in
grid reliability, but the power sector's infrastructural backbone--
generation, transmission, and distribution--is already in place.
challenges to electric vehicle transition:
We have yet to reach a tipping point in EV adoption due to a number
of persisting barriers to widespread consumer uptake. EV adoption rates
are influenced by many factors, including the training and enthusiasm
of automotive dealers, low vehicle availability in certain markets and
vehicle classes, consumer knowledge, and low gasoline prices.
Electrifying our transportation sector is an immense and urgent
challenge. And while cities and states around the country are
intensifying efforts to rapidly increase EV adoption, there are
significant opportunities for federal infrastructure policy make an
even greater impact.
This hearing provides a great opportunity to share some policy
recommendations that the we believe can help accelerate the EV market.
Below we have identified the current barriers to adoption and key
policy recommendations to address them.
initial purchase price:
The upfront costs of EVs have long acted as a deterrent to EV
purchases. Although prices of electric models have traditionally been
higher than their ICE counterparts, prices are rapidly dropping as
battery technology becomes cheaper. In 2008, battery prices were as
high as $1,000/kWh and there were relatively large production
inefficiencies due to lack of scale. Greater battery production is now
underway, driving battery prices below $150/kWh today. Many experts
believe that once battery prices reach $100/kWh, EVs will become
completely cost competitive with internal combustion engines.
Incentives like the 30D federal tax credit for purchasing EVs
remain critical to fostering greater adoption at this early stage, and
improvements to the 30D tax credit can make it even more effective. The
current cap of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer does not align
industry incentives with factors such as early adoption or rapid
technological advancement--first movers should be rewarded, not
penalized. In order to enjoy the significant energy security benefits
of widespread transportation electrification, it is vital that we
reform 30D by raising the cap--and establish a sunset date--in order to
continue incentivizing increased EV production and ultimately
widespread EV adoption.
consumer preferences:
As oil prices fell in 2015, sales of less fuel-efficient light
trucks dramatically increased. By the end of 2018, light trucks
represented nearly 70 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United
States on an annualized basis. In terms of the early EV market,
consumer preferences have also largely been ignored, as the vast
majority of EVs available have been light-duty sedans. However, a wider
range of models is now becoming available, with offerings at all points
across the consumer market including SUVs and trucks. As an example,
Ford recently announced plans to release an all-electric version of its
highly popular F-150 truck.
infrastructure needs:
Similarly, infrastructure needs must be expanded along with the
availability of models. Range anxiety is decreasing as battery capacity
improves, but this concern must be addressed with incentives, policies,
and pilot programs to continue the build-out of EV chargers and, more
broadly, charging corridors spanning the United States. To this end,
one key policy lever is the 30C federal tax credit, which covers one-
third of the cost to purchase and install charging infrastructure
(valued up to $1,000 in homes and up to $30,000 in commercial
applications).
encouraging faster ev bus adoption:
Beyond the private passenger vehicle market, electric buses are
already beginning to meet some of the demands of transit systems in the
U.S. However, we believe policymakers have the opportunity to
accelerate the adoption of EV buses by addressing some of the barriers
that transit agencies currently face. We should encourage the adoption
of EV buses through federal financing mechanisms such as low-interest
or zero-interest loans to public entities. This will help to address
the realities of state and city budgeting, which often prioritize the
lowest upfront capital expenditures (e.g., purchasing buses with
internal combustion engines) with a tradeoff of higher overall lifetime
operational costs versus electric buses. As a result, long-term fuel
and maintenance costs are not factored into initial purchasing
decisions--which overlooks the key long-term benefits of electric
buses.
supporting community engagement efforts:
Besides federal support, there are a number of impactful policy
options at the state and local levels. These include both monetary
incentives, most commonly in the form of vehicle purchase incentives,
and other non-financial incentives. It is incredibly important to
ensure consumers are aware of the programs that are available to them,
as they are unlikely to purchase EVs if they are unaware of the
technology, how it can fit their lifestyle, and the potential savings.
In order to combat consumer misunderstanding of the technology,
industry and advocates such as the EC have used several strategies to
raise consumer awareness. These include campaigns to increase awareness
of charging infrastructure (e.g., adequate and highly-visible signage)
and to convey to consumers the value benefit of electrification, such
as the money that can be saved on fuel over time.
change at the federal level
These initiatives described previously have proven to be very
effective at the local level, with the promise of further success.
However, improvements in infrastructure policy at the federal level can
have a multiplier effect on such initiatives, allowing not only the
nationwide replication of these projects but also a meaningful
expansion in both their scope and scale.
Congress and the Administration should continue to support the 30C
and 30D federal tax credits, which support critical R&D efforts and
incentivize consumer adoption respectively at this nascent stage of the
industry's development. Retention of the $7,500 federal purchase
incentive is vital to continuing to build momentum because some
automakers have entered the tax credit's phase-out stage. We support
lifting the cap on the total number of vehicles covered by the tax
credit, and then a sunsetting to be negotiated by the stakeholders.
Affordability should form a major part of these negotiations.
As mentioned earlier in this testimony, electrifying city and
municipal bus fleets would be a vital step forward in reducing oil
dependence and enhancing U.S. energy security. To encourage this
transition, we recommend prioritizing low-cost loans as an attractive
financing solution to EV bus purchases, as city budgets implicitly
penalize electric options by prioritizing upfront costs in their
purchasing processes. In addition, further expanding the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration Low or
No-Emission Bus Competitive Grant Program, and other related
initiatives, would act as a critical deciding factor for municipalities
considering the switch to electric buses. Finally, the Federal Highway
Administration's continued support of bus programs through the FAST Act
must also be maintained. We are encouraged to hear the FAST Act
received full funding in recent spending bills.
Very importantly, federal policy is required to expand our nation's
network of charging infrastructure, and allay persistent consumer fears
over range and charging anxiety. Expanding the FHWA Alternative Fuel
Corridors program should be integral to this effort. In addition,
greatly improving signage directing drivers to EV chargers would also
prove highly beneficial. The presence of such signage would not only be
helpful to current EV drivers, but also demonstrate to other drivers
considering the switch to an EV that the requisite charging
infrastructure is available.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
committee. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Prochazka.
Ms. Young, you may proceed.
Ms. Young. Thanks to Chairman DeFazio for calling this
hearing.
Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Carbajal, members of the
committee, before we begin I would like to acknowledge that we
at A4A join the entire aviation community in expressing our
deepest sympathies for the families and loved ones of the
crewmembers aboard Atlas Air flight 3591.
We also appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
important role infrastructure management plays in addressing
the climate change threat.
The U.S. airlines have a decidedly strong fuel efficiency
and greenhouse gas emissions record that is often overlooked or
misstated. Although we drive over 10 million U.S. jobs, $1.5
trillion in economic activity, and 5 percent of the Nation's
GDP, we account for only 2 percent of the Nation's greenhouse
gas emissions inventory.
While this percentage is far less than most sectors--for
example, less than the 17 and 28 percent shares attributed to
passenger vehicles and power plants--we take our role in
controlling greenhouse gas emissions very seriously. In fact,
between 1978 and 2017, the U.S. airlines improved their fuel
efficiency by more than 125 percent, saving over 4.6 billion
metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking more than
25 million cars off the road each of those years.
These numbers are not happenstance; we have achieved this
record by developing and deploying technology, operations, and
infrastructure advances central to providing safe and vital air
transport as efficiently as possible within the constraints of
our current air traffic management system.
Indeed, for the past several decades, our airlines have
invested billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines,
innovative technologies like winglets, cutting-edge flight
management software, improved ground operations, and other
measures. And I commend you to my written testimony for
detailed descriptions of these initiatives, including
deployment examples from A4A members.
But despite our strong record to date, we are not resting
on our laurels. Since 2009, A4A and our members have been
active participants in a global aviation coalition that
committed to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiencies
through 2020, with a goal to achieve carbon-neutral growth in
international aviation, starting in 2021.
Further, we are working towards an additional aspirational
goal to achieve a 50-percent net reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions in 2050. The initiatives we are taking to meet these
goals are designed to responsibly limit our greenhouse gas
emissions contribution, while allowing commercial aviation to
continue to serve as a key contributor to the U.S. economy.
The efforts of our airlines are vital to these innovations.
But so too are the public-private research and development
partnerships we have with FAA and NASA.
In addition to driving further fuel efficiency and
emissions savings through improved technology operations and
infrastructure, we are dedicated to deploying commercially
viable, sustainable, alternative jet fuel, which could be a
game-changer. We have made huge strides through our Commercial
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, farm-to-fly initiative,
and other programs, such that United Airlines already is taking
commercial supply of such fuel at Los Angeles International
Airport. And Alaska, FedEx, Southwest, Jet Blue, and American
all have agreements to support their future deployment of such
fuel.
Moreover, we support both international aviation greenhouse
gas emissions agreements reached in 2016 under the
International Civil Aviation Organization. The first of these
agreements established a fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide
certification standard for future aircraft, while the second
represents the first and only market-based measure for
greenhouse gas emissions from an individual business sector.
The U.S. Government played a key leadership role in shaping
these agreements, consistent with a mandate under Public Law
112-200. While rejecting the unilateral approach the European
Union was taking, that law directed U.S. officials to conduct
international negotiations to pursue a global approach to
addressing aircraft emissions. The two ICAO agreements, which
are intended to be in lieu of unilateral measures, are broadly
supported by the aviation industry, and we continue to look
forward to working with Congress and the administration on
their implementation.
We are confident that the measures we are taking will
reduce aviation's emissions footprint even further, while
allowing commercial aviation to continue to provide an
invaluable service to our Nation and its economy. However,
there is a complementary role for the Federal Government to
play.
Specifically, we seek support from Congress and the
executive branch in three key areas: first, business-case-based
implementation of the next generation air transportation
system, NextGen, prioritizing existing equipage; second, stable
policies to further support making sustainable alternative jet
fuel commercially viable; and third, continuation and proper
funding of aviation environmental research and development
programs.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we
look forward to working with you on these important issues.
[Ms. Young's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy N. Young, Vice President, Environmental
Affairs, Airlines for America (A4A)
On behalf of our A4A members, thank you Chairman DeFazio, Chairman
Larsen, Ranking Member Graves and Ranking Member Graves for the
opportunity to testify today. As you know, the U.S. airlines have a
tremendous fuel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions record, accounting
for 2 percent of the nation's GHG emissions inventory while driving 5
percent of its GDP. In fact, between 1978 and year-end 2017, the U.S.
airlines improved their fuel efficiency by more than 125 percent,
saving over 4.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent
to taking 25 million cars off the road each of those years. And we
carried 34 percent more passengers and cargo in 2017 than we did in
2000, while emitting no more CO2.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fuel savings facts are from data from the U.S. Department of
Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Carbon dioxide
savings and equivalencies were calculated using EPA tools at:
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers are not happenstance. As an industry, we have
achieved this record by driving and deploying technology, operations
and infrastructure advances to provide safe and vital air transport as
efficiently as possible within the constraints of our air traffic
management system. Indeed, for the past several decades, airlines have
dramatically improved fuel efficiency and reduced CO2 emissions by
investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative
technologies like winglets (which improve aerodynamics), and cutting-
edge route-optimization software. But despite our strong record to
date, A4A and our member airlines are not stopping there nor are we
resting on our laurels.
Since 2009, A4A and our members have been active participants in a
global aviation coalition that committed to 1.5 percent annual average
fuel efficiency improvements through 2020, with a goal to achieve
carbon neutral growth in international aviation from 2020, subject to
critical aviation infrastructure, technology, operations and
sustainable fuels advances by government and industry. Further, we are
working toward an additional aspirational goal to achieve a 50 percent
net reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to 2005 levels.
The initiatives we are undertaking to further reduce our GHG
emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our fuel
consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts
while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key
contributor to the U.S. economy. A4A and our members are keenly focused
on these initiatives, both at the national and international levels. We
welcome this hearing on Federal infrastructure policy to help address
climate change as there is a critical role for the Federal Government
to play in advancing aviation infrastructure, technology and energy
policy to complement our efforts.
the u.s. airlines are extremely ghg efficient and are committed to
further limiting their ghg footprint
The U.S. airlines have a decidedly strong GHG emissions track
record that is often overlooked or misstated. We contribute just under
2 percent of the nation's GHG emissions inventory. To put that into
context, as illustrated in Figure 1 below, passenger vehicles (cars and
light duty trucks) account for over 17 percent and power plants for 28
percent of the total inventory. The picture is similar when viewed on a
global basis with worldwide commercial aviation contributing
approximately 2 percent of man-made GHGs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Air Transport Action Group, Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders
(2018), available at https://aviationbenefits.org/media/166344/
abbb18_full-report_web.pdf (citing the 2017 Global Carbon Project,
Global Carbon Budget, available at https://www.icos-cp.eu/GCP/2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 1. THE U.S. GHG INVENTORY BY SECTOR \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2016 (April 2018), Table ES-6: U.S. [GHG] Allocated to Economic
Sectors at ES-24; Table A-119: Total U.S. [GHG] Emissions from
Transportation and Mobile Sources at A176-77.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At the same time, U.S. commercial aviation is vitally important to
local, national, and global economies, supporting a large percentage of
U.S. economic output. Indeed, in 2014, commercial aviation drove 10.2
million U.S. jobs, $1.5 trillion in economic activity and 5 percent of
our nation's GDP.\4\ And in 2017, U.S. air-travel exports of $41
billion helped fuel $211 billion in other U.S. travel and tourism
exports.\5\ Comparing the U.S. airline industry's economic output to
its GHG output, it is clear that commercial aviation is an extremely
GHG-efficient economic engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S.
Economy (Nov. 2016), available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
publications/media/2016-economic-impact-report_FINAL.pdf.
\5\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transactions (ITA)
Table 3.1--U.S. International Trade in Services Lines 8, 12 and 1,
available at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/
iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=1&6200=51, and
http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/recpay/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our global aviation coalition continues to meet our 2009 commitment
of a 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency improvement, and we are
working on our goal to achieve carbon neutral growth in international
aviation from 2020, subject to critical aviation infrastructure and
technology advances achieved by government and industry. As detailed
below, our primary focus is on getting further fuel efficiency and
emissions savings through new aircraft technology, operations and
infrastructure improvements and sustainable alternative jet fuel
(SAJF). In addition, consistent with the mandates in Public Law 112-
200, A4A and our member airlines have supported two significant
international fuel efficiency and GHG savings agreements adopted in
2016 under the auspices of the United Nations body that sets standards
and recommended practices for international aviation, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Notably, industry and government
collaboration remains critical to our efforts.
examples of technology, operations and infrastructure initiatives
With fuel being one of the highest and most volatile cost centers
for airlines--and every penny of increased fuel price equating to an
additional $200 million fuel bill per year--the U.S. airlines'
environmental and economic interests in saving fuel and reducing
emissions align. Accordingly, the U.S. airlines have been able to
deliver tremendous economic output while reducing our emissions through
reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations on the
ground and in the sky. Indeed, today's airplanes are more
technologically advanced--they are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel
than ever before--and airlines are flying them in ways that take
maximum advantage of the technology within the constraints of our
current air traffic management (ATM) system. This flight optimization
reduces fuel burn and environmental impacts. Some examples of the
advancements that have resulted in the U.S. airlines' 125 percent fuel
efficiency improvement since 1978 and will continue to support
improvements include:
Upgrading Fleets. With recently improved finances, the
U.S. airlines and aircraft operators have been able to invest billions
of dollars to upgrade their fleets with newer, quieter aircraft that
produce less noise and fewer emissions. For example, U.S. airlines
purchased more than 480 new aircraft in 2017, with more than 1,550
additional planes expected in the coming years. Our airlines have also
made significant investments in winglets, altering fan blades, and
other measures that improve aerodynamics. By way of example, in 2017,
Alaska Airlines finalized installation of split scimitar winglets on
all of its eligible 737 aircraft. With such winglets enabling aircraft
to be approximately 4.5 percent more fuel efficient than those without
winglets, Alaska improved average fuel efficiency by over 34,000
gallons per aircraft each year. And Alaska's new 737NG aircraft are
modified when they receive them, making the aircraft as fuel efficient
as possible upon entry into service.\6\ Accordingly, in 2017, Alaska's
scimitar winglets modification saved an additional 4.5 million gallons
of fuel, equating to a reduction of 42,633 metric tons of CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This and other fuel and emissions savings initiatives are
detailed in Alaska's sustainability report, available at http://
www.flysustainably.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AlaskaAirReport-
Final-092418.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction of Innovative, Cutting-Edge Technologies and
Improved In-Flight Operations. Our airlines also are investing billions
of dollars in technologies to enable more efficient flight paths. For
example, the airlines have undertaken equipage for Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) and Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures,
which provide navigation capability to fly a more precise path into and
out of airports.\7\ A4A airlines also have deployed increasingly
sophisticated software to analyze flight paths and weather conditions,
allowing aircraft to fly more direct, efficient routes where the ATM
system is able to accommodate them.
\7\ In fact, Alaska Airlines pioneered the application of RNP
technology during the mid-1990s to help aircraft land at some of the
world's most remote and geographically challenging airports in the
State of Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A4A airlines continue to do all they can within the existing ATM
system to utilize programs to optimize speed, flight path and altitude,
which not only reduces fuel consumption and emissions in the air but
avoids wasting fuel waiting for a gate on the ground. In addition to
pursuing the use of RNP approach procedures at additional locations,
A4A carriers--such as UPS Airlines at its hub in Louisville--have
worked with FAA to pioneer protocols for optimized profile descents
(OPDs) (also referred to as ``continuous descent arrivals''), which
reduce both emissions and noise, and we are doggedly pursuing
implementation of OPDs where the existing ATM system allows.
Demonstrating that the efforts extend to the smallest details of
airline operation, our members also have worked on redistribution of
weight in the belly of aircraft to improve aerodynamics and have
introduced life vests on certain domestic routes, allowing them to
overfly water on a more direct route.
Improved Ground Operations. A4A airlines also are
employing single-engine taxiing when conditions permit, redesigning
hubs and schedules to alleviate congestion and converting to electric
ground support equipment (GSE) when feasible. For example, as part of
Southwest Airlines' ongoing program to modernize its GSE fleet, the
company invested $7.9 million in electric vehicles in 2017.\8\ Further,
our airlines are improving ground operations by plugging into electric
gate power where available to avoid running auxiliary power units
(APUs). By way of example, American Airlines' ``Fuel Smart'' program is
securing emissions reductions by such means, as well as washing engine
components for maximum efficiency, and other initiatives.\9\ Similarly,
while Hawaiian Airlines already provides external gate power to its
narrow-body fleet between the Hawaiian Islands, the airline has made
significant headway toward its goal of having gate power available to
its entire wide-body fleet within 3 minutes of arrival as aircraft fly
between Hawaii, 11 U.S. gateway cities and 10 international
destinations, with the potential to reduce Hawaiian's APU usage by an
estimated 30 minutes per flight, saving some 620,000 gallons of fuel
annually and cutting CO2 emissions by 5,933 metric tons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Southwest Airlines, ``One Report'' (2017), available at
http://southwestonereport.com/2017/stories/electricity-sparks-fuel-
savings/.
\9\ See American Airlines, 2017 Corporate Responsibility Report,
available at http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/doc_downloads/crr/
CRR-Report-2017.pdf. In addition to achieving savings in costs and GHG
emissions, Fuel Smart translates a portion of its APU fuel savings into
a donation to the Gary Sinise Foundation for the purposes of providing
travel for active duty military members, veterans, first responders and
their family members in need. Since Fuel Smart launched in 2010,
American has generated nearly $4 million in contributions through the
program, helping more than 6,800 service members and their families
travel to receive the support they need.
\10\ See Hawaiian Airlines' Airport Operations Lowering Fuel Use,
Carbon Emissions, available at https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/
releases/hawaiian-airlines-airport-operations-lowering-fuel-use-carbon-
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing Onboard Weight. A4A airlines continue to
exhaustively review ways, large and small, to reduce aircraft weight--
removing seat-back phones, excess galley equipment and magazines,
introducing lighter seats and beverage carts, stripping primer and
paint and a myriad of other detailed measures to improve fuel
efficiency. For example, by replacing flight bags with flight crew
tablets, UPS reduced the weight associated with these critical
materials by 70 pounds, with the reduced fuel burn equating to 1,400
metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See UPS 2017 Corporate Sustainability Progress Report
available at https://sustainability.ups.com/media/2017_UPS_CSR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above types of measures, A4A and our members
continue to partner with FAA, NASA, research entities and other
aviation stakeholders to advance research, development and deployment
of breakthrough technologies and operational and infrastructure
advances. The Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions & Noise or ``CLEEN''
program is a key initiative in this regard. This FAA-industry public-
private partnership is focused on near-to-medium term aircraft engine
and technology breakthroughs for lower emissions and noise, enhanced
energy efficiency and aviation alternative fuels. The program, which
requires a one-to-one match of private dollars, has enabled the
development of new technologies such as the Adaptive Trailing Edge
(ATE) on the aircraft wing, providing up to a 2 percent reduction in
aircraft fuel burn and a 1.7 decibel reduction in aircraft noise; the
Twin Annular Premixed Swirler (TAPS) II advanced engine combustor,
yielding significant reductions in emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx); and geared turbofan engine technologies, contributing to a 20
decibel aircraft noise reduction and a 20 percent fuel burn reduction.
Another critical program is the FAA Center of Excellence for
Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment (ASCENT), the university-
based research vehicle for the FAA to discover, analyze, and develop
science- and technology-based solutions to support the growth of the
U.S. aviation industry by addressing the energy and environmental
challenges the industry faces. This program also requires a one-to-one
match of private-to-Federal funding and supports work by 16 university
partners across the country. In addition to providing a better
understanding of aviation environmental impacts that shape industry and
government energy and environmental work, ASCENT's applied research has
helped with the development of air traffic procedures and airport
infrastructure configuration to enhance the efficiency of U.S.
aviation.
And for advanced, future airframe and engine technologies, the
aviation industry collaborates with NASA through its Aeronautics
Research (ARMD) program, which is considering transformative
configurations, including light weight, high aspect ratio wings;
unconventional structures; advanced propulsion; and electrified
aircraft propulsion, among other radical concepts.
The Development and Deployment of SAJF
Recognizing that improving fuel efficiency with today's petroleum-
based energy supply can only take us so far, A4A and our members are
dedicated to developing commercially viable, environmentally friendly
alternative jet fuel, which could be a game-changer in terms of
aviation's output of GHG emissions while enhancing U.S. energy
independence and security.
To be sustainable, alternative jet fuel must meet three core
criteria. It must be demonstrated to be (1) as safe as petroleum-based
fuels for powering aircraft; (2) more environmentally friendly than
petroleum-based fuels; and (3) capable of being produced to provide
cost-competitive, reliable supply. A4A and our members have been
working with government partners and other stakeholders in a concerted
effort to meet these criteria--and we have made tremendous progress,
having moved from test flights to commercial and military flights with
SAJF. But we must continue to tackle each challenge, using every tool
to attain full viability.
As the challenges to standing up a self-sustaining aviation
alternative fuels industry cut across multiple disciplines--from
aviation, to agriculture, fuel production, investment capital,
logistics and beyond--no one initiative or program can do it all. Yet,
the U.S. aviation industry determined early on that a coordinating body
would be needed to establish a clear vision and leverage the efforts
across initiatives. Accordingly, in 2006, A4A, FAA, the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA) and Airports Council International-North
America (ACI-NA) co-founded the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative (CAAFI) to serve as the driving and coordinating force for
the industry's efforts. ``CAAFI's goal is to promote the development of
alternative jet fuel options that offer equivalent levels of safety and
compare favorably on cost with petroleum-based jet fuel, while also
offering environmental improvement and security of energy supply.''
\12\ Through CAAFI, we have worked to address and overcome the
challenges to commercial-scale deployment of SAJF--ensuring safety and
environmental benefit while working to achieve supply reliability and
cost-competitiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See www.caafi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAJF--Ensuring Safety
No matter what issue or challenge we face, airlines never lose
sight of their core mission: safety. Our fuels must meet rigorous
specifications that ensure safe operation, whether in the icy cold at
30,000 feet or while filling tanks on the ground at airports crowded
with activity. Accordingly, before an alternative fuel can be approved
for commercial use, it must meet rigorous safety and performance
standards set out in the applicable specification, which is controlled
by ASTM International, an organization devoted to the development and
management of standards for a wide range of industrial products and
processes. This specification, in turn, is included in FAA product
approvals and required air-carrier manuals.
One of CAAFI's most significant contributions to date has been the
development of the approval process for alternative jet fuels through
ASTM. Not surprisingly, the original jet fuel specification, ASTM
D1655, titled ``Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels,''
covered only jet fuels derived from specific fossil-fuel sources. The
CAAFI team worked within ASTM to identify means for gaining approval of
jet fuels derived from alternative feedstocks provided that those fuels
are equally safe and effective.\13\ As a result, in August 2009, after
completing its rigorous review process, ASTM approved D7566, ``Aviation
Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons.'' This specification
allows for alternatives that demonstrate that they are safe, effective
and otherwise meet the specification and fit-for-purpose requirements
to be deployed as jet fuels, on par with fuels under ASTM D1655. It is
structured, via annexes, to accommodate different classes of
alternative fuels when they are demonstrated to meet the relevant
requirements. As shown in Figure 2, we now have five approved
``pathways'' for SAJF production, and more are currently undergoing the
rigorous review and approval process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CAAFI worked within ASTM to issue a specific standard to
facilitate the approval of alternative jet fuel made from varying
feedstocks and production processes, ASTM D4054, ``Standard Practice
for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel
Additives.''
FIGURE 2. Approved SAJF ``Pathways'' Under ASTM D7566
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
Pathways/Process Feedstock Examples Approval Blending Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer-Tropsch-----Biomass (forestry---2009-------------Up to 50%------
Synthetic residues,
Paraffinic grasses,
Kerosene (FT-SPK) municipal solid
waste)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydroprocessed Oil-bearing 2011 Up to 50%
Esters and Fatty biomass (e.g.,
Acids (HEFA-SPK) algae, jatropha,
camelina,
carinata)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydroprocessed Microbial 2014 Up to 10%
Fermented Sugars conversion of
to Synthetic sugars to
Isoparaffins (HFS- hydrocarbon
SIP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FT-SPK with Renewable biomass 2015 Up to 50%
aromatics (FT-SPK/ such as municipal
A) solid waste,
agricultural
wastes and
forestry
residues, wood
and energy crops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol-to-Jet Agricultural 2016 Up to 30%
Synthetic wastes products (plus added
Paraffinic (stover, grasses, feedstocks
Kerosene (ATJ- forestry slash, 2018)
SPK) crop straws)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By meeting the rigorous jet fuel specification and fit-for-purpose
requirements, sustainable alternative jet fuels are demonstrated to be
``drop-in'' fuels, completely compatible with existing airport fuel
storage and distribution methods and airplane fuel systems.
Accordingly, they do not carry added infrastructure costs for airlines,
fuel distributors or airport authorities, enhancing prospects for their
commercial viability.
Ensuring Environmental Benefit
We also have made tremendous progress on demonstrating whether a
particular alternative jet fuel provides environmental benefit relative
to petroleum-based fuel. As carbon is fundamental to powering aircraft
engines, this and the CO2 generated upon combustion cannot be
eliminated from drop-in jet fuels, but they can be reduced, either
through increasing the per-unit energy provided in the fuel, reducing
carbon somewhere along the ``lifecycle'' of the fuel, or some
combination of the two. Indeed, there can be emissions all along the
``life'' of the fuel--from growing or extracting the feedstock,
transporting that raw material, refining it, transporting the finished
fuel product and using it. By examining the emissions generated at each
point in the lifecycle, one can ensure that the emissions benefits that
are sought are in fact real and do not create emissions ``dis-
benefits'' along the way.
Ensuring the environmental benefit of alternative aviation fuels is
critical to A4A and its member airlines. Accordingly, as far back as
2008, we agreed on a set of alternative fuels principles, which include
a commitment that the alternative fuels we accept need to have reduced
lifecycle GHG emissions compared to today's fuels and not compete with
food production. In that commitment, we agreed to work through CAAFI to
ensure this. Accordingly, CAAFI's Sustainability Team,\14\ which I co-
lead along with Dr. James Hileman of the FAA, has developed and
supported seminal guidance on the methodologies for lifecycle analysis
of alternative aviation fuels \15\ and case studies that use these
methodologies.\16\ SAJF has been demonstrated to achieve up to an 80
percent lifecycle GHG savings relative to petroleum-based fuel.\17\ In
addition, a comprehensive assessment under the Transportation Research
Board's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) confirms that the
use of SAJF can reduce more than just GHG emissions, including
emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon
monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon emissions, and NOx.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CAAFI's Sustainability resources are available at: http://
www.caafi.org/focus_areas/sustainability.html.
\15\ See ``Framework and Guidance for Estimating Greenhouse Gas
Footprints of Aviation Fuels (Final Report) (2009, AFRL-WP-TR-2009-
2206); see also Young, CAAFI Environment Team: Developing Tools & Means
to Address Environmental Issues (April 16, 2013), available at http://
www.caafi.org/files/presentations/
Environment_Young_ABLC_Apr17_2013.pdf.
\16\ See, e.g., Stratton, Wong & Hileman, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels (April 2010).
\17\ International Air Transport Association, Sustainable Aviation
Fuels: Fact sheet, available at https://www.iata.org/pressroom/
facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-alternative-fuels.pdf.
\18\ See Transportation Research Board, ACRP Project 02-80: ``State
of Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable
Alternative Jet Fuels,'' at 5 (April 2018) (available at http://
www.trb.org/Aviation1/Blurbs/177509.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While seeking emissions benefits from SAJF, A4A and its members
also recognize that use of such fuels must not create environmental
problems in other areas. SAJF must be produced in a fashion meeting all
relevant environmental criteria, including land use, water management
and the like. Put another way, the production, transport and use of
these fuels generally must be deemed ``sustainable.'' Accordingly,
CAAFI also has provided peer-review guidance on making sure relevant
sustainability criteria are met.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See CAAFI, Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental Sustainability
Overview (July 2013), available at http://www.caafi.org/information/
pdf/Sustainability_Guidance_Posted_2013_07.pdf. CAAFI also provides a
step-by-step overview of sustainability review processes on its webpage
at http://www.caafi.org/focus_areas/sustainability.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fostering Supply Reliability and Commercial Viability
As noted by Bill Harrison, Technical Advisor for Fuels and Energy
at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, scaling up supply and making
SAJF cost-competitive may well be the most significant challenge to its
full-scale commercial deployment.\20\ A key role that A4A and its
member airlines are playing as end-users of such fuels is to send
appropriate market signals to would-be producers, the farmers and
others who generate energy feedstock, and investors in the alternative
fuels industry.\21\ Further, A4A entered into a ``Strategic Alliance
for Alternative Aviation Fuels'' with the U.S. Department of Defense's
Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-Energy, which previously was known
as the Defense Logistics Agency's Defense Energy Support Center) to
further encourage alternative fuel producers to include SAJF in their
product slate. Our vigorous pursuit of SAJF has sent an unmistakable
signal: U.S. airlines are committed to making SAJF viable and will do
their part to overcome the obstacles that may stand in the way. But we
recognize that we cannot do it alone. Ongoing commitment in public-
private partnerships is needed to get the alternative aviation fuels
industry over the cusp, just as was the case when the Federal
Government jump-started the Internet, satellite systems and other
backbone infrastructure--working with industry to help make these
ventures self-sustaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Harrison, Alternative Fuels: How Can Aviation Cross the Valley
of Death (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Master's Thesis, 2008).
\21\ One of many such signals is a ``how to'' document on how
alternative aviation fuels producers can work with airlines on purchase
agreements. This document, ``Guidance for Selling Alternative Fuels to
Airlines,'' is available on the CAAFI website at http://www.caafi.org/
files/CAAFI_Business_Team_Guidance_Paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CAAFI has focused on supply reliability and commercial
viability, other public-private partnerships and initiatives have been
needed to spur investment in this new supply chain. Perhaps most
notable in this regard is the Farm to Fly initiative, which A4A, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Boeing created in 2010 to
help meet the direction set in the 2008 Farm Bill that U.S. programs
aimed at energy crops should be equally available for air
transportation fuels as for ground transportation fuels.\22\ Indeed,
the aim of the original Farm to Fly initiative was ``to accelerate the
availability of a commercially viable sustainable aviation biofuel
industry in the United States, increase domestic energy security,
establish regional supply chains and support rural development.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Conf. Rpt. 110-627, on H.R. 2419; p. 911, May 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial Farm to Fly initiative helped make accessible to
farmers, fuel producers, airlines and military aviation a number of the
tools and programs that had been available to ground-based alternative
fuels for some time. It also resulted in a two-part report in January
2012 which offered a blueprint for continuing to advance opportunities
for Rural America and the aviation sector through aviation
biofuels.\23\ Moreover, the initial Farm to Fly initiative helped spawn
two regional initiatives to foster the development and deployment of
alternative jet fuels derived from sustainable biomass grown in the
United States. The first of these, the Sustainable Aviation Fuels
Northwest (SAFN) initiative, led in part by A4A member Alaska Airlines,
together with the Port of Seattle, Port of Portland, Spokane
International Airport, Boeing and Washington State University, found
that an aviation biofuels industry can be commercially viable in the
Pacific Northwest and identified four, particularly promising
feedstocks; oilseeds, forest residues, municipal solid wastes and
algae; for generating advanced aviation biofuels.\24\ The second, the
Midwest Sustainable Aviation Biofuels Initiative (MASBI), led in part
by A4A member United Airlines, Boeing, Honeywell's UOP, the Chicago
Department of Aviation, and the Clean Energy Trust, developed
recommendations to help ``achieve the potential economic,
environmental, and energy security benefits that can be delivered from
a robust sustainable aviation biofuels industry in the Midwest.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity,
available at http://www.airlines.org/Documents/usda-farm-to-fly report-
jan-2012.pdf; see also Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in
Prosperity: Putting Aviation at the Forefront of the President's
Biofuels Targets, Part II. Industry Recommendations, available at
http://www.airlines.org/Documents/Farm_to_Fly_Recommendations-A4A-
Boeing-Jan2012.pdf.
\24\ See SAFN, Powering the Next Generation of Flight, available at
http://www.safnw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SAFN_2011Report.pdf.
\25\ See MASBI, Fueling a Sustainable Future for Aviation,
available at http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2013, we launched Farm to Fly 2.0, bringing in additional
stakeholders and expanding the supply chain reach. Although the Farm to
Fly initiative has been important for bringing together tools and the
various participants in the aviation alternative fuels supply chain,
there would be no such initiative without the Energy Title programs
under the Farm Bill--the most recent version of which is the
Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. While the 2018 Farm Bill included
a number of energy programs, some of which are accessible to those in
the supply chain for providing SAJF, we urge Congress to fully fund
programs like the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) and the
Biomass Research and Development Program (BRDI) to leverage the
investments that the U.S. Government and the private sector have
already made and provide the stability needed for further progress.
While challenges remain, our joint efforts are bearing fruit. For
example, United Airlines began using commercial quantities of SAJF at
Los Angeles International Airport in 2016 pursuant to an off-take
agreement with AltAir Fuels to purchase up to 15 million gallons of
SAJF over 3 years. United has also made a $30 million equity investment
in Fulcrum BioEnergy, which includes provisions to co-develop up to
five facilities and purchase at least 90 million gallons of SAJF per
year over 10 years.\26\ FedEx and Southwest Airlines have similarly
committed to each purchase 3 million gallons per year from Red Rock
Biofuels, and JetBlue has signed a 10-year off-take agreement with SG
Preston for up to 10 million gallons per year. Further, both Alaska
Airlines \27\ and American Airlines \28\ have signed Memoranda of
Understanding with Neste for coordination and potential future
deployment of SAJF. Moreover, while airlines purchase and manage all
fuel purchases, they are increasingly partnering with airports and
other stakeholders to help assess the potential for deployment of SAJF
at particular airports in areas where SAJF production is being
considered and may be commercially viable. For example, Alaska Airlines
partnered with Boeing and the Port of Seattle on an infrastructure
study for potential future deployment of SAJF at Seattle-Tacoma
International (Sea-Tac) \29\ and several airlines have entered into
Memoranda of Understanding with Sea-Tac and San Francisco International
Airport (SFO) to explore potential SAJF coordination opportunities. In
addition, in 2017, United and Atlas Air joined various foreign airlines
and Chicago O'Hare International Airport in a special ``Fly Green Day''
commercial deployment of SAJF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Details on United Airlines' SAJF program are available at
http://crreport.united.com/our-environment/sustainable-fuel-sources.
\27\ See Alaska Airlines Press Release, available at https://
newsroom.alaskaair.com/2018-09-10-Alaska-Airlines-and-Neste-grow-
innovative-partnership-to-fly-more-sustainably.
\28\ See Neste Press Release, available at https://www.neste.com/
neste-and-american-airlines-collaborate-explore-opportunities-
renewable-fuel-use.
\29\ The infrastructure report is available at https://
www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/
Aviation_Biofuel_Infrastructure_Report_Condensed.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these initial purchase and cooperative agreements for SAJF
deployment are promising, two critical observations capture why we
cannot be complacent in our efforts. First, these projects would not
exist without the public-private partnerships we have engaged in to
date. And second, while meaningful to the parties involved, they still
are relatively small scale, largely because producing SAJF to meet the
rigorous jet fuel specification is a higher hurdle than the equivalent
for alternative ground-based fuels. Accordingly, to expand upon these
projects and spur more, we must continue to employ all the tools and
partnerships we have identified and created to date and take further
action to lay the foundation for all supply chain elements to become
self-sustaining.
industry-supported icao agreements on fuel efficiency and co2 emissions
from international aviation
Although the U.S. airlines' financial and environmental objectives
have continually prompted fuel and GHG emissions savings, several
countries have imposed or threatened to impose on international
aviation unilateral carbon emissions trading, taxing and charging
schemes, which are siphoning away from aviation the very funds the
industry needs to purchase new, more fuel efficient aircraft and take
other steps to meet our fuel efficiency and emissions savings goals. In
fact, as of 2013, the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) had estimated
that $7 billion in such charges already were being levied on airlines,
with more introduced or proposed since.
One of the most onerous of the unilateral measures has been the
European Union's imposition of its emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) on
international aviation. Despite international opposition from the
outset, beginning in 2009, the EU required airlines and aircraft
operators (including U.S. airlines and aircraft operators) with flights
to European States and territories to monitor and report to the EU
their emissions for the entirety of each individual flight to, from and
within the EU, as a prelude to the emissions trading obligation that
was due to begin in 2012. As a result of the pressure put on the EU
from the U.S. and other countries, most significantly from the U.S.
adoption of the ``European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition
Act'' (PL-112-200), the EU ``stayed'' the extraterritorial application
of the EU ETS to international aviation through year-end 2016, to take
into account the progress in ICAO on an agreement for handling
aviation's CO2 emissions from international flights. In December 2017,
the EU approved legislation to extend the stay until year-end 2024,
again making the stay subject to ICAO action, this time with respect to
progress on implementation of agreements reached in 2016 on aviation's
international CO2 emissions.
A4A greatly appreciated the leadership of this Committee in
approving the ``European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition
Act'' in 2012. Significantly, in addition to recognizing that the
unilateral action of the EU in imposing its ETS on U.S. aircraft
operators was unlawful and inappropriate, the statute directed that
DOT, FAA and other appropriate U.S. officials ``use their authority to
conduct international negotiations . . . to pursue a worldwide approach
to address aircraft emissions, including the environmental impact of
aircraft emissions.'' Consistent with this directive, the U.S. played a
significant role in developing two ICAO agreements to support aviation
GHG emissions goals and stave off the proliferation of unilateral
emissions taxes, charges and trading schemes--one agreement for a fuel
efficiency and CO2 certification standard for future aircraft and
another to establish an international carbon offsetting system to help
the industry work toward achieving carbon neutral growth in
international aviation from 2020. Both of these agreements, which are
supposed to be implemented in lieu of unilateral measures, are broadly
supported by A4A, our members and the broader U.S. aviation industry.
The ICAO Fuel Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Certification Standards for
Future Aircraft
ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, which
includes representatives from the U.S. EPA, FAA and State Department,
the aviation industry, and environmental non-governmental organizations
(NGO's), worked to develop, and then in 2016 proposed for adoption, a
set of fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions certification standards for
future aircraft. The standards, which were approved by ICAO's governing
body (the ICAO Council), confirm an agreed level of fuel efficiency for
future aircraft, which equates to CO2 emissions reductions. The
standards applicable to new-type design large aircraft (i.e., aircraft
used by airlines) are slated to go into effect in 2020, while the
standards for the future manufacture of existing-type large aircraft
(also referred to as ``in-production aircraft'') are slated to go into
effect in 2023.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The standards for smaller aircraft (those with less than 60
tons of maximum takeoff weight) have lower levels of stringency and
slightly different effective dates, recognizing that flight physics
complicate the adoption of certain of the more effective fuel-
efficiency technologies into such aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some countries automatically incorporate ICAO standards
into their laws, the United States adopts ICAO emissions standards
through rulemaking, typically with EPA adopting the underlying
standards and FAA adopting rules to certify aircraft to the standards.
As aviation is a global industry, with airlines and aircraft operators
operating internationally and aircraft manufacturers selling their
aircraft in international markets, it is critical that aircraft
emissions standards continue to be agreed at the international level
and implemented by ICAO Member States.
A4A and our members support having EPA and FAA incorporate the ICAO
fuel efficiency and CO2 certification standards into U.S. law. Indeed,
U.S. aircraft manufacturers will not be able to have their aircraft
certified to the standards--a prerequisite for the manufacturers to be
able to sell their aircraft in the international market--unless the
United States adopts them into U.S. law. Further, if U.S. aircraft
manufacturers cannot have their products certified to the
internationally agreed standards, U.S. airlines will not be able to
purchase these aircraft for international service.
The ICAO Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
Aviation
A4A and its members also supported the work that was undertaken in
ICAO to develop proposals for a ``global market-based measure,'' in the
form of an international carbon offsetting system, to help work toward
the industry's goal to achieve carbon neutral growth in international
aviation from a 2020 baseline. This measure, the ``Carbon Offsetting
and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation'' (CORSIA), has two
parts. First, CORSIA requires that all 192 ICAO Member States have
their aircraft operators monitor and report to them their international
CO2 emissions under a common set of rules beginning on January 1, 2019.
Second, CORSIA includes an offsetting obligation, which is slated to
commence on covered international routes beginning in 2021 and continue
through 2035.
The emissions target under the CORSIA agreement is to help support
carbon neutral growth on the international flights of operators from
the countries that are in the system. All are motivated to achieve
emissions savings through technology, sustainable alternative jet
fuels, operations and infrastructure measures, although the carbon
offsetting requirement kicks in to help fill any gap toward meeting the
goal.
While all countries were obligated to begin requiring emissions
monitoring data from their aircraft operators as of the beginning of
2019, the offsetting system is slated to be implemented in phases, with
the first 6 years of the offsetting system, 2021 through year-end 2026,
being implemented amongst countries on an ``opt-in'' basis. After that,
the offsetting obligation becomes mandatory for all ICAO Member States
except the least developed countries and those with very low levels of
international aviation activity. Although countries have until June
2020 to opt into the first phase of the offsetting provisions, as of
January 2019, 78 countries, representing seventy-seven percent of
international aviation activity, including the United States, had
already signed up to participate from the beginning.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ICAO keeps a list of the countries that have signed up for the
opt-in phase on its website at https://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CORSIA/Pages/State-pairs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very importantly, only the flights to and from the covered
countries will be subject to the offsetting requirement. In other
words, there is a mutual exemption from the offsetting requirement on
flights to and from countries that either are not in the two 3-year
opt-in phases or are exempt for the duration of the system. This is
critical to avoid competitive distortion, satisfy the non-
discrimination provisions in the international aviation treaty and
ensure that U.S. operators are not disadvantaged by the United States'
opting in to the CORSIA offsetting obligation in the non-mandatory
phases.
Critically, the agreement states that the CORSIA is to be ``the''
market-based measure applying to international aviation GHG emissions,
precluding countries from imposing unilateral carbon measures on
international flights from other countries.
In June 2018, the ICAO Council adopted a package of standards and
recommended practices (SARPs) for implementing CORSIA. As with the ICAO
CO2 standard for future aircraft, it is up to the Member States of ICAO
to implement these ICAO provisions. FAA and DOT have existing statutory
and regulatory authority that allow them to adjust the fuel reporting
requirements that currently apply to U.S. aircraft operators through a
rulemaking to comport with the expected ICAO emissions monitoring
standards. However, given the short time between ICAO adoption of the
SARPs and the January 1, 2019 effective date of the emissions
monitoring provisions, FAA and DOT were unable to issue a rulemaking
before then. Accordingly, A4A has worked with FAA and other aircraft
operator associations to commence the monitoring provisions under a
voluntary agreement and we await the DOT/FAA announcement of this
approach. Additionally, new, appropriately tailored legislative
authority will be needed for DOT/FAA to apply the 2021+ CORSIA
offsetting obligation to U.S. aircraft operators. We would very much
like to work with this Committee on a tailored approach to implement
the CORSIA SARPs over the course of the next couple years.
congress and the administration should complement the airline's
initiatives to advance aviation infrastructure, technology and energy
policy
We are confident that the measures A4A and our members are taking
will continue to limit and reduce aviation's carbon footprint, while
allowing commercial aviation to continue to provide an invaluable
service and be a key contributor to our nation's economy. However,
support from Congress and the executive branch is needed in three key
areas to complement the airlines' concerted efforts: (1) business-case-
based implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) prioritizing existing equipage; (2) stable policies to
further support making SAJF commercially viable; and (3) continuation
of aviation environmental research and development programs.
As recognized by the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC)
in 2010, ``NextGen will enable the [National Airspace System] to safely
and efficiently accommodate greater numbers of aircraft, from large
commercial airliners to smaller general aviation (GA) aircraft, while
reducing the overall environmental impact and energy use of civil
aviation.'' \32\ Indeed, while A4A member airlines are doing all they
can to promote efficiencies within the current ATM system, completing
the transition to a satellite-based system will significantly reduce
the inefficiencies that are inherent in the outdated, radar-based air
traffic control system--saving up to 12 percent of fuel burn and
emissions. Not only is an optimally functioning ATM system
indispensable to ensure safety and the wellbeing of our industry, our
nation's economy, the air traffic control workforce and airline
customers, it is also critical to the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. DOT, Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, Final Report,
at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, in addition to enhancing U.S. energy independence and
security, commercially viable, environmentally friendly SAJF could well
be a game changer for the industry's GHG emissions. The aviation
industry and would-be alternative jet fuel suppliers are on the cusp of
creating a viable alternative jet fuel industry, but government support
is needed in the near term to provide financial bridging and other
tools necessary to help us get over the cusp. It is critical that
Congress and the Administration continue to fund the programs under the
Energy Title of the Farm Bill and support public-private initiatives
such as CAAFI, the Farm to Fly initiative, and ASCENT.
Further, as recognized by the FAAC, ``aviation-related R&D
investments are vital for a high technology economy and enable
solutions that can decrease emissions, create good jobs, increase U.S.
competitiveness, and provide substantial enhancements to mobility that
benefit the public.'' \33\ As noted, FAA, NASA and the U.S. aviation
industry are already partnering on a wide range of research and
development projects through the CLEEN, ASCENT and NASA ARMD programs.
These programs, which also include research dollars for FAA to maintain
leadership in the ICAO environmental standard-setting process, are
critical. While the agencies appear to be committed to continuing them,
their funding has been under attack. We urge Congress to continue to
fully support and fund the FAA and NASA aviation environmental research
programs. This is vital to U.S. aviation competitiveness and the
leadership role the U.S. plays in driving appropriate aviation energy
and environmental standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
As an industry, aviation is a small part of the nation's GHG
footprint, but we have nonetheless strived to reduce our impact through
technology, operations, infrastructure and alternative fuel advances to
provide safe, vital, efficient, and environmentally sustainable air
transport within the constraints of our air traffic management system.
We will not rest on our laurels in light of this record but will
continue to invest where appropriate to maximize environmental benefits
while supporting our nation's economy. We look forward to working with
this Committee on policy initiatives to complement our efforts.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Young. We will now move on to
Member questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes,
and I will start by recognizing myself.
Dr. Sperling, thank you for your testimony and leadership
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As we both are aware,
California has been a leader in the fight against climate
change. We have shown that protecting our environment and
improving the economy are not mutually exclusive.
In your testimony you state that, from California's
experience, ``we cannot meet our [carbon emission reduction]
goals without reenvisioning the way we plan and build [our
communities].'' Can you expand further on what you meant by
that?
What are some of the ways the Federal Government can
support efforts to better coordinate transportation policy,
housing policy, and job access at the State and local levels?
Mr. Sperling. Thank you. So there are a couple things. One
is, as I said, there is a lot of innovation happening in
transportation.
So one of the things that can be done is creating programs
to support many of these new initiatives, pilot projects,
demonstration projects, because we need experimentation, and we
don't really know--as we go all these shared economy ideas,
automation, how it--connecting it with transit, with
microtransit, with micromobility--all of these concepts are
brandnew. Ten years ago we weren't doing any of this.
And so how do we do them and merge them with
electrification, as well? So that--one program--that is one
idea.
The other big idea would be we need a better way of linking
transportation funding to reward communities, cities, MPOs, for
basically doing the right thing, in terms of investing in these
more efficient and low-carbon strategies. And I would note that
almost everything we do for greenhouse gas reduction and
climate are the same things we would do for an efficient
transportation system. And so restructuring some of that
funding so that we break down the silos, we help transit link
up with these in public-private partnerships, and just
rewarding them for making the investments that are necessary to
get lower carbon cities.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Sperling.
Ms. Young, thank you for your time here to discuss how our
Federal infrastructure policy could help mitigate and adapt to
the growing threats of climate change. As many of us are aware,
the climate crisis is probably one of the biggest challenges of
our lifetime.
U.S. airlines have increased their fuel efficiency by more
than 125 percent between 1978 and 2017, and they have moved 28
percent more passengers and cargo in 2016 compared to the year
2000, using 3 percent less fuel.
In your testimony you discussed the economic incentives
that airlines have to reduce their carbon emissions and fuel
consumption. Can you expand further on the benefits to our
environment and economy?
Ms. Young. Oh, well, thank you very much for the question.
We are very proud that our economic interests align hand in
hand, really, with our environmental interests. Essentially, as
you know, jet fuel is the number-one or number-two cost for
airlines in any given year, and our airlines compete with each
other, head to head. So the better you do with shepherding your
fuel to good use, and hence saving greenhouse gas emissions,
the more competitive you are.
So that is why, as I testified in my written testimony, our
airlines have long been deploying an array of measures without
Government mandates, things like, certainly, buying new
aircraft, now that our financial situation has turned around
after the scourge of 9/11 and SARS and the downturn, but also
really focused with our partners--airports, air navigation
service providers, manufacturers--in making sure that we drive
technology, operations, and infrastructure in all aspects to be
fuel efficient.
I think another example that goes beyond fuel efficiency--
because there is only so far you can go with that--is
sustainable alternative jet fuel. Very quickly, in 2006 we
recognized that, really, the focus on alternative fuel was on
the ground-based fuels. So we basically helped create, with the
airports, the manufacturers, FAA, and others, basically, a
market and a way to develop and deploy these fuels. And you are
seeing that bear fruit today.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Young. I will now recognize
Representative Gibbs for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to make a couple of comments quick before my questions about,
you know, the markets are driving the innovation. And some of
the witnesses' testimony have said that, where we have seen
vast improvements in airlines cutting their CO2 emissions, more
fuel efficient. We are seeing manufacture aviation cutting
their--80 percent life cycle fossil fuel, more efficient
planes, and--as was stated.
Highways, we are seeing more efficient vehicles, more types
of vehicles. American Trucking Associations has achieved
significant greenhouse gas emissions, about 23 percent. We are
seeing a 25-percent improvement in greenhouse gas reductions,
fuel efficient gains over 2018 levels. Moving forward, it is
improving.
Maritime transportation seeing--they have a goal to reduce
their CO2 emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050. So there is
a lot of good things done, and the market has been driving it.
My first question to Ms. Young is dealing with the Green
New Deal. Talk about how it would affect the U.S. economy by
the airlines. And we are seeing the airlines and other modes
making these good improvements to efficiency. How would this
Government intervention--would that hinder innovation, or --
what would you--your viewpoint on that?
Ms. Young. Well, thank you very much for the question. I
think it is probably no surprise to you or others on the
committee that Airlines for America has a lot of concern about
any plan where the rhetoric around it is saying that we are
going to eliminate air travel. And we think that that would be
a bit concerning to the more than 157 million Americans who
flew last year.
But what I can tell you--and I think you picked up on it in
your question--is that we already are motivated and are doing a
number of the things that are suggested as measures in that
Green New Deal, things like ourselves developing and deploying
sustainable alternative jet fuel, really innovating in
technology and operations and infrastructure. And we are doing
that without a Government mandate.
So I think, from our perspective, there are a lot of good
ideas that we have been employing, and that is the way to
continue to go for----
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. So basically, you are saying the market is
driving this, and when you are more fuel efficient it helps
your bottom line anyway, so you don't need Government coming
and telling you. Of course, in this case, this proposal is just
to eliminate your industry, which is an absolute disaster.
Mr. Lyon from Michigan, you talk about it in your
testimony, about mandating lock-in--different, inferior
technology, and you talk a lot about market-driven initiatives,
which I am--of course, I am a strong advocate for. Can you
elaborate about how certain technologies may have grown by the
market versus where there has been Government mandates and--the
comparison between--you talked about it a little bit in your
testimony. Can you elaborate?
Mr. Lyon. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think it is a
very complex and intertwined set of forces, actually. I mean
you look at electric vehicle deployment, for example, and
markets have played a crucial role in moving that forward. But
at the same time, Government has played an absolutely central
role, as well, with subsidies for vehicle adoption and R&D
funding.
So I think it is hard to disentangle these two and say it
is all of one or all of the other.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I just--you know, I--because you said in
your testimony--you talked about when certain things are
mandated, you know, it locks in--the possibility of locking in
an inferior technology, because technologies change. And I
think you agree that Government has got to be careful, how they
do that.
Mr. Lyon. Absolutely.
Mr. Gibbs. Because, you know, sometimes, when it comes to
on the regulatory side of Government, we usually are behind
what is actually happening. We are always trying to catch up,
and--but I concur with you that when you have the markets
driving it--and I think what you are trying to say, where there
is some--maybe some Government help, and where it is
appropriate, as long as it doesn't create artificial
consequences or, you know--that go against what the market is
trying to--I think that is what you are trying to say.
Mr. Lyon. Yes, I am trying to say we should allow for as
much flexibility as possible in technological choices going
forward, so that we don't prematurely lock into something and
we look back on it and say, oh, gosh, we shouldn't have locked
into--I mean the classic example on this is the light-water
nuclear reactor, right? There are a lot of other nuclear
designs that people now think are much superior, but we locked
into that one very early on. And you know, it has kind of
stalled out the industry in some ways.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, I appreciate the testimony. The only thing I
would just say quickly before my time is up is we got to be
careful. We let the market function and when it is appropriate,
Mr. Chairman, we can do things. But we shouldn't be trying to
address social change on what we are trying to do to build
infrastructure. I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Next we will go to Representative Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Young, in your testimony you talked about NextGen
flight procedures and so on. Have the airlines, as an industry,
done any estimates on how much fuel has been saved by deploying
performance-based navigation or required navigation
performance? Or, if not a number, can you speak to it?
Ms. Young. So when we are able to fully deploy RNP
performance-based navigation procedures, we can save a
considerable amount of fuel and, hence, reduce emissions that
way. The numbers are a little bit hard to true-up across the
country because, as you know, the next generation air
transportation system implementation has been sort of piece by
piece.
But as I note in my written testimony, I mean, there is
around 12 percent estimated inefficiencies in the system that
could be gained by full transition to PBN, NextGen, and we
support doing that.
Our members have been innovating in the different airspace
areas using these procedures for some time, including Alaska
Airlines, that initially developed a number of the procedures
way back when to address some of the challenges of flying in
Alaska.
So it is certainly something we want to continue to drive
forward on, and that is why we are recommending that this
committee continue to work closely with FAA to make sure that
we modernize our airspace.
Mr. Larsen. On the fleet updates to improve aircraft
efficiency, you've worked with manufacturers to make that
happen, and you mentioned a few changes to aircraft design:
winglets, there are also new engines coming out.
I have a question for you, because in a couple weeks we
will be looking at--on the Aviation Subcommittee we will be
looking at the future of aviation, trying to look out 30 years
or so. I am not asking you to predict what is going to happen,
it is kind of hard to predict. But if you had a wish list, what
would be the next thing for airlines and manufacturers to make
flying more efficient so there is less fuel used and planes are
using less fuel?
Ms. Young. Well, thank you for that question. We do work
very closely with the manufacturers, and that is a critical
part of our program for achieving our emissions goals.
So through a number of things like moving to composite
materials, there is still room there. Moving--our jet turbine
engines are extremely fuel efficient, but Pratt & Whitney and
GE and others have found ways to continue along those lines.
And you mentioned winglets. Those--you know, it may be
surprising to people. Those are on the tips of the wings. What
you see tipping up there can bring, you know, 4 percent or more
additional fuel efficiency. So we are really taking sort of, in
the near term, those kinds of approaches.
But working with the manufacturers and FAA and its CLEEN
program, and NASA and its programs, we are looking at things as
advanced as hybrid electric aircraft.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Ms. Young. We are looking at other materials. There are
discussions--we are not sure that we are going to be able to go
there, but in changing the entire way the aircraft is designed
to be a different shape and more aerodynamic. But those are
really the long-term programs.
And if I could stress, the programs that are funded for FAA
to work with us, and public-private programs, are one-to-one
dollar matches. They bring a lot of bang for the buck. Those
focus on the nearer term breakthroughs that airlines and
airports and manufacturers can make.
NASA has a program with us that is the long-term one, and
it is basically, again, a one-to-one match. So it is good bang
for leveraging the best in aviation.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. The CLEEN program has been mentioned
a couple of times, and I just want to thank the Members who
were here last year to amend the FAA bill to put that program
back in place and encourage others to support it in the future,
if we get there.
In my time remaining I just want to know, from Mr.
Prochazka and Dr. Lyon if there is a conflict between you all
in terms of calling for continuing tax cuts for EV and for EV
technology, versus relying on the market to place where those
EV charging stations are, much like we rely on the market to
place gas stations. Should the market lead or should Federal
tax credit policy lead?
And I will yield back.
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. So, you know, I
think at this point we are just scratching the surface, in
terms of the opportunity for market impacts on infrastructure
across the country. We are seeing huge investment from
investor-owned utilities. We are seeing even oil companies that
are buying infrastructure companies and starting to invest in
them in significant ways. And I think that it is saying a lot
about what that future might hold.
At the same time, there are needs for, at this point,
incentives to still exist to help encourage the early-stage
part of this investment. So, while we might have 50,000
chargers across the country that are deployed, things like the
alternative fuels corridor are going to be critical, and the
funding for that to expand charging.
We also need to retain the tax credits, so 30C, because
that is an important driver for businesses. So it can start the
process for their investment. And I think we are going to see
the long-term impact in fuel savings over time.
Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Lyon, if you could submit your response
in writing, that would be great. We are trying to adhere to the
time limit we are allocating for everyone.
Mr. Lyon. OK, will do.
Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Larsen, I hope that is OK. We will move
on now to Representative Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel.
You know, judging by Ms. Young's testimony, it looks like
companies and industries are already being environmentally
conscious. Ms. Young's comments about how innovation has
propelled the airline industry to reduce their carbon footprint
is something that I think needs to be looked at and monitored
by others. I hope other private companies will continue the
progress that your industry has shown us.
Additionally, electric automobile manufacturers are joining
new and innovative partnerships, and are changing the way we
travel. In fact, just outside my district by about two blocks
in Normal, Illinois, the company Rivian is looking to produce
electric trucks and SUVs, and they just announced a $700
million partnership with Amazon.
So my question to those on the panel is why do we need a
top-down approach to environmental regulation, when industries
are already adapting?
And I would like to start with Ms. Young at A4A because of
your testimony and your experience.
Ms. Young. Well, thank you for the question. I mean you
have heard a lot about market-based measures today, and the
best of those are really the natural ones, where you are
already driven by the existing market situations to do drive
technology, operations, and infrastructure, as we have to get
fuel efficiency.
We have pretty aggressive goals, as well. And one of the
international agreements that we are supporting would further
backstop the work that we are doing to make sure that, on an
international level, aviation meets those types of aggressive
goals.
So I think, you know, you want to use the market the way
that it is. And essentially, interfering with that can get
negative results.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Ms. Young.
Mr. Prochazka, with your coalition, I would like to hear
your response. And I am glad they got your name plate right. I
have the same problem a lot of times with my last name.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prochazka. Well, I can tell. Maybe later we can talk
about how to pronounce it.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. Actually, I grew
up in Kankakee, Illinois, and so I have driven through Normal
and been through the Bloomington area quite a bit.
You know, I think in this case we are responding to the
idea that we still have an unfair and unfree oil market. And so
that is part of the reason that there needs to be incentives to
encourage electric vehicle adoption.
We are in a place where, if national oil companies and
cartels are controlling the flow of oil, then it leaves
American businesses and consumers with few choices when oil
prices spike or when supply is cut off. And so I think, if
anything, electrifying our transportation sector has got to be
part of the solution. It is not the only solution, but it needs
to be part of the solution.
And ultimately, it is going to give us the best choice.
When you plug into the grid, it doesn't matter how those
electrons are produced. It can be coal, it can be wind, it can
be solar, it can be any of those. But ultimately, at this
point, it gives us the best opportunity for fuel choice.
Mr. Davis. But we need baseload generating facilities to be
able to power a new electric vehicle economy. Correct?
Mr. Prochazka. Most definitely.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Mr. Prochazka. There is a study from the National Renewable
Energy Lab and PacifiCorp that shows, basically, that we could
put 150 million vehicles on the road and not have a huge impact
to our grid. But there is a large opportunity.
Mr. Davis. Well, I have actually been out to the Tesla
facility and ridden in one of their test semis. And that is a
discussion we have to have in the future. And thank you for
your testimony.
I want to address before my time runs out environmental
reviews. I am not opposed to environmental reviews. As a matter
of fact, it was an environmental review in Springfield,
Illinois, that unearthed the site where we found artifacts that
were part of the 1908 race riots that was credited as being the
birthplace of the NAACP. I want to make that a national
historic site.
But with that said, 3 weeks ago we had, sitting at that
table right there, the mayor of Los Angeles, Mr. Garcetti, and
our former colleague, the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, who
both told us that we need to be speeding up the regulatory
process so that projects in their communities and their States
can actually be ready and shovel-ready quicker.
So to anybody else who wants to pick this question up, you
know, what can we do to make sure we do what these two local
officials asked us to do?
Mr. Sperling, you are from California. What don't you take
a shot?
Mr. Sperling. OK, I will take a shot. We have even a worse
problem. By the way, we have something in common, too: my
university and your name, Davis.
Mr. Davis. That is right, that is right.
Mr. Sperling. You know, we have an--on top of the EIS NEPA
reviews we have our own State, and it has been misused, really,
for NIMBY-ism purposes. And it has been used to block all kinds
of projects. I think even the most progressive Democrats, or at
least many of them, would acknowledge that. And we do need to
fix that.
And there is--it is blocking a lot of progress, a lot of
investments that need to be made, including a lot of
infrastructure investments.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Sperling.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carbajal. I will recognize Representative Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. I thank the panel for being here. I have been
looking forward to this hearing.
And Dr. Sperling, I am going to ask you a question because,
one, you are--I can pronounce your name; and two, you are from
California. And please send my best regards to Mary Nichols
when you return home.
You talked in your opening comments about aligning
environmental goals with transportation goals, and I know, you
know, in California I think we have had a very successful
program, the California Sustainable Communities program. And I
just--I wanted--if you could, talk a little bit about that
particular program.
And I want to drill down a little bit more and talk about
where the sort of carrots and sticks are to incentivize.
Mr. Sperling. I will give you the quick answer, and then
you can elaborate. And that is we did pass a law in 2008 known
as SB75, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act,
and it assigned targets to every metropolitan area to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger travel.
And in some ways it was successful, in that it changed the
debate. It really got the transportation community, in
particular, aware that what we are trying to achieve with
climate policies really was very well aligned with what they
were trying to achieve, in terms of better investments in
infrastructure and better planning.
But what it failed at is it did not have any substantive
carrots or sticks. And that is where we are. That has kind of
motivated much of my testimony, is we need to create those
carrots because we need the communities, if they are going to
invest in putting in more chargers, or if they are going to
build protected bike paths, or if they are going to invest in
transit, that they need to be rewarded. And if they do changes
on land use, they need to be rewarded because they don't have
the resources.
And so that is kind of my biggest plea, you know. It is
both Federal to this committee, as well as to the State, is
somehow restructure transportation funding so it acknowledges
and rewards these environmental goals, as well as the pure VMT
population type goals.
Ms. Brownley. And I certainly understand, and we all like
carrots more than we like sticks. But what suggestions do you
have around the stick portion?
Mr. Sperling. Yes, the--you know, I spent a lot of time
talking to mayors and city councils about some of these new
ideas. And the reality is they have very few resources
available.
I guess the good news is they are easy to--and I put this
word in quotes--to be ``bribed.'' They are very easy to bring
resources, to--you know, a small amount of resources will
motivate changes in behavior. But our cities, they have been
strapped, they have been--you know, for so many years they have
been--you know, they have had their funding cut back so much
they don't have a lot of capacity and resources.
And so, any program that does target--you know, that--like
getting rid of some of the silos with transit so that transit
money can be used for public-private partnerships, as well as
to support the operations of the transit operators, you know,
there are so many kinds of ideas. And as I said earlier,
programmed to support investments in pilot projects and
demonstrations.
Sacramento in particular, but Los--all the major cities
have major initiatives. But they don't have any funding stream
to support it.
Ms. Brownley. Are there any good examples of
experimentation in California that has come from private
industry? Or if you are saying there is--the resources aren't
there----
Mr. Sperling. Yes, yes, I would say many companies are
experimenting in a very small way, including car companies. Car
companies are helping electrify Uber and Lyft cars, and they
are doing that mostly on their own, so far.
There are various kinds of programs for van pools,
electrifying van pools. Some of it is subsidized, but there are
some companies that are taking the initiative. So there are
some.
But the problem is--and it is just like--you know, I will
go back to this discussion about electric vehicles. Every major
car company in the world is fully committed to electrifying.
This is not a question any more. They have got the supply
chains, they have got the technology. They are just waiting for
some--either consumers to switch their behavior, or incentives
to be created. And they are going to be moving forward in a
major way.
And it is the same thing with all of these kinds of ideas,
you know, the change happens slowly. Institutions have been,
you know, unchanging--especially transportation institutions--
for so long, that they don't have the capacity and creativity.
So the companies come along, they have ideas, but they run into
road blocks over and over again about how to get that funding
and to get the permits and so on.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Carbajal. Next I recognize Representative Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel
for your presence today. All of us in the position of
policymaking are searching for the best relevant data to use to
make the policies, and we are all interested in a better,
cleaner environment, whether it is the water, the air, or the
climate, in general.
My questions go to Ms. Arroyo.
In your written testimony you make the claim the Fourth
National Climate Assessment's findings, along with those in
2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC
report, are clear and should be a call to immediate action.
While the claims are very clearly stated in these reports, the
underlying data, to me, is a bit murkier, and I want to explore
that a little bit.
These claims are based on the theory that global average
surface temperature or gas has increased with greenhouse gas
emissions. Validating this theory requires both a valid global
average surface temperature record and the use of the proper
mathematical methods typically called structural analysis. I
think you would agree with that.
My concern is whether either of these necessary conditions
has been met.
An August 1981 article in the journal Science, authored by
Dr. James Hansen et al. calls into question both of these
points.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the article for
the record.
Mr. Carbajal. Without objection.
[The article is on pages 159-169.]
Mr. Perry. In this article, Hansen et al. states,
``Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to
the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere
and ocean areas poorly represented, and the smaller number of
stations for earlier times.''
They go on to state the time history of warming obviously
does not follow the course of the CO2 increase, indicating that
other factors must affect global mean temperature. In other
words, the correlation was not present.
The fact is that over the period of 1900 to date, the year
1900 to date, for very significant portions of the globe, there
was really no surface temperature data at all. And yet in 2019
we have a global average surface temperature record going back
to the 1880s. It seems obvious that the IPCC and NCA4 would
have to overcome these obstacles in order to provide such clear
findings that are viewed to be a call for immediate action.
My question in particular, and specifically to you, is the
following: If you were to become convinced that the published
official gassed data were not, in fact, a reliable depiction of
the circumstance, would we then have to conclude that the
climate models that are now tuned to replicate the fabricated
global average surface temperature pattern are not able to
provide reliable projections of the future state of the
climate?
Ms. Arroyo. So, Congressman, I have worked on climate
change for 20 years, exclusively. And my first introduction to
climate change was 30 years ago, when I was representing
Governor Buddy Roemer on a task force of the National Governors
Association that, on a bipartisan basis, already thought that
the science was compelling enough to issue a report that said
that both States and the Federal Government should be
addressing this.
The impacts have only become more severe and more obvious,
based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme events.
CO2 levels are rising. That is documented. We have been having
measurements in Mauna Loa for many years, but of course we have
the ice core record and other records that go back millennia.
We know that we are at CO2 levels that have never been
experienced since millions of years ago, and that is going to
lead to dramatic impacts like sea level rise and more intense
and frequent storms, et cetera, et cetera.
So, you know, you can maybe find a study or scientist in a
certain area that might quibble with that. There was some
issues earlier that got reconciled because of the orbit of the
devices, the satellites that take the record----
Mr. Perry. But I want--the gas temperature readings and the
lack of information, especially from the Southern Hemisphere,
from the turn of the century to present, what about that?
Ms. Arroyo. I am not familiar----
Mr. Perry. Why is that not relevant?
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. With that particular study. But
what I am familiar with is the scientific record which is, on a
published, peer-reviewed basis, overwhelming. That was what the
IPCC scientists from all around the world look at. That was
what our own Federal Government scientists used in the national
climate assessment. This was the fourth such assessment that
has been done.
And so I think you can cherry-pick and find a study that
might make an alternative point, but we are living in a world
that everybody objectively knows is different from the world
that we were born into. And that is because the emissions of
climate--polluting gases like CO2 that are being pulled out of
the earth and put into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.
And we are seeing changes that are much faster and more severe
than we even anticipated 30 years ago, when I started looking
at this issue.
So I am happy to take a look at that report. But having
worked on this for 30 years on a bipartisan basis, I don't see
any reason----
Mr. Perry. But you are happy----
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. To doubt the science.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. To look at the report.
Ms. Arroyo. Happy to look at the report----
Mr. Perry. And if you find, indeed----
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. But I don't see any reason to
doubt the----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. That the gassed data is
insufficient, based on a insufficient number of stations, you
would be critical of the gassed findings at that----
Ms. Arroyo. I would be happy to look at the weight of the
evidence. But just like when we are looking at our health, if a
doctor says that you have a serious disease, and recommends a
severe course of action, you might want to look at other
experts. And so I would look at it along with the other
scientific----
Mr. Perry. All right, my time has expired. I thank you.
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. Reports out there. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Chairman.
Mr. Carbajal. Next I would like to recognize Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
will be for Professor Lyon.
Clearly, matters like congestion pricing, reducing
congestion and emissions is sort of like joined at the hip with
our ability to provide reliable public transportation. And all
of this is sort of like a very deep pocket problem, right? How
do we get the finance to promote public transportation and
reduce emissions and congestion?
And you mentioned, for example, congestion pricing, which
has been around for some time in London, but there is also the
tolling of roads and bridges, and, obviously, increasing the
gas tax. Which do you see to be the most effective means of
capturing the revenue to finance an important project to reduce
congestion and emissions and to create greater and greener and
more reliable means of public transportation?
Mr. Lyon. Well, thank you for the question. And I would be
happy to follow up with some written testimony that gives more
details.
But my first thought on this is that a VMT tax is very
promising, in terms of its ability to raise revenue. It is
probably going to be more successful than a congestion tax,
just because congestion is a more localized phenomenon. And
there has been some research suggesting that a VMT tax could be
very effective in revenue raising. So I would say let's start
with that, anyway.
Mr. Espaillat. But how has the congestion pricing program
worked in London?
Mr. Lyon. I think it has been very effective, in terms of
reducing congestion, increasing average speeds. And those
things reduce fuel consumption, which reduces pollution,
because there is a lot of pollution that occurs from trucks and
cars just being stalled in traffic.
Mr. Espaillat. Ms. Arroyo, my next question is to you. You
refer to green infrastructure. There are communities across
America, particularly urban communities, where you see very
high levels, for example, of asthma amongst children, and other
respiratory diseases.
Now, if we are going to go ahead with a green
infrastructure, the first question is do we have the workforce
ready and prepared to take on that job?
And the second question is if we do have the workforce
available, are we willing to develop a workforce that would
then--in those particular neighborhoods that have been
adversely affected by this phenomenon, right, the problem with
asthma and other respiratory illnesses, are we willing to
provide a level of reparation for those communities that have
been adversely affected and create jobs--in many cases,
prevailing wage jobs--for young people and other people in
those neighborhoods?
Ms. Arroyo. Thank you for the question. So a lot of
communities that we work with from around the country are
interested in some of the benefits of investing in what is
called green infrastructure from both an urban heat, island
mitigation standpoint to have, you know, cooler roofs,
permeable pavements, more trees, urban canopy, and things like
that, but also because they are a place for the water to flow.
So when we do see some of these heavier rain events like we
are seeing now in this era of climate change, there is a place.
For example, you know, water gardens that are being installed
in my mother's old neighborhood of Gentilly, which is a very
racially mixed, you know, largely elderly population in that
community. So some of the places that have not rebuilt, in
terms of homes, they are having places for water to go, but
also places where people can recreate and have cobenefits from
that, which will also contribute to better local air quality,
better resilience from conventional rain events, job
opportunities, training opportunities.
This is something that, for example, the DC government has
worked on in a partnership with folks that have been
underemployed, and trying to train them in a program called DC
Water Works--which is sort of like a, you know, like a little
play on words--to try to train people to install things like
solar panels over reservoirs, and things like that. So it is
very much something that is of interest to a lot of the cities
that we work with, including my own home town of New Orleans.
Mr. Espaillat. Do we have the workforce right now? Let's
say if this is to happen a year from now. Are we ready? Are we
ready to take this on?
Ms. Arroyo. I mean I think it would be a wonderful thing
for the committee to consider investing in, because this really
can create local jobs that cannot be exported. And this can
happen in every community.
Where I live now, in Arlington, Virginia, there is a lot to
be done in terms of urban forestry to counteract some of the
kind of, you know, cutting down of the mature trees to build
some of the kind of big houses that tend to be what developers
do right now.
And so I think that it is just a wonderful solution, and it
can train a workforce for sustainable employment, and something
that everybody can be proud of.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carbajal. I would like now to recognize Mr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, witnesses, for coming up here, giving us your--what you've
found over your careers.
First off, I want to say thank you to Ms. Young. You
mentioned the Atlas Air crash of flight 3591. That actually
went down in my district. I visited that site yesterday. It was
a devastating scene. And I just want to say thank you to all
the first responders, Federal and State, folks that are out
there trying to piece that back together. It is a terrible,
terrible thing to behold.
The first question I would like to ask is to Professor
Lyon. Can we actually assume that other countries, many of
which are developing countries, would opt out of cheap energy
sources for more and expensive cleaner sources? Is that a
realistic expectation for us? Professor?
Mr. Lyon. Probably, without some kind of international
support, that may be difficult.
I mean you look at what China has done over the last, you
know, 20 years. They have built an enormous fleet of giant coal
plants which burn fairly dirty, inefficient coal. So it looks
like India is on track to build a lot of coal going forward,
also. So it seems like, to me, that countries that have
advanced further economically, like the United States, and that
have contributed more to the global warming gas emissions over
time, may have a moral duty to help those countries leapfrog
some of that dirty technology.
Dr. Babin. Well, the--I think one of the things that I have
seen and talked about with other folks is that we continue to
see companies that sell their brand as renewable, green, and
environmentally friendly. But when you look at the fine print,
we see that a lot of these products are actually made in China,
where greenhouse gas emissions are through the ceiling.
And so it is--I think, unless there is some kind of
incentive, it is hard for me to imagine that third-world
developing countries would do that. And then, to saddle
American taxpayers with that duty, as you said, seems to be a
long stretch for the American taxpayers.
OK, my next question for Ms. Arroyo, the United States cut
862 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2017,
which was a 14-percent decline. Over the same period, global
emissions rose 26 percent. India increased its carbon dioxide
emissions by 1.3 billion tons, and China increased its
emissions by 4 billion tons, a 70-percent increase. The United
States could continue cutting carbon dioxide emissions, but
clearly the greenhouse gases could and would continue to
increase. The United States doesn't seem to be the problem.
And so, is the solution to spend trillions of dollars,
increase energy costs here in our country, cut jobs, raise
taxes on hard-working American families, and jeopardize our
strong economy at this point in time? Ms. Arroyo?
Ms. Arroyo. So the U.S. emissions this last year have
actually spiked up 3 percent. And clearly, we can't do it
alone.
I will say that the States and the cities that we work with
are enjoying multiple benefits from their own investment in a
clean energy economy of the future. Those States have put into
place things like very popular renewable portfolio standards.
Many of those States have met and exceeded those standards, and
gone further. So that is what has driven our ability to move to
cleaner electricity sources that are generally very popular and
reduce conventional air pollution and create local jobs that
can't be exported, once again.
So a combination of standards at the State and also the
Federal level. In the last administration we saw vehicle
standards and we saw, you know--efforts to reduce standards
from the power sector through the Clean Power Plan are part of
the solution, but there is other reasons that are contributing
to that, including private-sector leadership and all of that.
That is not to say that the rest of the world doesn't have
to do its job. And clearly, the rest of the world came together
in Paris in 2015, and made commitments, as well as the United
States made commitments.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. I just--it seems to me it
is hard. Just as I said on my first question, Americans are
going to be the ones to suffer, while other countries continue
to lower their prices at the cost of the environment and the
American family.
Dr. Sperling, I think we can all agree on the need for
better infrastructure in the United States, but let's look at
the details of how our infrastructure is built. Whether it is
dams, bridges, or highways, they all require concrete. Cement
or concrete is made by heating limestone, which reduces down to
about two-thirds of the original limestone weight. The other
third goes up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
In other words, making concrete emits carbon dioxide. Do
you propose that we eliminate the production of concrete,
therefore eliminating the creation of better and stronger
infrastructure, which I think everybody in this room, I think,
is in favor of increasing our infrastructure and making us more
competitive, globally?
Does getting rid of cement seem productive to you? Is that
that important?
Mr. Sperling. That----
Dr. Babin. I would like to hear what you have to say.
Mr. Sperling. That is not what I would----
Dr. Babin. Dr. Sperling?
Mr. Sperling. No, that is not what I would suggest. And----
Dr. Babin. Dr. Sperling--OK.
Mr. Carbajal. Could you please submit your response in
writing? We are trying to adhere to the time limits, so I
really would appreciate it.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Next we will go to Representative Mucarsel-
Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for the witnesses, for being here this morning.
I represent, I believe, one of the most beautiful districts
in the country, Florida 26, which includes the Florida Keys,
and parts of Miami-Dade County. We are definitely ground zero
for the effects of climate change and sea level rise. And we
have seen, year after year, storms strengthening, crumbling
infrastructure. Our coastline is eroding, due to these strong
storms and also sea level rise.
So I know that we have been speaking this morning that the
science is clear, and in order to stave off the worst effects
of climate change we need to drastically reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, and we need to do it very quickly. And I know that
there are many ways that we can do this. One is transitioning
over to electric vehicles.
So my question right now is to Mr. Prochazka and Ms.
Arroyo. Maybe you can both answer this question.
Right now, in the southern part of my district in Miami-
Dade County, we have a huge issue of, you know, transportation,
lack of access to transportation for the people living in the
district that have to commute to work. It is taking them 2
hours, maybe sometimes even more. We have been trying to get
rail in South Dade, and I met just recently last week with the
transportation board that approved a fast rapid bus system.
Apparently, it is the first one that is being built in the
county. I have seen projects in other countries that seem to
have been successful.
So one of my questions, Ms. Arroyo or Mr. Prochazka, if we
are going to have--one of the questions that I asked was if
they were going to have electric buses. And they responded that
electric buses posed two major issues: one, that they were much
more expensive than traditional buses; and the second is that
they are concerned with their ability to install enough
charging stations.
So what can we in Congress do to address this impediment
for local communities?
Ms. Arroyo. Thank you for the question. So we mentioned the
grants program earlier that the Federal Transit Administration
has been using to support investment in electric buses in 41
States. Also, many States and cities are using VW settlement
money from the scandal with the VW cheating devices on the cars
to invest in electric buses. So that is how they are trying to
buy down the cost upfront. Because over the life span of the
bus, it is actually more on par with conventional gasoline or
diesel.
But obviously, getting into the bus in the first place,
Federal incentives can play a role there, just like the VW shot
in the arm, or the FTA grant program helped. So pilot programs
like that are one part of the solution.
And the charging--certainly, if a number of buses charge in
the same place at night, for example, that is something that
needs to be worked out. It was worked out here in DC, with the
Circulator buses, with Pepco, so you need to work with the
utilities on that. But that is something that is already
doable.
Mr. Prochazka. I will keep my remarks very brief. And I
will say that supporting FTA's efforts to allow for bulk
purchasing and joint procurement will go a long way. And so it
can reduce the administrative and cost burdens associated with
bus acquisition. And so I think there is opportunities for
cities to convene and create those moments. And I think bus
manufacturers are also really excited about those kinds of
opportunities.
Secondly, there is an opportunity to think about low- and
zero-cost loans. And so the idea is that buses will pay back
over time. So electric buses have significantly lower fuel
costs, but oftentimes city budget and transit agency budgets
prioritize low cost upfront. And so, if we can provide
mechanisms to reduce that incremental cost difference, the
buses will pay back over time. And, in fact, I think we will
see it--will pay back even more than the upfront costs cost at
the beginning.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. That is exactly what I fear, because
they are so much more expensive that they are going to try to
just use regular gasoline-charged buses.
And my second question, my followup question, was what
would be the ultimate impact if the transportation board in
Miami were to just stick with regular gas buses? What--you
know, what would be the effects on air quality, the health of
our communities down in South Dade?
Mr. Prochazka. I will just briefly mention that it is hard
to--you know, I don't know the answer specifically for your
community.
I will say that the big challenge is that if you purchase a
diesel bus right now it is going to be on the road for 10 or 12
years. And so that is a choice that will have already been
made. And that pollution and the impacts and fuel costs at that
point are sunk.
And so I think it is really important to make sure that the
communities prioritize EV buses now, because it is going to
save in the future.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I yield back my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Carbajal. I would like to recognize Mr. Garret Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you all for being here. Good morning. I appreciate your
testimony this morning.
The title of this hearing is ``Examining How Federal
Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate
Change.'' I want to make note that last year this committee--
well, I guess in 2017, it became law in 2018--this committee
passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and that legislation,
in my opinion, did move us in a direction of resiliency, of
making wise investments, recognizing that the current approach
toward disasters, where we spend exponentially more money after
a disaster, rather than actually being proactive and making
principled investments on the front end, is a flawed policy.
And we made substantial changes to help make our Nation
more resilient, preparing for the future. And I think this was
one area where we had made incredibly flawed decisions that
cost our taxpayers. And I would love to tell you millions or
billions, but well in excess of $1 trillion in disaster
recovery costs that could have been saved if we had made the
right investments and decisions on the front end.
That being said, Ms. Young, I want to ask a question, just
make sure I understand something. In your testimony you made
reference--and I remember Mr. Calio in this room recently made
a similar statement about a significant reduction in fuel
efficiency. Were those required? Those reductions, were they
required, the fuel efficiency, or the savings?
Ms. Young. No, Congressman. The significant improvement in
fuel efficiency--we have made 125 percent since 1978--has been
really driven by our own market interests. We are very, very
proud that our environmental and economic interests in saving
fuel align. And that has, since 1978, saved 4.6 billion metric
tons of carbon dioxide. And we are committed to continuing and
improving on that record.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. Sperling, I was previously the chairman of the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and have done tens of
billions of dollars in water resource projects and other
infrastructure projects in my home State of Louisiana.
I visited California, had a great time with my friend, Mrs.
Napolitano, over there. One of the things that I just found
remarkable, both on water resource projects and transportation
projects, was, quite frankly, the increased cost of projects in
California, in many cases. And it appeared--and I want to be
clear--I am not certain, but it appeared in some cases that
that was a result of requirements that California imposed on
itself in regard to different environmental-type requirements
under the--what is it, CEBA? California Environmental
Protection Act? CEPA, excuse me.
How does the State of California determine which
requirements are cost effective versus those that may not be,
that are just providing a universal or systemic requirement?
Does that question make sense?
Mr. Sperling. Yes, it does. But that is not one I could
answer. I could try to get an answer for you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. That would be great. Just two
other things.
Mr. Chairman, I recently read an analysis based on some EIA
data that found that if we migrate entirely to zero-emissions
vehicles, that we will actually see an increase--not a
decrease, but an increase--in sulfur dioxide and particulates,
in oxides of nitrogen, and other emissions, rather than a
reduction. And I found that interesting. I think it is
something that we probably ought to dig into a little bit more,
to make sure that we truly understand the outcomes.
And I also want to be clear that I have actually purchased
an electric vehicle, so I am certainly sensitive to--thank you
very much. I appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But--so I am certainly sensitive
to the technologies, and very interested in what the future
holds.
But I found that statistic interesting. It actually looked
like it was going to be an increase in certain emissions,
rather than what I think folks would believe to be a decrease.
And this is comparing zero-emission vehicles to new combustion
engines, and I think that, once again, we need to be very
careful and deliberate about how we move forward.
Last thing, Mr. Chairman. In looking at an analysis just of
subsidies and tax credits in the State of California alone,
which--keeping in mind these technologies, solar, zero-
emissions vehicles, and others, in many cases they are more
expensive than other approaches--it appears, for the State of
California alone we are approaching $100 billion in subsidies
and credits. And going back to Professor Lyon's testimony, I
think we need to make sure that we are making cost-effective
solutions and policies.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thanks. I will recognize Mrs. Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for holding
this important hearing today. And I would like to thank all the
witnesses for being here to testify, and share their thoughts
with us.
Climate change, as we all know, is driving extreme weather
events across the country. It is a crisis that we are ready and
we need to address. Certainly, my district, in Houston, Texas,
is no stranger to those weather events. And we are committed to
addressing this challenge at home in Houston.
One of the things that we know is that the power sector
used to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. And,
thanks to advances in natural gas and renewables, U.S.
emissions from the power sector have been on a downward trend.
So the transportation sector now accounts for just under 30
percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and I have appreciated
your testimony on issues relating to transportation this
morning.
The first question I have is for Mr. Prochazka. I am so
sorry if I mispronounced that.
But one of the things that we have seen is we have seen the
effects of low-cost natural gas in the power sector lowering
emissions. And I wanted to hear from you. You talked a lot
about electrification. But what potential is there for natural
gas vehicles, especially as fleet vehicles? What are you seeing
in that area?
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And I am much
more of an expert on electric vehicles than I am on natural
gas. However, my sister organization, Securing America's Future
Energy, has created a policy paper that focuses on a
transportation strategy for the U.S. And so it focuses on all
fuels.
And if I may, I would love to submit that as part of the
followup testimony, because I think it says a lot of great
things about what other fuels might do to--and in this case,
mostly to reduce the impacts of oil in terms of our economic
and national security. So I would, in this case, defer to that.
[Mr. Prochazka has submitted the following post-hearing
supplement to his testimony:]
Per your request, I am submitting with this letter a digital copy
of the report I mentioned to you during the hearing, titled ``A
National Strategy for Energy Security: The Innovation Revolution.''
This report was published by the Electrification Coalition's sister
organization, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) in 2016. It
examines how the adoption of natural gas and other alternative fuels in
the transportation sector would contribute to enhanced economic and
national security, and outlines a strategy with actionable steps for
enhancing fuel diversity. [The report is retained in committee files
and is available at: http://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/
06/SAFE-National-Strategy-for-Energy-Security-2016.pdf.]
The report contains several policy recommendations for accelerating
the adoption of natural gasvehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles
that may be of particular interest to you:
Light Duty Vehicles
Increase federal research and development investments in
automotive-grade batteries and natural gas storage tanks. Plug-in
electric vehicles (PEVs) and natural gas vehicles (NGVs) each have high
incremental costs compared to conventional vehicles, due primarily to a
single component in each vehicle: batteries in PEVs and storage tanks
in NGVs. The government should dedicate additional research and
development (R&D) dollars to improving the performance and cost-
competitiveness of these two components.
Initiate a National Accelerator Community Program. AFVs
[alternative fuel vehicles] require the support of new networks and are
only likely to succeed if accompanied by changes throughout multiple
products, systems, and industries. SAFE's experience in Northern
Colorado demonstrates the success that experiential marketing and
community-based programs can have in accelerating AFV adoption. Such
communities help spur faster and higher rates of adoption and become
models for others to follow. To this end, SAFE recommends establishing
a fuel-neutral National Accelerator Community Program for AFVs. The
program should develop a process to select 20 communities on a
competitive basis, with successful applicants demonstrating the
broadest community support and the most promise of deploying AFVs in
large numbers as demonstrated by PEV sales.
Support creation of non-monetary incentives for advanced
fuel vehicles. Incentives that offer vehicle owners added convenience
have proven a major factor influencing vehicle purchasing decisions.
These may include free or lower-cost access to high-occupancy vehicle
and toll lanes, workplace charging or refueling, the construction of
plug-in ready parking garages and lots, vehicle emissions testing
exemptions, and free parking.
Increase federal deployment of advanced fuel vehicles.
With over 400,000 non-tactical vehicles and over $1.2 billion dollars
in annual fuel costs, the federal government has an enormous
opportunity to help promote the use of AFVs and advanced fuels. Such
adoption would demonstrate that AFVs can meet a wide range of
transportation applications, generating important data and lessons.
SAFE recommends the federal government take the following steps to
increase federal fleet-wide AFV use: work with states to make bulk
vehicle purchases, encourage the General Services Administration (GSA)
to join in seeking to lower the cost of AFVs at all levels of
government; increase the use of E85 in the federal flexible-fuel
vehicle fleet; right-size charging infrastructure; and incorporate AFVs
into the next-generation Post Office Fleet.
Long-Haul Trucks
Create incentives for medium- and heavy-duty advanced
fuel vehicle purchases. While NGVs, in particular, have seen impressive
market share growth in certain applications-transit buses and refuse
trucks being prime examples-penetration into freight and delivery
markets has been slower. SAFE recommends that Congress pass tax credits
for advanced fuel medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Tax credits should be
established that offer, at a maximum, $25,000 for dedicated AFVs
weighing between 14,000 pounds and 26,000 pounds, and $40,000 for
dedicated AFVs weighing more than 26,000 pounds. The precise amount
should be determined, and recalculated on a quarterly basis, using the
price differential (DGE) between diesel and the applicable advanced
fuel. The credit should decline by 25 percent for every 50 cents per
gallon difference in fuel price.
The credit should be allowed for vehicles placed in service
after December 31, 2015, and before January 1, 2021, to promote faster
adoption and limit costs. For vehicles placed in service in calendar
year 2020, the credit would be limited to 50 percent of the otherwise
allowable amount.
Congress should establish a grant system for the
installation of CNG and LNG fueling stations along high-priority
corridors. The federal government can facilitate the creation of a
network of natural gas fueling corridors that will obviate the range
concerns of long-haul truck owners and fleet managers. LNG would
benefit especially from such a policy; its high energy density makes it
attractive to operators traveling long distances carrying heavy
cargoes. Without sufficient LNG refueling stations on the National
Highway Freight Network, companies without the volume to justify
building their own stations have largely refrained from switching from
diesel.
SAFE recommends that natural gas refueling infrastructure be
prioritized along corridors that are responsible for a large proportion
of long-haul medium- and heavy-duty trucking. Through the establishment
of a grant system, Congress can ensure that fueling stations exist no
more than 200 miles apart alongside the more than 51,000 miles of the
National Highway Freight Network.
Congress should pass a two-year extension of the
Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit. In December 2015, Congress passed
legislation that extended the Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit
through December 31, 2016. This credit provides $0.50 per gallon for
CNG, LNG, and propane autogas, among other advanced transportation
fuels. The current extension is short-term and creates tremendous
uncertainty for investment in longer-term projects. SAFE urges Congress
to pass a twoyear extension of the Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit
so that such uncertainty is eliminated.
Establish a diesel gallon equivalent standard in order to
create consistency and clarity in the marketing and dispensing of CNG
and LNG fuel. The opportunity to save on fuel costs is a major
motivation for car and truck fleet owners to switch from petroleum to
natural gas and other alternatives. This shift depends, however, on the
fuel cost savings being transparent and easily understood by truck
operators and fleet owners. Simplicity and clarity in fuel measurement
can do much to aid consumer acceptance of an alternative fuel like
natural gas. For this reason, the National Conference of Weights and
Measures (NCWM) should approve the creation of a uniform diesel gallon
equivalent (DGE) standard as the primary unit for dispensing and
pricing LNG. Similarly, the NCWM should vote to allow for CNG to be
measured and priced in DGE where sold primarily to medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles.
States and localities should establish their own
incentive programs, particularly around regional and urban goods
movement. Many states and regions have established advanced fuel heavy-
duty vehicle incentives. Most are financial incentives for the purchase
of vehicles or construction of fueling infrastructure. For example, the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is
providing incentives for alternative fuel trucks and buses. DOT Tiger
and DOE Clean Cities grants should be made eligible for these local
programs to support state and municipality efforts nationwide.
Localities should also consider non-traditional incentives, such
as access to HOV lanes, preferred delivery times for advanced fuel
delivery vehicles, preferential treatment in the awarding of local
government freight contracts, adjusting urban freight facility zoning
rules to reward the use of advanced fuel freight vehicles, allowing
access to municipal advanced fuel fueling stations, and assisting
freight operators with obtaining federal grants and other incentives
for advanced fuel medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK, thank you, I appreciate that. And I
would like to see that paper. I believe in my own district
there are companies that have transitioned to entirely natural
gas fleets, so I think that that is a growing area of
opportunity.
And I think, Ms. Arroyo, did you have a followup comment to
that, or an answer to the question?
Ms. Arroyo. I was just going to say that they are
especially good for reducing emissions of criteria pollutants,
natural gas and propane vehicles.
From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, battery,
electric, and hydrogen offer more promise.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK, thank you. That is helpful. I think, in
general, you know, one of the things that we have seen--and we
have heard some testimony earlier about some public-private
partnerships, or efforts that we are seeing from industry. And
so I would like to hear from anyone on the panel who wants to
accept about where industry is leading, and how the Government
can help amplify those efforts.
I know there were some questions about that earlier, but
where can the Government be of assistance in making sure that
those efforts are being amplified?
Mr. Prochazka. So I will actually answer this question, if
I may. And it is Prochazka, just to demystify.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Mr. Prochazka. Get rid of the C, much easier. So thank you
for the question.
Actually, you know, and Houston is a perfect example. It is
one of the energy centers of the country. And, in fact,
CenterPoint Energy right now is working with great effort to
convene a broad community of stakeholders that represents both
public and private-sector members of the community, and in
partnership with the city of Houston to figure out how to
rapidly accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles.
And I think those kinds of examples are springing up all
over the country, where utilities and cities are getting
together and recognizing that these are both great economic
opportunities, because they can leverage huge investment
locally from the private sector, and you can match that with
Federal dollars.
And so I think the idea would be for every dollar that can
be contributed to that through infrastructure, tax credits,
vehicle tax credits, et cetera, that you are going to see the
payback from those investments, maybe two or three or fivefold
from the investments from the private sector.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Ms. Young. Yes, I would like to add, from our perspective,
you have heard a little bit today where we have talked about
the CLEEN program. And I want to say what that acronym stands
for: The Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise program.
And that is an FAA industry public-private partnership to
really advance technology operations and infrastructure.
And I wanted to note the acronym, what it means, for--
because it focuses on fuel alternatives. It focuses on
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, synergistic issues in the way
that we fly our aircraft.
Mr. Sperling. And I will just add one more, and that is
with transit operators working with what we call the TNCs,
Lyft, Uber, Via, where they are collaborating to provide
service in areas that are less dense, and do it much more
efficiently than a conventional transit operator can do. And
there is many examples of that around the country.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Ms. Titus [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the panel coming today. On the aviation
sector, thank you for your great information on that, Ms.
Young. And indeed, we see more and more greater efficiencies
with aircraft and fuel type and everything each year. So I
think there is a lot to be proud of in that area, and that is
what mystifies me, is that it ever improves, with improving
aircraft and the materials they are making them out of, and the
winglets you talk about.
I don't see winglets on every plane yet, so I know you get
that little plus for making the vortex, however that works.
But, you know, that--you are rapidly improving. And so, to hear
plans out there to eliminate the airline industry and
notwithstanding I will never see high-speed rail go from
California to Hawaii--so I don't know how that is going to
work--but that said, I commend you in that area.
We haven't heard much about freight rail in this committee
today, which indeed, itself, is one of the most efficient ways
of moving any kinds of materials across the country, as you
get--freight by rail achieves 479 miles on a gallon of fuel per
ton. That is pretty amazing. All we hear about in California is
we have to keep pursuing this high-speed rail boondoggle, which
now has been downsized to the Valley, itself.
So I am sure there is people clamoring out there to get
from Merced to Bakersfield 33 minutes faster than Amtrak would
accomplish the same thing on a grade A rail at its maximum
capacity. So why we are spending billions of dollars on that--
and we have given up on the whole concept, the voters passed--
when they barely passed the $10 billion bond about 10 years
ago. It mystifies me. So I hope we can have some rethinking on
that, because our transportation system really needs to have
its emphasis on stuff that people can use: improved highways,
et cetera.
So when we talk about moving freight, we also have at the
local level a very important need for truck traffic, and the--
because, basically, the motto is if you got it, a truck brought
it. When, you know, you get to your local level.
So in California we have some very difficult standards on
the trucking industry there that CARB has a habit of passing a
bill and waiting for the technology to catch up later. It
mandated, I think back in 1990, that 10 percent of cars sold
would have to be zero emissions by the year 2000. Well, they
had to back off from that because battery technology and car
technology never caught up to a mandate by whim of a State
legislator. So we have that, with the difficulty with diesel
trucks in the State, trying to catch up and being retrofitted
with these devices that cost tens of thousands of dollars that,
in many cases, were catching fire in these retrofits.
So I don't know what the positive is there. I have had
anecdotes where people talk to me where they have these devices
fitted to some of their hay equipment, and their--up and down
the road they have to stop what they are doing every once in a
while and run the vehicle from actually working speed up and
down the road in order to let the filter burn its way out, and
then go back to work.
So this retrofitting doesn't always fit the program. It is
when--and Caterpillar actually pulled out of California from
supplying diesel engines. Can you imagine? Every guy, every
cafe you go into, somebody is wearing a cap that says Cat
Diesel Power, and them being out of the diesel business in
California for a time. So this is what happens when you make
mandates.
So I would like to hear from Mr. Lyon here. What we are
talking about is allowing technology, allowing the market to
work. And if we allow that to happen, things like eliminating
the excise tax on heavy trucks, allowing more of these newer
trucks to be sold instead of trying to retrofit by the force of
mandate, what would that look like for the market? What would
it look like to improving the fleet?
Mr. Lyon. It is a great question. I wish I had the data at
my fingertips to give you a really good answer on that. And I
would be happy to respond in more detail with a----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, what we have is the Federal excise tax
in relation to the amount of dollars it generates to help
infrastructure is pretty small, but you have a pent-up market
there, especially driven by mandate--truckers that can afford
it that are not just mom-and-pop but, you know, $120,000,
$130,000 trucks. The FET adds, you know, $10,000, $15,000,
$20,000 to the price of that. Do you think that would be a
great incentive to move more new vehicles? By eliminating----
Mr. Lyon. Like I said, I don't really know the details of
the tax structure there in California.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is national FET on that, so----
Mr. Lyon. I don't know. I mean it does seem like, to me,
that trucks cause a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on
roads. And so it may be perfectly reasonable to tax them at a
higher VMT rate than light-weight vehicles. But that is not to
say that----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, they are paying a lot more weight fee--
--
Mr. Lyon [continuing]. The current tax rates are----
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Than everybody else, too. So they
carry their share on that, and generally end up with more of
the bill.
So, well, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We now recognize Mr. Allred for 5
minutes.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the
witnesses for being here today and sharing your insights with
us on how we can create a more sustainable transportation
solution to combat climate change.
I represent parts of Dallas and the suburbs of Dallas to
the north, a district that encompasses some thriving job
markets, great colleges and universities, bustling arts and
cultural scene. And we also are experiencing extremely rapid
growth. We have more than 100,000 people a year moving from out
of State just to my region. And that growth has led us to have
some unique challenges that we need to address as we try to
mitigate the congestion on our roads, and combat our greenhouse
gas emissions.
In addition to those congestion issues, Texans are also
grappling with frequent and intense extreme weather events, as
my colleague, Mrs. Fletcher, mentioned, in Houston. But also in
north Texas we have experienced record droughts and extremely
high temperature patterns. And now, more than ever, I think it
is important that we invest in resilient infrastructure that is
built to withstand the stresses of uncertain weather
conditions. And I look forward to working with the members of
this committee to do that.
I also want to just recognize the city of Dallas and our
mayor, led by Mayor Mike Rawlings, and their efforts to move
Dallas forward to address climate change, and to make Dallas a
global leader in that area in a way that also is consistent
with meeting our infrastructure needs.
And I want to respectfully disagree with some of the
statements that have been made about high-speed rail. There is
a very promising high-speed rail project between Dallas and
Houston that is largely privately funded that I think will be a
model for the rest of the country, and one that I think will be
an economic boon for Texas. And, as I said, other areas may try
to replicate what we are doing there.
Ms. Arroyo, in your testimony you mention that cities
across the country are reducing air pollution by increasing
transportation options like investment in public transit, bike,
and pedestrian facilities, and new mobility solutions. Do you
feel that investments in high-speed intercity passenger rails--
rail systems--could contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions?
Ms. Arroyo. So thanks for that question. And a shout out to
Dallas. As you saw, I held up DART as an example, because they
are, you know, just doing such innovative work to make it
seamless for people to use transit. And if you go around the
world on your travels, you see that other countries have
managed to find ways to invest in high-speed rail.
I am not an expert on what exactly is happening in a
particular place like California or Texas, but I think for
certain, you know, metropolitan areas, connecting those routes
will be really important to get some of the folks off of the
interstates, which are clogged and have some challenges
associated with them, in terms of the pollution, both
conventional pollution that comes from them for the people who
live around them who tend to be disproportionately, you know,
poor, minority communities that those interstates cut through.
So I think rail--both conventional rail and high-speed
rail--does offer some really exciting alternatives to that.
Mr. Allred. Dr. Sperling? Same question to you.
Mr. Sperling. About high-speed rail?
Mr. Allred. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Sperling. Yes. I mean it definitely would result in a
reduction in CO2, especially--you know, the answer to a lot of
these pollution and CO2 questions is how is the electricity
generated.
So, in California, for instance, it was planned that it
would be coming totally from renewable energy. And in fact, the
law now is to go to completely carbon-free electricity by 2045.
So, I mean, that is really the answer, simple answer, to the
environmental issues.
Mr. Allred. Ms. Arroyo, back to you. In your testimony you
state that, since 1980, 241 extreme weather-related events have
cost the U.S. an estimated $1.6 trillion. That is a pretty big
number. But then again, infrastructure investments also have a
high price tag.
Do you think there would be a net savings for the Federal
Government if we were to invest in disaster mitigation and
resilient infrastructure, rather than emergency spending once a
disaster has occurred?
Ms. Arroyo. So, again, thanks for that question. There is a
new study out from the National Institute of Building Sciences
that actually increased the number of the rate of return from--
for every $1 that you spend getting a benefit of $4 to up to $6
now. That is a new 2018 estimate from things like, you know,
elevating buildings in that context, or just--you know,
designing things differently, or allowing people to rebuild
differently after storms, so you are not basically just putting
people back into harm's way and throwing good money after bad.
So it is an excellent question, and it is very true, that
resilient infrastructure investment on the front end can save
you $6 for every $1 that you invest on the back end.
Mr. Allred. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We have been trying to get high-speed
rail between Las Vegas and southern California for a long time.
I now recognize Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that we are
supposed to reach zero emissions, CO2 emissions, in 12 years.
And we won't be flying airplanes any more. But how are we going
to do that, considering the amount of CO2 that China and other
nations that come into the United States--do you have an
infrastructure solution for that, Dr. Sperling?
Mr. Sperling. Well, if we look at China specifically, I
know it is easy to, you know, to bang on----
Mr. Palmer. Well, your answer, is it yes or no? Do you have
an infrastructure solution for that?
Mr. Sperling. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. You do? How are you going to block emissions
from China?
Mr. Sperling. They will do it--they are on the path to do
it. They have a plan to peak by 2030, and they are making much
larger investments in renewable energy on their own than we are
in the United States.
Mr. Palmer. Well, here is what we have had, in terms of
annual CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2017. The United States has
reduced its emissions by 15 percent. That is over 1 billion
metric tons. Same period of time, China's is up over 4 billion.
That is double, and it is continuing to go up.
So maybe in 2029 they will implement their 2030 plan? It is
kind of like what we do on our 10-year budget. You know, we
will just--we are always--next year we will be balanced in 10
years. Is that----
Mr. Sperling. Well----
Mr. Palmer. See, what the Chinese have here is an
advantage. As we make these changes to our economy, they will
dominate the world economy. You do take the socio--the
geopolitics into consideration here, don't you?
Mr. Sperling. Yes. But if I look at it simply from an
environmental perspective, they have a strong incentive there
to reduce air pollution, and to--in fact, they are the global
leaders on both renewable energy and electric vehicles.
Mr. Palmer. I think they have a stronger incentive to
become the dominant power in the world, but we will leave that
for another discussion for another time.
I would like to point out one of our colleagues brought up
asthma. Asthma rates have skyrocketed.
Ms. Arroyo, do you have any idea of why that is? I will ask
for yours.
Ms. Arroyo. I don't. I mean I am not a medical doctor. But,
I mean, air pollution is certainly one leading contributor to
that, as well as indoor air pollution that can come from, you
know, pests, and things like that. But I am not an expert on
asthma.
Mr. Palmer. It is interesting, because air quality in the
United States has improved dramatically since 1970. You know,
our GDP has gone up 262 percent, vehicle miles are up over 189
percent, population is up 59 percent, energy consumption is up
44 percent. Yet emissions are down 73 percent and asthma rates
have skyrocketed.
Ms. Arroyo. Well, I mean, one thing I can say, based on my
own experience as a regulator, as an environmental regulator in
Louisiana, is that, you know, you can look at a mean, like air
pollution, nationally or even statewide, and that doesn't
necessarily speak to the people who might be the most impacted.
And those again, as I said earlier to Mr. Allred's
question, tend to be people who are disproportionately, you
know, poor, communities of color, living in places like near
ports, near highways, hot spots like in my own home State of
Louisiana, around very major industrial facilities----
Mr. Palmer. I am glad you----
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. That benefit everybody, but only a
minority of people live near them.
Mr. Palmer. I am glad you brought up the fact that most of
them--it generally impacts poor people. First of all, nobody
knows what causes asthma, so that was--I appreciate you--your
response to that. But when you do damage to the economy, you
generally have more poor people. And I would just point out
that whatever we do in regard to infrastructure, we need to
make sure that it benefits all Americans.
And on the electric vehicles, you made the point that we
are--you almost made the point that we are dependent on foreign
oil and--for our energy. We are not. We are on the path to
becoming energy independent. I think electric vehicles have a
role to play in that, but I am not sure that we are in a place
where the market supports that, given that we put over $40
billion in subsidies into the electric vehicle industry.
One of my colleagues said he bought an electric vehicle. I
think the subsidies that are available to people who buy
vehicles, some are approaching $7,500. When you add the State
subsidies, it could be $13,000. And almost 80 percent of the
people who get them are earning over $100,000, so it is kind of
a limited market, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Prochazka. I think that we are on the verge of seeing
the market be available to all consumers. And I think that, at
this point, you know, the fact that we sent $133 billion abroad
to pay for oil in 2018 alone----
Mr. Palmer. Well, we are about----
Mr. Prochazka [continuing]. Suggests that we still have a
challenge.
Mr. Palmer. I can assure you that those days are becoming
fewer, when we will be sending money abroad. We will be sending
oil abroad, and the money be coming back to us.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Davids for 5
minutes.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sharice
Davids. I represent the Kansas Third Congressional District.
And I appreciate all of you and your time and effort that went
into your testimony.
So one of the things that really struck me in listening to
the entire panel is that we have a really interesting
juxtaposition of things here. The airline industry, or, you
know, the idea that it happens to be that your--the market
pushes you toward efficiency in a way that benefits our
concerns and addresses our concerns about climate change. And a
lot of us have concerns about climate change in Kansas.
In the Kansas City metro area we have the Kansas City
Climate Change Coalition that includes elected officials,
people from various sectors. And even the Kansas City
Transportation Authority has started to--they are looking to,
hopefully, acquire electric buses. They are operating on
hybrids right now.
I think there are a lot of folks, especially in my area,
where we have multimodal, a lot of multimodal concerns. There
is a lot of rail in the Kansas City metro area. There is a lot
of air. There is a lot of highway. We have five highways that
intersect.
But one of the things that I have noticed is--Professor
Lyon, I would love to hear you kind of talk about the idea of
the market deciding--sometimes the market does decide. But at
what point do you draw the line around innovation? Because at
some point the Federal Government did decide that passenger
vehicles, rail, and car were going to be the thing that we
would use. And now, everything that I have heard addresses
alternatives to the thing that we decided some number of years
ago.
It seems as though we are at a place right now where we
need to be thinking in terms of not just the market, dollar-
wise, but also what does climate change do to the market.
How are you thinking about innovation, but not just in
terms of electric vehicles, innovation of the way that we are
viewing the market?
Mr. Lyon. Well, let me try to speak to that. Environmental
economists normally think there are two big things we need to
do regarding climate change.
One is put a price on carbon, and two is fund, with
Government funds, early-stage innovation for research and
development into technologies that will help reduce carbon
emissions. So those are kind of the two big categories, and I
think it is pretty widely recognized that Government needs to
help with that early-stage R&D investment. And that has driven
spin-offs into all kinds of different sectors. I mean the tax
sector, for one.
I think the question is where do you stop that and hand
things off to the market to actually do the deployment. And my
worry is that Government sometimes goes too far into the actual
deployment process. So we want to have this kind of smooth,
intelligent hand-off from one to the other.
I don't know if that addresses your question exactly.
Ms. Davids. I think I might follow up with a written
question for you around that.
Mr. Lyon. Sure, sure.
Ms. Davids. So, Mr. Prochazka, can you talk a little bit
more about the innovations around the way we are deploying
electric vehicles--like, the charging stations and that sort of
thing?
And you have talked a little bit already about the impact
that subsidies can have. But can you talk a little bit about
where the subsidies in other places might be hindering your
ability to do this, or the way that we are viewing who is
getting what subsidies? Because I feel like you have touched on
it a little bit, but I would like to hear a bit more.
Mr. Prochazka. Well, first, let me just mention thank you
for the question. I have been to the great city of Kansas City,
and KCP&L----
Ms. Davids. Oh, a smart city.
Mr. Prochazka. Yes, a smart city. But in this case, Kansas
City Power and Light is a great example of the idea of how you
can connect innovation with changes in infrastructure. And in a
lot of ways, Kansas City is helping build the 21st-century
solution to how city infrastructure--and then I think long-term
infrastructure--needs to develop around the country.
And a great example of that is charging infrastructure, we
just think of it as a place to charge our cars, but it also can
be a great way to help the grid actually respond to demand and
pique demand. And so they are installing smart chargers, and
also connecting it to information so when people charge you can
actually connect the information around that community.
Ms. Davids. Thank you for that. And I am glad--because I
was going to have to do it--that you mentioned KCP&L and their
work toward providing electric vehicle chargers.
With that I will yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Stauber for
5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
witnesses coming forward, and I appreciate your expertise and
your knowledge.
I come from northern Minnesota, the northeastern part of
Minnesota, where just a few weeks ago it was 71 below zero. And
Dr. Sperling, when you talk about using scooters to get to and
from work, at 71 below parked outside, it is not going to work
in northern Minnesota. And so, I think that we all, I think,
want to get there.
Mr. Lyon, you just said something that I really agree with.
It is that change--it is that gentle tradeoff with the
innovation, research, and development, where the private market
will take over. Because right now we are subsidizing a vast
majority of our technology to get to zero emissions.
And I think we have to recognize that there are different
parts of the country that, because of the weather changes, that
we have to look at. And I am just going to give you an example.
In Duluth, Minnesota, it is obviously cold a lot of times
of the year. And I will say it is a great part of the country,
by the way. So we have the Duluth Transit Authority. They
started their electric buses. There was a $6.3 million Federal
grant. They started using those buses on November 19th of this
year. And on November 30th they had to pull those buses off
because of the problems on--the hills they were starting out,
they were going beyond the 6 inches in backing when they
started on a hill. The heaters weren't working.
And so the--there was--the innovation started, the
temperatures, it didn't work right away in Duluth. They had to
actually go to diesel heaters in there. And I think that--so
you are looking at a Federal grant that--the buses, I am told,
now are working with the additional fixes.
But I really appreciate you talking about that public-
private partnership to push the innovation. But at some point I
think that we need to let the market, the private industry,
take over and reduce the subsidies and move that forward. I am
very, you know, concerned about the push on the Federal
Government to move forward.
I would say that my question, really, is this. You know, we
have the Highway Trust Fund and the Airway Trust Fund. If we
remove--you know, go to these innovative green projects, how
would--how do you make up--how do we make up the $35.6 billion
shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund and the cut to the public
transportation, and almost $100 million cut to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund with this new technology?
And this goes to anybody, if you would like to answer it.
Mr. Sperling. There are many ways to raise funding for
these kinds of initiatives. So, you know, to use California as
an example, we have not only the cap and trade program, which
funds probably $1 billion a year in clean transportation, but
it is used also for affordable housing near transit stations
and greening of communities to reduce emissions, as well.
We have a low-carbon fuel standard, so--I should say there
is no taxpayer money involved in that. There is, of course,
money--you know, eventually comes from individuals. But then we
have a low-carbon fuel standard that is a market trading
program between the oil companies and other energy suppliers.
And that ends up providing large incentives. Part of that will
be providing probably about $2,000 to buyers of electric cars.
It provides funding to builders of charging stations and
hydrogen stations.
So I am just illustrating that everything doesn't have to
come from the trust fund.
Mr. Stauber. OK----
Ms. Arroyo. I would just add that I participated in the
future of the Interstate Highway System report that was
requested by Congress. And obviously, the trust fund has
already been in dire straits for some time, and part because
the gas tax revenues haven't been raised because the gas tax
itself hasn't been revisited in so long, and with efficiency
improvements, et cetera.
So some States, like Oregon and some of the States on the
I-95 corridor, are experimenting with VMT approaches. Some
States are adding registration fees to lower carbon fuel
vehicles like electric vehicles.
The future of the Interstate Highway System report said
that we might consider changes to the Federal system, as well,
in terms of allowing tolling, which, of course, they are doing
already on the I-66 portion inside the beltway. And, you know,
carbon pricing mechanisms like those that are being considered
by the States in this region can also provide money for
investment and clean and resilient transportation
infrastructure.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Finkenauer
for 5 minutes. Your mic is not on.
Ms. Finkenauer. Is that better? Thank you all so much for
being here today. It truly is an honor. And I am just very
grateful that Congress is taking climate change seriously, and
the impact of severe weather to our infrastructure seriously.
I do really think we have a real opportunity here to
rebuild our infrastructure in a way that is more resilient to
severe weather, less harmful for our environment, and includes
solutions that actually reduce greenhouse gases.
And I got to be honest, I am very, very proud to come from
northeast Iowa, and Iowa's First Congressional District,
because so many of my towns and cities are taking this
seriously, and want to move in this direction, and have been
making some very serious progress towards improving the
efficiency of our transportation networks.
Waterloo is one city in my district that has done great
work, you know, recently launching a mobile app, trying to make
transit more accessible, and a more viable option for folks.
You have got Dubuque, where I am from, that has been
partnering with IBM, really making great strides, both
collecting data through smart phones, where folks can opt in
and make sure that we have the most up-to-date data of where we
need some help in our transit system, making streets more
accessible, what is in need of repair, a bunch of different
issues. So excited to see that partnership developing.
And I will tell you, because of these partnerships and some
of the stuff that my district is working towards, it has
created a very interesting conversation in Iowa, one, about
making sure that we are doing more using technology. And when
we are investing infrastructure, making sure we are doing it in
a sustainable way.
So I would love to hear from this panel on intelligent
transportation systems. And specifically, how can we use new
technologies to reduce congestion, and therefore reduce
greenhouse gas emissions? What are you guys seeing on the State
and local level? What programs are worth expanding? And then
what can be scaled up on the Federal level, so that we can make
sure every community can benefit?
Mr. Sperling. Let me start. I have such a long list. But,
you know, one thing is, like, for instance, we have in our
transportation bill in California that sets aside money for a
congested corridor program, green congested corridor program,
that is a competitive program that provides funding for local
communities that come up with innovative and creative ideas. So
there might be something like that that could be scaled up.
I want to note also that, at the end of the day, we have
seen a tremendous increase in vehicle miles traveled, and a big
part of that is because people are traveling by themselves. I
saw a number: 1970, for a car, the average occupancy was 1.9,
and now it is 1.4. That, by itself, explains much of the
increase in VMT.
Now, the role of these intelligent transportation systems,
smart transportation, pooling, is--the idea is that--I think
is--really, the key to it is what I call pooling. And that is
increasing the utilization of our vehicles.
You know, if we build more infrastructure, they will come.
And so, we want to provide it in a way that we do make
efficient use of the infrastructure so we don't need more of
it. In fact, you know, we will need less parking. And as we
move--so one of the ideas is to encourage services like Uber
Pool or Lyft Share or Via, and also in connecting them with
transit, so that transit does what it does well, where it
serves line haul, dense corridors, but we create these services
that will provide better mobility and better accessibility,
even for relatively low-density areas.
We have the tools now. We didn't have them 5 or 10 years
ago. And we are doing a project in the Central Valley in
California, which is very rural, where we create these--they
start out as car sharing, but people can take the cars and use
them to transport other people, and it creates jobs and it
improves accessibility for all those people that don't have
easy access to high-quality vehicles.
Ms. Finkenauer. OK, thank you so much.
And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Well, now I move to Mr. Balderson for
5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like
to--my questions be directed to Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for
taking the time to be here today.
And I know that you have mentioned in your testimony the
Electrification Coalition has served as a strategic advisor to
Smart Cities Columbus and--thank you very much for your work on
that, and you and I are going to discuss that even further. But
I am proud of the innovation work that is being done in
Columbus, and also in my district.
While Smart Columbus specifically focuses on addressing
transportation challenges in an urban environment, how can
rural areas learn from such initiatives, so they could address
their own distinct transportation challenges and needs?
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And, you know,
if anyone is looking for an example of how a community can go
from zero to now being a leader, Columbus is probably one of
the best examples. So I would encourage anyone looking at
strategies and techniques to drive adoption of plug-in electric
vehicles, Columbus is a great example.
To answer your question, I think, you know, there are key
examples of programs that are developing in cities and, I
think, rural communities that are great opportunities to drive
innovation. One of the key ones that I think is a good
opportunity is the idea of joint purchasing. So cities are
actually banding together, recognizing that maybe in smaller
communities they don't have access to the number of vehicles or
the pricing that might exist for larger cities.
And so, by joining together--and that is actually happening
in Columbus, where they created a master contract so that any
city throughout the State can actually purchase the same EV
that Columbus can purchase. Those are great examples of
innovations that are reducing costs and creating better access
for communities all across the State.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. That leads me into the next
question, and you touched on it just a little bit.
Under the leadership of the Columbus partnership, the Smart
Columbus Acceleration Fund has already leveraged over $500
million in private-sector investment, which is a big number.
American Electric Power, which is headquartered in Columbus,
local car dealerships, and other businesses have worked with
the city of Columbus to encourage Smart Columbus and promote
the development of electric vehicles within the city.
How can we use Columbus as an example throughout the Nation
to encourage the involvement of private-sector businesses to
help new technology into our infrastructure?
Mr. Prochazka. And again, thank you for the question. So
you know, in Columbus they have a saying that I had to learn,
but ``the Columbus way.'' And I think that, in a lot of ways,
they have just electrified the Columbus way. But the idea is
that you really can have these burgeoning public-private
partnerships that can go much further than cities can do on
their own, or than the private sector can do on their own.
And it is this idea of leveraging the investments and the
innovation and, frankly, the ingenuity. So they created, as an
example, something called the Mobility Partners, where over 60
businesses that are representing Fortune 100, Fortune 500
companies that exist in Columbus--which many people don't
know--and those are banding together and creating amazing
programs. They have been able to put 7,000 people behind the
wheel through that partnership. They have been working on
creating innovation funds that can happen through, as you
mentioned, AEP and others to help drive acquisition of vehicles
faster and to help create programs that are moving the needle.
And then I think the other part of this is that they are
also not recreating the wheel on every example. And so, by
working together, they are finding the strategies that might
work at Alliance Data and then bringing that over to Cargill
Health, and then replicating that at L Brands. And those are
perfect examples of the kind of innovation that could happen
across the country.
Mr. Balderson. I commend you. Thank you very much.
I yield back the remainder of my time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Lowenthal
for 5 minutes.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to all our
witnesses, I have listened the entire session and have found it
very, very interesting.
You know, I also represent an area that is impacted by
climate change very much, southern California--sea level rise.
But I am also--what is unique about my district is that I
represent the port area of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which
over 20 years ago was part of the dirtiest collection of
industrial concentration. Forty percent of our Nation's goods
come in and out of the port area in my district.
But there have been dramatic changes. And part of that
has--and I am going to ask both Ms. Arroyo and also Dr.
Sperling--has to do with some of the incentives and some of the
money that has been provided for freight.
So I want to focus on freight. Much of our discussion today
has been--although it has been mentioned--has been on, really,
you know, passenger vehicles and others. But I think that much
of what we have done in California, I am wondering how that
translates to the rest of the Nation.
I think, Ms. Arroyo, you mentioned in your testimony--I
think the written testimony--about how the cap and trade
program has helped a lot. I know Dr. Sperling has worked very
much on that through CARB, also.
But first, and--I am interested in, you know, how--we have
attacked in California, or we have targeted our State's freight
sector in a way that we have done--moved towards zero emission,
yard equipment, and heavy-duty trucks that--moving toward zero
emission and charging outlets, and now talking about tier 3
container ships. And so we are kind of moving in that direction
in California.
Interesting, now, that as Dr. Sperling has mentioned, I
still--I have circled in his--but emissions are--no matter
what--even though what we are doing--emissions are still
rising. And even though I have heard all this reduction from
other Members, that one sentence has frightened me the most,
that all this amount of resources that we are doing--I am just
kind of wondering from you, even though this is not the
critical question--when are we going to reach a tipping point,
where those emissions start to drop?
You know, is it that we need new kinds of--you mentioned
about, you know, sharing and automation and also
electrification. But the question I want from Ms. Arroyo is
that--how are we going to build upon what you mentioned? Let's
say things like the funding cycles, like cap and trade and
others, cost of carbon. What do we need to do to move the rest
of the Nation towards adopting this?
You know, California has paid--and I am not saying it is
just California--has paid a lot of attention towards reducing.
But what is the rest of--what do we need to do? What are the
major things for freight? Is it the same as passenger vehicles?
What are the incentives that we really need to do?
Ms. Arroyo. So there are a lot of different approaches to
freight, including trying to shift from the roads to rail, as
the----
Dr. Lowenthal. That is right.
Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. Gentleman on this side of the
aisle mentioned earlier. And also short sea shipping, which is
hard to say fast, but I said it slowly----
Dr. Lowenthal. And the ports are moving towards rail.
Ms. Arroyo. Right.
Dr. Lowenthal. Much more of the--much more because, as was
pointed out, we are not going to build more--through urban
centers we are not building more highways. And our growth
continues, even though they have demonstrated that they can
reduce the pollution. But the growth is still there. And I
think rail has been certainly one of the answers.
Ms. Arroyo. But I think there is definitely a role for a
committee like this one. Because what we found in facilitating
the Transportation and Climate Initiative over 8 years now or
more has been that there is a great interest in the States in
this region, which runs from Virginia now all the way up to
Maine, in working together to analyze what the freight flows
into and around the region are and to try to move it to more
efficient options, which would actually save our roads for
passenger vehicles, get it into rail or shipping, et cetera,
look at the emissions benefits that come from that. And there
really, frankly, has not been a lot of support for that, so
that work has not been as sustainable as other work that we
have done together. For example, on electric vehicles, where
there have been DoD and DOE grants to support corridor planning
and things like that.
So one of the things that this group as a region is looking
at is a policy proposal that would be under development this
year to have a cap and invest program that would generate
proceeds that could be invested in cleaner and more resilient
transportation infrastructure. And that is to be determined by
the States themselves over the course of the year.
Dr. Lowenthal. I know I am just about out of time. But Dr.
Sperling, any other thoughts about----
Mr. Sperling. Just quickly, you know, you need to think of
it both on the technology side and on the logistics use side.
And I think we are making some progress on the technology side.
On the logistics side, that is why we are seeing the emissions
going up on the passenger side as well as on the freight side.
And part of the challenge is that States do not have much
jurisdiction over the rail. Rail is great but, you know, part
of it is dealing with that issue because of the interstate
commerce. And aviation, the same thing. So we need a renewed
focus.
But it is the States and locals that really need to focus
on this, what is happening at the local area. And frankly, with
the--I call it the Amazon-izaton of delivery, we are seeing
this proliferation of warehouses all through our communities
now. And it is resulting in a lot more truck--local truck VMT,
which is--and L.A. is right at the forefront of that.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Westerman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here. I just want to say I appreciate the
testimonies today and the questions. I think it has been very
informative. I want to recap a couple of things.
First, high-speed rail, I have looked at that project in
Texas and I think if there is any place that high-speed rail
would work in our country, it is probably from Dallas to
Houston. So I hope that the private sector will move forward
with building that and that we in Congress can help that along,
as well.
But I wanted to, and also, when we talk about modes of
transportation that are fuel efficient, we talked a lot about
rail but we forget oftentimes about our inland waterways and
barges that are the most energy efficient means of moving goods
that we have. So I hope we keep that in mind as we look at ways
of creating more sustainable transportation.
But as we look at kind of the global numbers and where we
fit and where U.S. transportation fits in that, the best data I
could find says that the U.S. accounts for about 15 percent of
global greenhouse gas emissions. And, Ms. Young, in your
testimony, you had a chart in there that shows that the U.S.
transportation sector is about 28\1/2\ percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. So that means that, you know, 28\1/2\
percent of 15 percent, means that the U.S. transportation GHG
emissions are about 4.3 percent.
So as we look at ways to trim that, we also have to
remember that there is a whole other world out there creating
greenhouse gas emissions. And that is why I think we need to
look at all the different energy sectors as we talk about this.
But we can definitely make some impact on U.S. transportation.
Ms. Young, you in your written testimony, you talked a lot
about sustainable alternative jet fuels. And I think when we
talk about sustainable fuels, we often think that any liquid
fuels are not sustainable. But we know that these sustainable
alternative jet fuels are made from biomass. And I was just
looking at some other data.
In 2015 in California, with all the controls put in place,
they were able to offset 1.49 million metric tons of greenhouse
gas emissions. Yet the wildfires in California generated 22.8
million metric tons of carbon, which is 15 times more carbon
was emitted in those wildfires than what the State of
California was able to reduce.
So as we think about liquid fuels and the vast forest
resources that we have here, can you elaborate a little bit
more about where we are on alternative liquid fuels?
Ms. Young. Yeah, really, thank you for the question. We are
very proud of what we have done through the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative to really create the path forward
for sustainable alternative jet fuel. And so, you know,
beginning in 2006, we started that process. And what we did is
we drove the jet fuel specification, which used to only allow
petroleum-based fuel, to allow for alternative feedstocks, that
also have carbon content, frankly.
So an example, really picking up on your thoughts there, we
can take woody waste, so we are not knocking down trees to do
this but after a fire or, in the Pacific Northwest where they
have, you know, specified amounts of logging, you are able to
take out the waste product from that and turn it into jet fuel.
In fact, there are two of our members are working with Red Rock
Biofuels in Oregon on exactly that type of an approach.
We have United Airlines working with waste residues from
cropping. So again, not the food but with AltAir Fuels in
California to create sustainable alternative jet fuel.
Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to move along. I have
actually got another question I want to submit to you on
NextGen, performance-based navigation but I will give that to
you in writing if you can reply back to the committee.
Last week in my district, I drove a Tesla. It was an
amazing piece of equipment. Being an engineer, I had great
appreciation for it. But I know that Tesla requires electricity
to operate. And electrical generation and industry make up
about 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in our
country.
So Dr. Sperling, real quickly, how important is it to
develop nuclear, hydro, all the other renewable energies if we
move into more of an electric situation?
Mr. Sperling. This is speaking for myself but, certainly, I
believe nuclear is part of it, is part of the solution. Hydro,
we have developed most of the big hydro, so probably limited
options there. But nuclear, for sure. And wind and solar are
the other major ways of reducing emissions in the electricity
sector.
Mr. Westerman. Not out of questions but out of time, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Titus. OK. We need to worry about nuclear waste if we
go down that path.
I will now recognize Ms. Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I suppose actually this
question is for whoever wants it, perhaps Ms. Arroyo or perhaps
others of you, as well.
The Nation's capital, where we are as I speak, sits on the
banks of two rivers, the Potomac River and the Anacostia River.
It is interesting that the framers built this Capitol on a
hill. Maybe they had some understanding of what might be coming
a couple of hundred years later.
We have already had to build a levee, the 17th Street
levee, because among the low points, perhaps the lowest point
is downtown Washington, where the Federal Triangle is. And you
will see buildings or agencies there, such as the Justice
Department and the IRS--people don't like to see the IRS coming
but they certainly don't want it flooded because we are just
going to have to pay for it.
About 10 years ago, there was a serious flood here.
Constitution Avenue was under water. I recall distinctly that
the National Archives, where some of our most precious
documents are housed, was under water. They then had used a
self-rising wall for downtown Washington.
So this thing is coming so fast, I am interested in the use
of nonpolluting vehicles. I drive a hybrid. I am very
interested to get to the point where I drive an electric car.
But some of them have, for example, we are having in this city,
the District of Columbia, we will use the notion of a rebate,
where you pay more based on the emissions generated by the
automobile that you have and you get a rebate if you do not
have as many emissions.
So I would like to know how effective--because these things
are beginning to catch on, not only here but around the
country. How effective are these rebates or fines, virtually,
in encouraging the use of low-emission vehicles? Is it going to
be sufficient to have an effect as climate change comes upon
places like the Nation's capital so quickly? Are we running out
of time or do these really make a difference, particularly when
some of these cars cost more than cars that pollute, use gas
that pollute?
Ms. Arroyo. So, thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed our center
at Georgetown, where you also teach, I know, works with Tommy
Wells and his staff here on resilience, the impacts of climate
change the District is already seeing, including in ward 7,
which is already experiencing flooding from rain events.
But as Tommy Wells believes, I believe in electric vehicles
as part of the solution. I drive a Bolt. It has been terrific.
It is my first American car that I have ever bought and it was
more expensive than cars that I bought in the past. So I do
think it is a case where a rebate makes a difference in the
upfront cost of it even though, over the course of a lifetime,
that cost, you know, is actually less than a gasoline vehicle.
And DC actually gets a shout out in my testimony, in the
longer version of it, because you do have what is known as a
feebate kind of a program in practice, where people who buy and
drive gas guzzlers subsidize the purchase of those more
efficient vehicles. And that could be a model for the country,
I think.
Mr. Sperling. And I would like to just add to it because
this is one of my favorite policies, this idea of feebates.
Because it is--you can make it revenue neutral so there is no
burden on taxpayers at all. It is simply a trade from people
that are buying the gas guzzlers. And, in fact, we have a gas
guzzler and it has been in place since 1975 but it is only on
cars and it is only for the most inefficient cars. So this is
not a new idea, at least on the fee side of it.
So I think this is an outstanding way of using market
forces to accomplish an environmental goal.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Lynch for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to,
as well, thank the witnesses who have been terrific with their
testimony and I appreciate you helping the committee with its
work this morning.
Recently, in the latest worldwide threat assessment of the
U.S. intelligence community issued by Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats, he said that climate change poses a
serious global threat that could further spark international
political instability, adverse health conditions and
humanitarian crises. Meanwhile, President Trump says he is not
a believer and, what is more, he has established an ad hoc
committee to reassess the fact of climate change and the
science around it. And in doing so, he has appointed some
scientists who, like himself, do not believe in climate change.
And so I want to ask you, considering our efforts here, is
that helpful? Does anybody on this panel think that that is
helpful? OK, I didn't think so.
I, on the other hand, I hate to be a self-promoter, but I
have a bill. I chair--another hat I wear is the chair of the
National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight
and Reform and I have got a bill that actually would
reinstitute the preexisting initiative which basically asks all
of our branches of Government, all of our departments just to
look at their own operations and see how we might build
resilience and help to prepare for whatever is coming down the
pike at us in terms of climate change.
I have a special bone to pick, though, Ms. Young. So I am
also on the Subcommittee on Aviation here and I mean this as a
friendly exchange. But we talk about RNAV NextGen, this
aviation system that is very, very good at conserving jet fuel,
because you have got hundreds of thousands, millions of flights
that come in over the course of a year across our country and
everybody is on this tractor beam, it is really precise, it's
laser-like, so that tens or hundreds of thousands of flights
per year go over the same home, go over the same child's
school.
So while there is a--it is sort of counterintuitive. I know
we are trying to save jet fuel. But I worry about--I have one
of those districts, I am in a coastal community, I represent
the area surrounding or near Logan Airport in Boston. And so I
have some towns where it is relentless that this focus, this
laser beam has flights coming in. I could stand, I could look
out my window, I can tell--I am so close to the airport that I
can tell whether people have their tray in the upright position
going by, of the plane going by, I swear. So I have two hearing
aids, it is over for me.
But the towns I represent, I worry about their health. The
emissions coming from those planes, and the noise is driving
them nuts. And so these are over schools, these are over small
towns. And is there some way, look, now, I understand you want
to save jet fuel. And so I am only talking about the end
approach of their flight. I am not talking about, you know,
redirecting so there is a huge waste of jet fuel. I am just
talking about when they get in X number of miles, 8 or 10 miles
of the airport and they start to decrease in altitude, could
we, could we change the approaches so that same house in
Milton, Massachusetts, is not getting, you know, 10,000 flights
a month? Or the Cunningham School in Milton, Massachusetts,
those kids are not getting that plane flying over their school
every single day?
You know, I have a bill that we are hopeful will succeed in
terms of having the Academy of Sciences look at the impacts of
that. I would really like to have, you know, somebody on the
human side, if you will, maybe the Harvard School of Public
Health, look at the environment that we are putting my
constituents in. You know, these small towns, these
neighborhoods of Dorchester and South Boston and Milton and
Hull that are sort of on the vector, you would say. Is there
any--are we looking at this at all?
Ms. Young. Absolutely, Congressman. So first, you know,
anybody who experiences aircraft noise, you know, we appreciate
that that is not something that they would like to have. But we
also have to keep this in context. I mean, the U.S. airlines
reduced the number of people exposed to significant levels of
aircraft noise by 94 percent----
Mr. Lynch. Because you put them all over one house.
Ms. Young. We did that by more than quadrupling
enplanements. And you are correct, some of the performance-
based procedures under the NextGen program do concentrate or
shift the noise. And so people who either did not experience it
before are experiencing it or, as you suggest, it does focus it
in more precise flight paths.
So there are various ways those things are being addressed.
One, we continue our relentless effort to reduce noise overall
at the aircraft source, through our own efforts, through
working with the manufacturers and programs like CLEEN. But
second, as you roll out these new procedures or you revise the
procedures, in 2014 and 2016, the NextGen Advisory Committee
recommended very specifically to FAA to enhance its community
engagement processes to consider exactly the issues that you
are talking about. And they have embraced those, maybe not at
the time 5 years ago, 7 years ago, but they are undertaking
that approach to take into account community involvement and
roundtables, including----
Mr. Lynch. OK, you ate up all my time. We are actually over
here. Let me just say, Madam Chair, thank you for your
indulgence, I really appreciate that.
Look, it is a coastal community. You can fly over the
water. We can solve this thing. Fly over the water rather than
over the houses. It is really simple, but I need your
cooperation on that. So maybe we can talk later offline.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time that I
don't have and I appreciate your indulgence.
Ms. Titus. You have no time. Starting to sound like a
``Saturday Night Live'' skit. I can see the plane tables from
my back porch, something like that.
We will now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Mr. Lynch, I
agree with you. My constituency also has complained bitterly
over that NextGen situation.
Have any of you considered the education of the public on
all of the things that you talk about?
Mr. Sperling. That is our job as professors.
Mrs. Napolitano. But what means do you use to get the
public to know about pollution, about the climate change, about
everything you talk about?
Mr. Sperling. That is one of the key strategies going
forward, is for us to understand, you know, what are the
impacts and implications and what we, as individuals and as
consumers and as taxpayers, can do about that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Ms. Arroyo. So our center, as I mentioned earlier,
facilitates something called the Transportation and Climate
Initiative and, last year, the States in this region worked
together on a bipartisan basis to hold 6 listening sessions
that engaged 500 members of the public----
Mrs. Napolitano. I know but that is members, that is people
that are working on it. But you don't disseminate to the
general public. They need to hear from you.
Ms. Arroyo. Right. And that is a great point, and we did
really try to reach out to diverse constituencies. And we got a
lot of really unusual bedfellows in the room. But I know it is
just a start.
The other way that we try to have information is up on the
website that has the State----
Mrs. Napolitano. Who knows what the website is?
Ms. Arroyo. Right. So, I mean, we try to make our resources
available broadly and for free.
Mrs. Napolitano. We need to get more of that out. Anything
else? Anybody else?
Ms. Young. I would like to add, I mean, our airlines, the
types of measures I talked about in my written and oral
testimony, our member airlines share that information in the
magazines that they offer on the plane----
Mrs. Napolitano. But it is on the plane. Only the
passengers see it. What about general public?
Ms. Young. Well, we meet very frequently with communities
and talk about this array of initiatives.
Mr. Prochazka. I will just add that we continue to release
reports to document all the different challenges that might
exist with our transportation sector and then we use those as
mechanisms to communicate with the public. And so those get
sent out broadly. We communicate with mass media. We actually
work in communities in your district to help make sure that
those kinds of resources get folded out, they do get out to
communities.
Mrs. Napolitano. I think we need to do a lot more of that.
I am sorry to cut you off. But this goes on.
What about the gas tax? Do you think we need to increase
the gas tax? Question. Yes or no?
Mr. Sperling. We need more funding for transportation.
Ms. Arroyo. I do. And many States have actually increased
the gas tax.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, yes. But I mean Federal. We have not
had an increase in decades.
Ms. Arroyo. Yes, yes. I think it is overdue. I think it is
overdue. And I think there are other ways that you can increase
revenues to invest in cleaner and more resilient transportation
as well.
Mr. Lyon. I think you need to either increase the gas tax
or institute a VMT, vehicle miles traveled tax.
Mrs. Napolitano. True.
Mr. Prochazka. I think we need a comprehensive effort to
figure out how we are going to fund the future of
transportation. And we would love to work with you and the
committee to help figure out the right path.
Ms. Young. Well, I was not really going to speak about the
gas tax because we use jet fuel. So we are a very heavily taxed
sector and, as you heard in my testimony, we were already very
motivated by the fact that fuel is number-one or number-two
cost in any given year to do, you know, reduce emissions and
fuel burn.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Arroyo, our water
managers--this is another topic--are seeing firsthand the
effects of prolonged drought, less snowpack, more flooding,
extreme rain events on our communities and on our
infrastructure system. They do not have time to debate climate
change and they are dealing with it now. Why is it important to
build resiliency?
Ms. Arroyo. Well, because, as you said, people are already
experiencing these impacts, whether they are facing drought and
fires in the West or flooding in my home State where
Congressman Graves has been a leader on trying to build
resilience. And one of the things that we do aim to do is to
provide tools to translate the science to those policymakers
and communities that are on their front lines and figure out
how they can build or rebuild differently with the fact that
the future is going to look different from the past in mind.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Sperling. I would just note that, as we discussed
earlier, mitigation is a lot cheaper than adaptation. We need
to do both because, as Ms. Arroyo said, it is happening. But at
the same time, we need to be putting a lot more effort on the
mitigation. In the long run, it will be much cheaper.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, in the metropolitan area where I
come from in Los Angeles, we do not have a good transportation
system. But because they passed, as you know, transportation
bonds, it is still not enough to handle the mass transit that
is necessary. Also, people cannot afford to go on trains, so
they use the gas guzzlers. We need to change that.
Mr. Sperling. I will just very quickly plug the idea, one
of the major themes I have been trying to articulate is that we
do have the tools and the business models and the technologies
to solve much of that, to provide better access to lower
income, disadvantaged communities, to increase pooling
services. Because now there is information available. We can
pool trips, we can provide first/last mile access, we can use
these micro--you know, vans that run like Lyft and Uber. There
are a lot of tools that we did not have 5 or 10 years ago.
Mrs. Napolitano. I know. But the unfortunate part is that--
well, I will submit it to you.
Ms. Titus. Perhaps you could send that to us in writing if
we have that information.
We will now go to Mr. Smucker for 5 minutes. And we
apologize that we didn't see you earlier, so maybe you could
take a few--a little extra time.
Mr. Smucker. Oh, wonderful. I will take that any day. So
thank you. So shuttling between this and a markup. But thank
you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Prochazka, I am particularly interested in the work
that your organization is doing, that you are doing. And I
think your goal of less reliance on foreign oil has been shared
widely with folks over the last few decades. And I think you
will agree with me, we have made tremendous progress in that
regard, where we are talking today about being a net exporter
of energy. And that would have been unheard of that we would be
making those kinds of projections just 20 or 30 years ago.
And I think one of the reasons for that is we have new
technologies that have been--we have been able to tap into
shale fields and others and extract natural resources, but
specifically natural gas, but oil as well from the ground. In
Pennsylvania, I represent Pennsylvania, we have the Marcellus
shale, which is one of the largest fields in the world, really.
And so I think that has been tremendously beneficial. Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Prochazka. You know, yes. We have had great steps
forward in terms of the ability to domestically produce.
Mr. Smucker. And I think you were asked this question
before and I may have missed some of it. But I was in the State
Legislature of Pennsylvania when we were working on ensuring
that that industry could develop and there was, you know, talk
and push for natural gas vehicles. And it really came down to
one of the same problems we have with electrical, which is
fueling stations along the way.
Do you see natural gas vehicles as part of the solution
here? Or are you focused entirely on electric vehicles?
Mr. Prochazka. My sister organization, Securing America's
Future Energy, really focuses on sort of the full space of
alternative fuel options. And so they have come up with a
publication called the National Strategy for Transportation
that talks a lot about what that full scope ought to look like.
I do think there is a difference around the idea of
electric vehicles and, you know, sort of the transition.
Electricity is already ubiquitous. We already have the system
in place and it is just about tapping into it throughout the
places that we drive. And I think that is already showing to be
very easy to do at this point and we just need more stations to
provide more charging and then we will have more vehicles that
will use them along the way.
[Mr. Prochazka has submitted the following post-hearing
supplement to his testimony:]
As I mentioned, the Electrification Coalition's sister
organization, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), published a
report in 2016 titled ``A National Strategy for Energy Security: The
Innovation Revolution.'' This document provides a strategic blueprint
for enhancing our energy security through a series of actionable policy
recommendations across four areas:
Increasing fuel diversity in transportation;
Advancing the next generation of transportation
technology;
Bolstering American oil production; and
Combating oil market manipulation.
Strengthening our economic and national security requires a
multifaceted approach to diversifying the fuels used in our
transportation sector--including natural gas and electricity--and
leveraging opportunities for domestic energy production. For your
interest, I have included with this letter a digital copy of the
report. [The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
http://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SAFE-National-
Strategy-for-Energy-Security-2016.pdf.]
Mr. Smucker. You mentioned in your report cost parity and I
just want to hear you talk just a little bit more about it. You
think we have reached the point where the cost of buying and
maintaining an electric vehicle over its lifetime is now the
same as a petroleum or gas vehicle?
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And, no,
actually I think we have reached the point in large part,
depending on the vehicle, but where driving an electric vehicle
and taking into account the total cost of operation is cheaper.
Mr. Smucker. OK.
Mr. Prochazka. And so it is part of the reason that right
now it makes sense to create incentives so that, as the
technology is becoming more----
Mr. Smucker. I am going to stop you because I want to get
to another question.
Mr. Prochazka. Please, go ahead.
Mr. Smucker. So wouldn't this be the time to start pulling
back some of the Government incentives? You know, I understand
the need for incentives. I was involved with the solar industry
to some degree, policy with the solar industry. I understand,
you know, you have to have a driver that begins to drive down
the costs. And in electric vehicles, of course, it is the
battery cost and efficiency.
But, you know, we are very close to that tipping point. I
think most of the major manufacturers are--they have even set
timelines for when their vehicles are going to be entirely
electric. So isn't this the time to begin to pull back the
subsidies? And wouldn't it be particularly harmful to add an
additional layer of Government regulation at this point?
Mr. Prochazka. So, and I can see others want to respond, so
I will very quickly say, no, it is quite the opposite. We are
actually right at the verge where we need to be, if anything,
pushing faster and pushing harder.
Mr. Smucker. So at some point, there will be a tipping
point where you will not need the Government subsidies?
Mr. Prochazka. Absolutely. Frankly, I believe that we will
hit that point at some point and we will need to remove them
and EVs are going to be able to compete on the cost.
Mr. Smucker. I know I am going to get a little extra time
but I do want to get to another question. So we did have a
hearing here just a week ago, I think, about a new
infrastructure package, how we are going to fund the Highway
Trust Fund. One of the ideas--I mean, we know that, you know,
the gas tax is a declining source of revenue, particularly if
you get your way and vehicles are going to go to entirely
electric, which eventually it will, that is going to happen
eventually. But one of the thoughts was a Federal registration
fee on electric vehicles. I guess my question to you is, from
the perspective of an organization pushing for electric
vehicles, what do you think makes sense? How do electric
vehicles do their part in providing for user fees to pay for
our roads and highways?
Mr. Prochazka. I mean, unquestionably, there is going to be
a need for EVs to pay their fair share. We are going to need to
figure out a solution for how our highway----
Mr. Smucker. Are you thinking of any specific proposals?
Mr. Prochazka. I think that there are a lot of things we
need to look at, whether it is a user fee, that might be--that
is a question, still. I am not sure it is the right solution,
exactly. There might be VMT that needs to be considered, so
that we are actually thinking about all vehicles paying for
use.
I think we have to go and work hard to think about all
those solutions and what are going to work the best for what
our diverse and future transportation system looks like.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you. I know that others wanted to
respond. That will be up to the chair as to whether we have
time to do that.
Mr. Espaillat [presiding]. They can respond in writing,
thank you.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat. Now we will go to Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, like my
friend from Pennsylvania, we have been going back and forth
from the same committee markup.
Dr. Sperling, it is nice to see you. As a former member of
the Air Resources Board, we are probably the only two on the
east coast right now.
I wanted to ask the panel, and starting with Dan, having
been the author of VMT, the pilot project in California, when I
was in the legislature, having spent--I was the coauthor of
375, 65 percent of the U.S. economy now is in these urban
areas, super-urban areas. We have spent a lot of money on heavy
rail. For those of us who wanted to see urbanization, we
thought that was good. But we clearly are not prepared for
things like Lyft and Uber.
So, Dan, to your comment earlier about better systems
management, as a specific, at SFO in San Francisco, and this is
not untypical for airports, we spent a lot of money, billions
of dollars, to bring heavy rail into the airport. We are doing
it here in DC right now, they are doing it in Los Angeles. But
over 50 percent of the trips now in and out of those airports
are Lyft and Uber. So how can we incentivize a lot of the good
trends that are happening, knowing that electric vehicles are
coming, but more the smart technology incorporated in a smart
mobility that you alluded to in your earlier answer.
Mr. Sperling. I would say there are two parts. Thank you.
There are two parts to it. One is, how do we use these new
innovations in a way that is in the public interest and in the
interest of airports, you know, specifically. And that is that,
instead of--OK, so this is a simple thing. But airports now,
they put a per passenger fee on everyone that comes in. That is
crazy. They should be--if a vehicle comes in with 2, 3, 20
people, they should have a zero fee on it and have a large fee
if it is a single passenger. Manage the curb space better also,
so that the pooled vehicles get preferential space at airports.
And these same ideas, of course, translate to cities more
broadly, it is not just at airports.
The other part is the electrification and going back to the
earlier question on electrification. We do need and want to and
plan to electrify certainly all of the light-duty vehicles. And
these Lyft and Uber type cars, they are generating huge amounts
of mileage. So those are a prime target to electrify. And Lyft
and Uber are interested in doing that. We are creating various
incentives. And I think that is a kind of partnership that can
happen to create these incentives for them to do it.
But I would note one thing on the electrification part is,
we are getting close to cost of ownership being competitive for
small cars. And so there are two parts to that. One is, it is
small cars. And the other part is, it is total cost of
ownership, which is not how people make choices.
So we are going to need incentives for a long time. And
especially as we move into the bigger vehicles, as we get into
the pickup trucks, SUVs, even small delivery trucks. So this is
a long-term commitment and there are ways of doing it that it
is not a burden to taxpayers. But there will need to be
incentives. And I think we need to apply that, figure out how
to do that with Lyft and Uber and Via and those other
companies.
Mr. DeSaulnier. On the land-use side, anybody, one of the
challenges to VMT in a place like the bay area is we have got
working people who are starting families and they are traveling
2 hours, mega commutes, in and out of the region. Have the same
problem in the Inland Empire in L.A. It is a real constraint on
our economic development. There is a story in the San Jose
Mercury News today about how, in spite of creating more jobs
than anywhere else in the country and the world, Silicon
Valley, we still have people leaving the area. A lot of those
people, I assume, are going to the 10 counties that surround
the 9 bay area counties.
So this conundrum of VMT and being fair to everybody, but
overall systems management, many times, in interregional areas,
as defined by the Federal Government. So maybe any kind of
insights about how we could put some kind of incentives in
that? And I know that the Federal Government and most State
government does not like to get involved in local land-use
decisions. But our absence is making decisions for people.
Ms. Arroyo. So some of the experience in Arlington that has
reduced VMT there while having--or at least held emissions and
VMT flat while growing the economy has been to incentivize
dense, compact development. So things that used to not be
allowed are actually encouraged, building more units closer
together. Instead of having a minimum number of parking spaces,
having a maximum number of parking spaces. And, of course,
coupling that with incentives that drive people to transit and
other alternatives, having safer bike paths now, more walking,
et cetera, et cetera.
So, I mean, we've learned a lot about transportation demand
management. And it would be great to scale that up by, for
example, maybe having the Federal Government both continue to
offer those employer incentive programs for people who
telecommute or take transit, but also sharing best practices
would be something that the Federal Government could help do, I
think.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I think the Dulles corridor is a real
example of what we could do in other places. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Espaillat. We go now to Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
question, I would like to just sort of preface it with three
points. One is, and I think there is a consensus in Congress
that would agree that climate change is a national security
issue. I think some of you have touched upon that in your
written and/or oral testimony today. In 2018, in the Defense
Authorization Act, Congress directed the Pentagon to come back
with a report on the impact of climate change on military
operations, on infrastructure, as well as the efforts by the
Pentagon to increase installation resiliency and operational
viability, concerns with things like the wildfire in California
which closes down the Marine Mountain Warfare Training Center
or rising sea levels and the impact at Norfolk. In the 2018
MILCON appropriations bill, we put in language that urged the
Secretary of Defense to plan infrastructure and other projects
using the best data and science on climate to mitigate the risk
to our Armed Forces.
The second point I wanted to make is that I think we all
would agree that the DoD is perhaps the largest fossil fuel
consumer in the United States. And that is probably why, as
early as 2007 in the Defense Authorization Act, which was
signed by President Bush, we directed the Pentagon to adopt 25
percent renewable standards by 2025. And as of 2016, they were
50 percent towards that goal. They reduced fuel usage,
increased energy efficiency, and it had tremendous benefits to
the public utilities in those communities and solar companies
in the vicinities of those military installations.
The third point I wanted to make is that, while, you know,
the DoD is this large energy consumer, 75 percent of that
consumption is on military operations, not necessarily on the
installation but the operations in Afghanistan and in Africa,
you know, just global operations. And the DoD recognizes that
green energy is important. And whether it is motivated by
reducing the impact on climate or saving the lives of soldiers
and sailors and airmen and Marines, we know that by going to
renewable energy sources reduces the burdens on logistic trains
and convoys, the number of times that a unit has to stop to
refuel, which exposes them to threats and vulnerabilities and
things like that. So the DoD, either because of the
authorization act in 2007 or a recognition that it saves lives,
has been transitioning to renewable energy.
So my question is, and I think that Mr. Prochazka--did I
get that right?
Mr. Prochazka. Prochazka.
Mr. Brown. Prochazka, OK. I know you had mentioned that
dependence on foreign oil is a national security concern. So
can you or others elaborate on, you know, your thoughts on how
moving towards electric vehicles and efficient transportation
alternatives, how it can help strengthen national security and
also how the work that is being done at the DoD benefits the
overall effort in moving to a renewable energy environment?
Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for your question. So two quick
things. One is our sister organization, Securing America's
Future Energy, actually brought together military leaders to
respond to this issue and created something called the Energy
Security Leadership Council and it is made up of four-star
generals and admirals and some of the leaders in national
security, with the idea that we need to do something to respond
to the impacts of our oil dependency. And, as you mentioned, it
is both because it is about the economic impacts to our
country, in that when oil prices spike, it affects everyone.
But it is also because it does affect the lives of young men
and women across the country that we send over to protect the
flow of oil. And ultimately, the more that we can do to reduce
the amount of oil that we need to consume in this country by
electrifying our transportation sector, the less likely we are
putting our young men and women in the face of threat.
Ms. Young. I would like to add from the aviation sector, in
2010, we entered into a strategic alliance with the Department
of Defense through its Defense Logistics Agency, so we could
align our drive on the jet fuel specification for sustainable
alternative fuel with what the military was doing. And
together, we have worked that process very successfully.
Mr. Brown. I yield back the 1 second time I have remaining,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Espaillat. We will now go to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank the panelists for being here today. And let me pull to
my questions. You called on me quickly.
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate
change is happening and that humans are the primary driver;
this administration is using Government resources to promote
fringe science. Mr. Prochazka, President Trump is reportedly
forming a panel to question whether the burning of fossil fuels
is harming the planet. Allegedly chairing this panel is
Professor William Happer, distinguished physics professor with
no formal training as a climate scientist, who once argued the
dubious proposition that we need to spew more carbon dioxide
into our environment, not less. Professor Happer has also
argued that the demonization of carbon dioxide is similar to
the demonization of Jews in Germany by Hitler.
What are the national security dangers that the White House
is risking by challenging the relationship between carbon
dioxide and global warming?
Mr. Prochazka. I might defer to other members of the panel.
My organization focuses almost primarily on the impacts of oil
and gas dependency on economic and national security threats.
So we don't really focus as much on climate issues.
Ms. Arroyo. I'm happy to take it.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Arroyo. So not only are the military facilities at risk
because, obviously, the Navy has to be at sea level and so
their ports are at risk, but their operations are also
affected. The freshening of the water from the melting of the
huge ice sheets and glaciers actually affects our sonar and so
our military readiness. It actually affects the engagements
that our troops are being brought into all over the world in
more and more contentious conflicts over limited resources,
impacted by the lack of food or water that are driven by some
of the climate extremes that we are seeing. And not only that,
but in our own country, as we have seen in communities like my
home town of New Orleans, our military gets deployed to try to
help out in the times of national emergency and we are seeing
more and more of those disasters declared on a regular basis
every year, you know, with megastorms hitting Puerto Rico and
North Carolina and on and on. So they are stretched thin, they
are underresourced and climate change is going to make all of
these things much more challenging.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Does anyone else want to
opine on how this panel that Professor Happer will chair may
impede our ability to secure our Nation? Yes?
Mr. Lyon. One of the biggest concerns I would have is just
that it could help to promote the muzzling of the defense
community which, as we've just heard, is highly aware of all of
these concerns. And so one of the biggest issues would be
censoring the intelligent foresight that the defense community
is already engaged in.
And I would just point out that this is a wonderful example
of the merchants of doubt strategy that has been written about
so eloquently by Naomi Oreskes and I really encourage people to
read that book. It turns out that it has been the same group of
sort of very old, Cold War physicists who first advocated that
smoking didn't cause cancer and now argue that greenhouse gases
don't warm the planet.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It is kind of an unscientific
situation led by so-called scientists.
Mr. Lyon. They are typically being paid something.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah, by the interests that they
are promoting, no doubt, the coal and fossil fuel industries.
Correct?
Mr. Lyon. I don't know for sure. The George C. Marshall
Institute has been a major player in supporting these Cold War
physicists and I don't know for sure where they get all their
funding. But it would be very likely that it is fossil fuel-
oriented funding.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Perhaps Congress may do
well to create some legislation that would require these so-
called independent studies by scientists to disclose who is
actually funding their work.
A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would
pass an historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course,
that would require bipartisan support. Do you believe that the
administration's unpopular infrastructure proposal with this
panel will muzzle Governors in terms of their interactions with
the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Mr. Sperling. Probably not California.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And that's a good thing.
Mr. Espaillat. You can respond, the rest can respond in
writing, please. We appreciate it.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Rouda, please.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Harley Rouda, from
Orange County, California. And my wife and I are proud owners
of electronic vehicles and a fully solar-powered home. And the
question I have for any of you, California has recently passed
legislation requiring all homes to have solar panels. And I am
curious as to what you think of that being a national standard?
And while I recognize that California likely has more days of
sunshine than many other States, I also recognize that North
Carolina and New Jersey are leaders in implementation of solar
power, solar panels on homes, and that economic incentives can
help drive this. So I'll open it up to the panel for your
response.
Mr. Sperling. Thank you. Well, I am not an expert on the
solar energy but my colleagues who are, the economists anyway,
would argue that the more efficient way of providing solar
energy for electricity is through centralized facilities. But I
also have solar on my house and I am very proud and happy with
it and it works great for me.
So I think it is part of the question of, there is a
certain tension there in terms of utility investments versus
household investment. Certainly, creating incentives to support
those households that do it, I think, is a good idea.
Mr. Lyon. If I could just follow up on that, it raises an
issue that we really have not talked about, which is the
modernization of the electric grid itself. And I think
regardless of exactly how you view the importance of rooftop
solar versus centralized solar, we really need to modernize our
electric grid. There are digital technologies that will allow
it to be much more efficient, much more resilient and will
allow for net metering and other types of decentralized
production.
Mr. Rouda. I am actually glad you went that direction
because that is one of the other topics I would like to expand
on, that is the decentralization of the grid and developing
microgrids throughout the country. But we have seen some
pushback by certain utilities across the U.S. who want to
continue to be the primary generator of energy for their region
and have not really accepted that paradigm shift that they need
to move from a generator to more of the toll roads of
electricity to serve the communities that they serve. How would
you respond to that?
Mr. Lyon. Well, I think you are correct. And State policy
has typically been the driver that has led utilities to
modernize their grids, open up to net metering. Most States
allow net metering now so that has become pretty standard. But
I think this is where State policy has probably been more
powerful than Federal policy. Just because of the role of the
State PSCs.
Mr. Rouda. And bringing it back to electric vehicles and
the continued development and implementation of electric
vehicles, one of the challenges that we face are the high-speed
recharging stations, access to them, consistency in the
standards and, frankly, even signage on the interstates. What
would you like to see in those areas to help develop that
infrastructure at a faster pace?
Mr. Sperling. Yeah, you know, I would comment that, indeed,
that the growth of electric vehicles is inextricably connected
with the grid and it provides a tremendous opportunity as we go
to more ephemeral sources of energy, solar and wind, the role
of storage becomes hugely important. And electric vehicles can
be a very big part of the solution in terms of the vehicle-to-
grid type options.
Ms. Arroyo. Having Federal support to fill the gaps,
especially in more remote areas that are not as urban and
clustered would give people confidence and overcome some of the
range anxiety issues, so that would be an early investment. And
also maybe tying the use of funds to things like being able to
use a charge card to pay. Because when I tried to take my Bolt
up to a wedding in New Jersey, I noticed that different places
I stopped had different services. And so it is not like going
to an ATM where you can use another bank with your card. We
should make it easier for people and these are the kinds of
things that Federal funding could be tied to, perhaps.
Mr. Rouda. And then the last question I have is just on
economic incentives in general. Historically, the economic
incentives have not favored renewable energies to the same
degree as other sources. And if we shift those economic
incentives or at least even take into account the long-term
implications of the pollution that is created versus
renewables, what in those toolboxes of economic incentives
would you suggest would help push this forward?
Mr. Lyon. Are you thinking electricity now?
Mr. Rouda. Yes.
Mr. Lyon. Well, we are already at a point where wind is
cheaper on a per kilowatthour basis than coal or nuclear. And a
lot of coal plants are having to shut down because they cannot
compete with wind. So we are moving very rapidly toward a world
where wind and increasingly solar are going to be highly
economic and just continue to take off.
Mr. Rouda. Well, thank you for your time. I yield back.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the leaders of the committee for organizing this hearing to
address one of the greatest challenges this generation is
facing and that is climate change. In order to adequately
address this crisis, we must aggressively tackle the root
causes, the risks, the economic impact and public health
hazards that climate change poses. Particularly, I want to
emphasize, in underserved working class and minority
populations. I support the spirit of the Green New Deal and I
cosponsored the nonbinding resolution because we must
acknowledge that bold action needs to be taken to address this
century-old trend that threatens our world.
The work of this Congress and this committee, however, is
to turn that vision into reality. It is time that we put pen to
paper, roll up our sleeves and convert bold ideas into
actionable policy changes. I am proud that this committee is
doing that.
The fact is that climate change will result in more extreme
weather events and put more strain on our already crumbling
infrastructure. During the last polar vortex in Chicago, two
steel beams supporting Lake Shore Drive along the lakefront
cracked, as did transit rail in Minneapolis. As demonstrated in
our successful reversals of the Chicago River to protect Lake
Michigan as a freshwater source, innovative, resilient
infrastructure is in Chicago's blood. Much of Chicago's
existing infrastructure, however, was built in reaction to
environmental challenges that we have faced historically. But
decisions made decades ago left communities of color out.
I raise this because, as we consider the long-term
infrastructure investment, we must seek more equity in
legislation that will have decades-old consequences. Too many
communities have been left behind without adequate mobility,
are at a higher risk of extreme weather events, and are
disproportionately exposed to toxic air and water. Chicago
recently received an F for air quality from the American Lung
Association and, according to the EPA, 8 percent of Hispanic
children in the U.S. have asthma compared to 6.5 percent
nationally. Hispanic children in the U.S. are almost twice as
likely to be hospitalized for asthma than white children.
Failing to address climate change hurts, but it hurts
communities of color more severely.
Looking ahead, the question before us now is what policies
do we change and how? According to 2016 data from the EPA,
emissions from residential and industrial buildings as well as
from transportation emissions account for nearly 40 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity generation accounts for
nearly 30 percent. In short, we need cleaner transit and more
energy efficient structures because they have tremendous
returns on investment.
In Chicago, we've committed to converting our bus fleet to
100 percent electric by 2040. The city has reduced its overall
carbon emissions by 11 percent from 2005 through 2015, while
jobs grew 7 percent, dispelling the myth that greening our
industry weakens our economy.
Our conversion of over 270,000 streetlights to LEDs in 4
years will yield a savings of $100 million over a 10-year
period. Our comprehensive approach to green infrastructure will
make us more resilient.
As a matter of fact, I would like to enter into the record
a comprehensive report issued by the city of Chicago, entitled
``Resilient Chicago,'' which details a roadmap forward for our
city. And this will be in place as Chicago goes to the polls
today to elect a new mayor and a city council. We may have to
do a runoff in April, but that will be a fact.
I would like to direct a question to Ms. Arroyo, as I have
about 30 seconds left. And that is, in your testimony, you
discussed the historical burdens disproportionately shouldered
by low-income communities. Can you discuss how climate change
heightens those discrepancies for communities of color or low-
income individuals and what Federal programs can help to
reverse years of inequitable planning and development?
Ms. Arroyo. So thank you for the question. I am happy to
follow up in writing at more length. But just quickly, things
like urban heat island effect that have a disproportionate
effect on places that are really surrounded by concrete and
don't have a lot of green space. Flood-prone areas, like the
ones that we work with in DC. And I will give a shout out to
Chicago for its early leadership on mitigating some of those
impacts and being a leader on climate adaptation, as we often
call it.
But we do a lot of work with communities also on looking at
the impacts of climate change from transportation
infrastructure. And one of the things that we learned on the
future of the Interstate Highway report is that many cities are
interested in trying to reverse those trends about building
through cities, that cut through cities without the
participation of the communities. And some cities like here in
Washington, DC, are actually undergrounding or taking down some
of the stretches of the interstate that really carve through
some of the neighborhoods and trying to reconnect those
neighborhoods. I'm happy to talk to you at more length about
other options.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you much. I yield back.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Your
comments have been very, very helpful in this hearing.
If there are no further questions, I will now call up panel
2.
Mr. Larsen [presiding]. All right, we will get started with
the second panel. I want to welcome this next panel of
witnesses.
We have Mr. Kevin DeGood, the director of infrastructure
policy for the Center for American Progress; Mr. James Proctor
II, senior vice president and general counsel, McWane,
Incorporated; Dr. Whitley Saumweber, the director of the
Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies; and Ms. Lynn Scarlett, the vice
president of policy and Government affairs at The Nature
Conservancy.
I want to thank each of you for being here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony. And without objection, our
witnesses' full statements will be included in the record.
As with the previous panel, since your written testimony
has been made part of the record already, the committee would
request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. And I
know we have an attendance problem right now and I appreciate
that now, and I appreciate that and I hope you appreciate
Members of Congress, but what you have to say today is
important for the record, as this committee continues to move
forward in putting together the record on climate change and
infrastructure policy.
So I want to thank you very much for being here today and I
will turn now to Mr. DeGood for your opening statement.
Thanks.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN DEGOOD, DIRECTOR, INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY,
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS; JAMES M. PROCTOR II, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, McWANE, INC.; WHITLEY SAUMWEBER,
DIRECTOR, STEPHENSON OCEAN SECURITY PROJECT, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; AND LYNN SCARLETT, VICE
PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY
Mr. DeGood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. It is an honor and a privilege to contribute to this
committee's work today. For too long, infrastructure and
climate policy have been treated as separate issues. Yet what
we build deeply influences the production of greenhouse gases,
as well as our ability to withstand increasingly extreme
weather events. The science demonstrating anthropogenic climate
change is settled and, going forward, infrastructure policy
should be synonymous with sound climate policy.
The question before this committee is how should we think
about resiliency? The answer is that we should think about
improving resiliency as both necessary and urgent but
ultimately a losing strategy. Hardening facilities can only
slow the immense economic, environmental and social damage that
climate change will increasingly bring about. No one should
operate under the illusion that we can build our way out of the
climate crisis. Not every road, rail line, runway and building
can be raised, strengthened or relocated.
Instead, public dollars will need to be deployed in a
strategic and cost-effective manner to lessen the damage from
flooding, fires, extreme heat and storm surges to the greatest
extent possible. In short, we should not treat resiliency as a
universal backstop, capable of saving us if the United States
and other major emitting nations fail to meet their climate
commitments. Given the limitations of resiliency, it is
critical that the Federal Government invest in projects and
adopt policies to dramatically reduce emissions in the near
term and eliminate emissions by midcentury at the latest.
The challenges created by climate change are unprecedented.
Implementing adaptation and resiliency projects and policies
will require a dramatic departure from the status quo. However,
many agencies lack the funding, data and technical expertise to
accomplish the job. The Federal Government needs to invest not
only in assets but people and data as well. If the Federal,
State and local officials and administrators are to succeed,
they need access to the most accurate and, to the greatest
extent possible, localized models for temperature,
precipitation, peak storm flows and sea level rise.
Importantly, the adaptation and resiliency decisions the
public sector will need to make are both technical and
intensely political because infrastructure investments produce
benefits as well as burdens. The benefits from investment
include access to jobs, markets, improved efficiency and
reliability, and reduced costs while the burdens often include
geographic isolation and displacement, increased pollution and
noise and reduced property values, among many others. History
demonstrates that all too often, these burdens are shouldered
disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of
color. Federal infrastructure and climate policy must advance
equity and social justice. This means not only reducing
greenhouse gas emissions but also making investments that raise
wages and lift up struggling communities facing the greatest
needs.
For this reason, it is critical to safeguard the
environmental review process. The magnitude of the challenge
and the urgent need for action reinforce that infrastructure
planning and decisionmaking must occur in a transparent manner
supported by robust public participation. Allowing climate
action to serve as a justification for undermining foundational
environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act would be darkly ironic. Environmental
review produces better projects. Moreover, by reducing
community and environmental impacts on the front end, we can
save millions and even billions of dollars on post-construction
remediation.
When it comes to both mitigation and adaptation, the
Federal Government has not sufficiently exerted its policy
prerogatives on grant recipients. In the future, Federal
agencies should reduce funding to State and local governments
that fail to implement projects and policies that decrease
greenhouse gas emissions while also strengthening natural and
man-made infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather.
Additionally, Congress should recognize the valuable resiliency
services that natural systems provide. Focusing Federal
resources exclusively on man-made facilities misses the ability
of natural systems to reduce storm surge, wildfires, flooding
and mudslides. In many cases, investing a Federal dollar in
protecting and maintaining natural habitats will provide larger
resiliency dividends than spending that same dollar on
hardening man-made infrastructure.
Finally, Federal policy must take a more comprehensive
approach to land use, including providing additional funding to
States and regions that increase urban density. Low-density
exurban expansion cannibalizes natural habitats, reduces water
quality, increases mobile-source emissions and expands the
volume of linear infrastructure that must be built and made
resilient. If we are to make meaningful progress addressing
climate change, we must be honest about the underlying drivers
of emissions and environmental degradation. The Federal
Government cannot remain passive on the issue of land use any
longer.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions and to working with the committee to
craft solutions to this pressing challenge going forward.
[Mr. DeGood's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin DeGood, Director of Infrastructure Policy,
Center for American Progress
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the committee. It's an honor and a privilege to contribute to this
committee's work.
For too long, infrastructure and climate policy have been treated
as separate issues. Yet, what we build deeply influences the production
of greenhouse gases as well as our ability to withstand increasingly
extreme weather. The science demonstrating anthropogenic climate change
is settled. Going forward, infrastructure policy should be synonymous
with sound climate policy.
The question before the committee is: How should we think about
resiliency? The answer is that we should think about improving
resiliency as necessary and urgent but ultimately a losing strategy.
Hardening facilities can only slow the immense economic, environmental,
and social damage that climate change will increasingly bring about. No
one should operate under the illusion that we can build our way out of
the climate crisis. Not every road, rail line, runway, and building can
be raised, strengthened, or relocated. Instead, public dollars will
need to be deployed in a strategic and cost-effective manner to lessen
the damage from flooding, fires, extreme heat, and storm surges to the
greatest extent possible.
In short, we should not treat resiliency as a universal backstop
capable of saving us if the United States and other major emitting
nations fail to meet their climate commitments. Given the limitations
of resiliency, it is critical that the federal government invest in
projects and adopt policies to dramatically reduce emissions in the
near term and eliminate emission by mid-century, at the latest.
The challenges created by climate change are unprecedented.
Implementing adaptation and resiliency projects and policies will
require a dramatic departure from the status quo. However, many
agencies lack the funding, data, and technical expertise to accomplish
the job. The federal government needs to invest not only in assets but
people and data as well. If federal, state, and local officials and
administrators are to succeed, they need access to the most accurate--
and to the greatest extent possible localized--models for temperature,
precipitation and peak storm flows, and sea level rise.
Importantly, the adaptation and resiliency decisions the public
sector will need to make are both technical and intensely political
because infrastructure investments produce benefits and burdens. The
benefits from investment include access to jobs and markets, improved
efficiency and reliability, and reduced costs while the burdens often
include geographic isolation and displacement, increased pollution and
noise, and reduced property values, among many others. History
demonstrates that all too often these burdens are shouldered
disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color.
Federal infrastructure and climate policy must advance equity and
social justice. This means not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
but also making investments that raise wages and lift up struggling
communities facing the greatest needs.
For this reason, it is critical to safeguard the environmental
review process. The magnitude of the challenge and the urgent need for
action reinforce that infrastructure planning and decisionmaking must
occur in a transparent manner supported by robust public participation.
Allowing climate action to serve as a justification for undermining
foundational environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the
Endangered Species Act would be darkly ironic. Environmental review
produces better projects. Moreover, by reducing community and
environmental impacts on the front end, the environmental review
process helps to avoid the need for costly post-construction
remediation.
When it comes to both mitigation and adaptation, the federal
government has not sufficiently exerted its policy prerogatives on
grant recipients. In the future, federal agencies should reduce funding
for state and local governments that fail to implement projects and
policies that decrease greenhouse gas emissions while also
strengthening natural and man-made infrastructure to better withstand
extreme weather.
Additionally, Congress should recognize the valuable resiliency
services that natural systems provide. Focusing federal resources
exclusively on man-made facilities misses the ability of natural
systems to reduce storm surge, wildfires, flooding and mudslides. In
many cases, investing a federal dollar in protecting and managing
natural habitats will provide larger resiliency dividends than spending
that same dollar on hardening man-made infrastructure.
Finally, federal infrastructure policy must take a more
comprehensive approach to land use, including providing additional
funding to states and regions that increase urban density. Low-density,
ex-urban expansion cannibalizes natural habitats, reduces water
quality, increases mobile-source emissions, and expands the volume of
linear infrastructure that must be built and made resilient. If we are
to make meaningful progress addressing climate change, we must be
honest about the underlying drivers of emissions and environmental
degradation. The federal government cannot remain passive on the issue
of land use any longer.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
your questions and to working with the Committee to craft solutions to
the pressing challenges created by climate change.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. DeGood.
Mr. Proctor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Proctor. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Graves and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about issues that are vital to our Nation's
health, economy and security. During my career, I have been
privileged to help promote policies that will make our water
infrastructure systems more resilient, secure and efficient, as
vice president of McWane and also an affiliation with groups
such as the BuildStrong Coalition, the Blue Green Alliance, the
Water Infrastructure Leadership Group, EPA's National Drinking
Water Advisory Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Water
Policy Task Force. It is an honor to continue that work by
appearing here today.
Much of America's drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life.
Tragically, as much as 25 to 30 percent of the treated water
that goes into our distribution systems leaks into the ground.
Those losses not only squander a vital resource, they result in
an enormous waste of energy required to treat and pump that
water. That wasted energy also represents unnecessary and
avoidable greenhouse gas emissions. As much as 4 percent of our
Nation's total energy consumption is water related and accounts
for millions of tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Adopting policies that foster more effective utility
management, including the reduction of water leaks, would
produce a cascade of benefits, reduced operating expenses for
cash-strapped utilities, reduced water cost for consumers, the
conservation of scarce and vital resources and significant
reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Last year's America's Water Infrastructure Act made significant
strides toward providing the needed funding, fully authorizing
WIFIA, increasing the authorizations for the SRFs and creating
new resilience, mitigation and technology programs. We hope
that Congress will finish that process by appropriating the
authorized funding this year.
In addition, on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition, I want
to congratulate this committee for its work in creating the
game changing new predisaster mitigation fund that will provide
close to $1 billion a year for State-based competitive grants
to make America more resilient. But that investment must be
accompanied by smarter and more effective utility management,
such as developing and utilizing emerging technologies that can
increase revenue and lower costs through proactive leak
detection, water conservation, water quality management and
reductions in energy consumption.
Congress should help eliminate barriers to the adoption of
these technologies by a number of means by encouraging
voluntary cooperative arrangements among utilities and other
partners and increasing technical assistance to provide the
financial, operational and technical capacity needed to adopt
these technologies; by encouraging effective utility
management, including water leak audits and full-cost
accounting; by establishing a national testbed network to
evaluate, demonstrate and approve innovative technologies; by
streamlining the regulatory and approval process for proven
technologies; and by developing a workforce development program
to provide American workers the skills needed to operate the
high-tech water and wastewater systems of the future.
In addition, when disaster strikes, water is essential for
firefighting capabilities and the prevention of disease.
Similarly, our vital lifeline systems depend upon access to
electric power. Recent hurricanes, floods and wildfires have
revealed the vulnerability of our water and power distribution
systems to natural disasters. It is my hope that the grant
request for the new DRRA and FEMA programs will include
projects to increase the resilience of our water and power
distribution networks, as few other undertakings will have as
broad and significant an impact.
Finally, countries like China and India generate 6 to 33
times more pollutants than production facilities located here
in the United States. By making the American iron and steel
requirements, the Buy American requirements that are applicable
to the drinking water State revolving fund permanent and
creating similar requirements for predisaster mitigation
infrastructure projects and other water programs, Congress can
shift production of the products necessary for the hardening of
our infrastructure back to the more efficient and less-
polluting factories in the United States, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions while preserving and creating American jobs.
The key takeaway is that we can solve a range of problems,
economic, environmental and climate related, by tailoring our
Federal policies to take advantage of the technologies of the
21st century and the efficiency, productivity and commitment of
American workers and industry. We at McWane are glad to have
the opportunity to contribute to that process. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
[Mr. Proctor's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel, McWane, Inc.
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about several issues that
are vital to our nation's health, economy and security. During my
career I have been privileged to help promote policies that will make
our water infrastructure systems more resilient, secure, and efficient,
working not only in my capacity as vice president of McWane, Inc., but
also as a member of the executive committee of the BuildStrong
Coalition, the corporate advisory council of the Blue Green Alliance,
the Water Infrastructure Leadership Group (the ``Ad Hoc Group''), the
U.S. Water Partnership, Environmental Protection Agency's National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and co-chair of the U.S Chamber of
Commerce's Business Task Force on Water Policy. It is great honor to
have the opportunity to continue that work by appearing here today.
For almost 200 years McWane has proudly provided the building
blocks for our nation's water infrastructure, supplying the pipe,
valves, fittings and related products that transport clean water to
communities and homes across the country and around the world. More
recently we have expanded our operations into the fields of
infrastructure technology and electric power distribution. We employ
more than 6000 team members who work in 25 manufacturing facilities in
14 States and nine other countries.
Water infrastructure remains a core element of our business focus,
and we obviously have great interest in ensuring its integrity. Despite
its obvious importance, in the past ``out of sight, out of mind'' best
described the nation's attitude toward water infrastructure, and to a
large degree that indifference has extended to discussions about
climate change as well. But Congress and the public have started to
come to grips with the reality that much of America's drinking water,
wastewater, and storm water infrastructure, including the more than one
million miles of pipes beneath our streets, is nearing the end of its
useful life and must be replaced. And a tragic aspect of that reality
is that as much as 20-30 percent of the treated water that goes into
our distribution systems leaks into the ground as it flows through
pipes installed as many as 150 years ago. Those losses not only
squander a vital and sometimes scarce resource, they represent an
enormous waste of the energy and associated capital required to treat
and pump that water. Approximately 4 percent of our nation's total
electricity consumption (as much as 19 percent in California) is
related to water treatment, pumping, and recovery. Given the fact that
much of our nation's energy is still produced by traditional, carbon-
based sources, that wasted energy also represents unnecessary and
avoidable greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, EPA estimates that
treating, pumping and recovering water accounts for more than 45
million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. Thus, adopting
policies that foster more effective utility management, including the
reduction of water leaks, would produce a cascading flow of benefits:
reduced operating expenses for cash-strapped utilities, reduced water
costs for consumers, the conservation of scarce and vital resources,
and significant reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions.
In addition, the recent hurricanes, floods and wildfires have
revealed the vulnerability of our distribution systems to natural
disasters. We must harden our infrastructure before those events occur,
taking advantage of mitigation opportunities, especially pre-disaster,
that Congress recently created through reforms to the Stafford Act.
The solution to these challenges will of course require funding,
and last year's America's Water Infrastructure Act (``AWIA'') made
significant strides toward addressing that need by fully authorizing
long-term, low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and nationally
significant projects in the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (``WIFIA''), and increasing the authorizations for the State
Revolving Funds (``SRFs''). We hope that Congress will finish that
process by appropriating funds to those authorized levels this year.
Similarly, the Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2018 (``DRRA'')
created significant new funding sources for cost-effective, risk-
reducing pre-disaster mitigation projects.
But new funding alone cannot solve a problem of this magnitude.
That investment must be deployed wisely and in a manner that realizes
its full benefit, by fostering smarter, more efficient and effective
utility management. One such avenue is to develop and use emerging
technologies that can generate new forms of revenue and maximize
existing sources, while lowering operational costs through proactive
leak control, water conservation, better water quality management,
reductions in energy consumption and costs, and less wear and tear on
assets. Technology can also improve operational efficiencies via data-
driven system management. Studies indicate that digital water networks
can save utilities up to $12.5 billion a year. Moreover, the use of
more resilient construction techniques can mitigate the impact of
storms, earthquakes, wildfires and other disasters.
using more effective water utility management and deploying technology
to reduce climate risks
Some examples of specific technologies that are available today, or
are on the verge of deployment include:
Advanced metering infrastructure (smart meters) that can
more accurately record and charge customers based on actual usage.
These systems use low-powered wireless communication devices to
transmit water usage information over secure networks, reducing non-
revenue water by eliminating unmetered consumption and apparent losses
from inaccurate meters, unauthorized consumption, and billing errors.
And real time water-usage reports increase conservation which mitigates
the effects of water scarcity related to climate shifts while reducing
energy consumption and the associated carbon emissions.
Remote, real-time leak detection and pressure management
systems that identify problems before they become costly main breaks.
Early and accurate leak detection not only prevents wasted water and
energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, it also reduces repair
costs and the risk of contaminants infiltrating into water systems,
which could put public health at risk. Such detection systems can also
facilitate more effective disaster responses by enabling utilities to
identify the location of damage to their systems so that they are able
to restore service more quickly. New and effective methods of detection
include wireless systems with acoustic sensors and leak-noise
correlators, satellite imaging, and sensors that can detect negative
pressure waves. Many of these solutions can be simply and inexpensively
added to existing and new infrastructure at hydrants and valve boxes.
Real time water quality monitoring. Wireless nodes can
accommodate sensors that monitor parameters such as pH and alkalinity
and low residual disinfectant, that are markers for the conditions that
can predict avoidable situations like Flint, Michigan, and allow
utilities to adjust water chemistry before a crisis occurs.
The water-energy nexus provides another source of
efficiencies and opportunities. As much as 4 percent of our total
annual electricity consumption (20 percent in some States, like
California) is related to the treatment and transmission of water,
which according to EPA equates to 45 million tons of greenhouse gas
emissions each year. Indeed, for most water utilities energy is their
second largest cost (35-40 percent of total costs on average), second
only to personnel expenses. In addition to reducing consumption of
energy as outlined above, new technologies can help utilities become
generators of clean energy that can be used to operate systems. Waste
sludges can provide a source of renewable fuel for power generation,
and the vast expanses of land occupied by treatment plants are
sometimes prime locations for solar panels. In addition, in-line
hydroelectric systems can harness the flow of water though pipelines to
generate electricity, particularly in distribution systems based upon
gravity flows.
Despite these obvious benefits, utilities face numerous barriers to
deploying these and other technologies. First, water utilities are
naturally, and appropriately, risk averse. An inadvertent disruption of
treatment and distribution capabilities due to a technological failure
could cause a catastrophic health crisis, put the environment at risk,
or trigger regulatory action. Moreover, a failed deployment could
trigger a financial crisis for the utility and perhaps even the
community it serves.
Second, the upfront costs of implementing a system-wide technology
project can be prohibitive for small utilities, which can preclude
adoption even with the opportunity for greater long-term benefits.
The regulatory environment is another, frequently cited barrier.
Water quality and environmental regulations play a vital role in
protecting public health. However, in many cases redundant,
conflicting, or outdated regulations at the State and Federal levels,
and among the various States, can create lengthy, complex, and costly
approval processes. These regulatory obstacles not only slow the
approval of technology directly, but also impede the creation of
partnerships that could provide a source of expertise and funding that
would accelerate deployment.
Aggravating all of these factors is the diffuse nature of the water
sector, which is comprised of more than 55,000 separate utilities, 85
percent of which serve fewer than 10,000 people. Through no fault of
their own many small and rural utilities lack the resources and
technical expertise required to evaluate the options, design and build
the systems, and manage them after construction. Without coordination
among neighboring communities, opportunities to overcome these gaps by
sharing experience, expertise, best practices, and joint purchasing
power are missed. This greatly increases the costs of adoption.
These issues present substantial obstacles, but there are measures
that Congress could implement that would eliminate or reduce their
adverse impact.
Appropriate Funding for WIFIA, the SRFs, and the New AWIA Programs at
Their Authorized Levels.
As noted above, fully appropriating the funding authorized for
WIFIA and the SRFs in last year's AWIA bill would provide a significant
beginning point. These programs cannot only provide a source of funding
for technology projects, they can also provide the technical assistance
that small utilities need to evaluate, purchase, and implement
projects. Similarly, sections 2005 (Drinking Water Infrastructure
Resilience and Sustainability), 2007 (Innovative Water Technology Grant
Program), 2012 (Asset Management), 2013 (Community Water System Risk
and Resilience) and 2017 (Review of Technologies) of AWIA created
several new programs designed to promote resiliency and technology.
Fully appropriating those programs and directing that a significant
potion of the funding go toward training and technical assistance for
small utilities would also make a difference.
Encourage Cooperation Among Utilities and Partnerships.
Congress should also encourage regional cooperation among utilities
and remove barriers to the use of private capital as a supplement to
public funding. Small systems should be encouraged to consider
voluntary cooperative arrangements and partnerships with other entities
who can help them develop the necessary financial, operational and
technical scale and capacity to adopt the technology that will enable
them to reduce their costs and more effectively manage their systems.
Such arrangements allow the sharing of best practices, systems and
technology and reduce the risk associated with new undertakings in
addition to creating economies of scale that increase the availability
of funding and reduce costs. There are many paths to such partnering
arrangements, including public-to-public, public-to-private, and
private-to-private partnerships, cooperatives, concessions, operating
agreements, or consolidation or regionalization of assets or services.
But let me emphasize that all paths should remain available at the
discretion of the local entity.
Specific means by which Congress or EPA might encourage such
cooperation include prioritizing regional projects and consolidation
costs for SRF and WIFIA funding and providing more technical assistance
to small and rural systems, including assistance with the technical and
legal aspects of cooperation. Removing the volume cap on private
activity bond for water projects would also encourage more private
capital to enter the market.
Establish a National Test Bed Network for New Technologies.
A National Water Test Bed Network (``TBN'') to evaluate,
demonstrate and approve innovative technologies would jump start
adoption. Unless utility operators have the confidence that new
technologies will work, they are reluctant to adopt or deploy them. But
few utilities are willing to serve as the pilot program because of the
demands on time and budget, and even pilot programs that do proceed can
take years to complete. As a result, the deployment of workable, cost-
saving and efficiency-creating technologies is unnecessarily delayed. A
National Water Infrastructure TBN to coordinate and accelerate the
water industry's deployment of new technologies would bring together
the broader water community (i.e., manufacturers, regulators,
operators, consulting engineers, etc.), and engage them in
demonstration efforts to raise confidence in innovative technologies.
The TBN process, including a possible whitelist of proven technologies,
would reduce the number of pilot projects otherwise needed and would
also shorten the time needed to achieve commercial acceptance.
Streamline the Regulatory and Approval Process for Proven Technologies.
Congress should also direct EPA to conduct a review of existing
regulations to identify and address barriers to implementation of smart
water solutions. EPA should encourage States to establish consistent
and uniform permitting and certification programs and reciprocity,
where possible, without compromising protections for public health and
respect for State and local autonomy.
Establish a National Program for Collaboration and Sharing of Best
Practices.
A national program with a central focus on sharing best practices
would help urban and rural utilities, regardless of size, to develop
joint partnerships with public and private utilities, engage private
sector expertise and technology, and access private capital markets and
funding. In addition, this network would help small and distressed
water systems find the technical capacity to comply with regulations
and to undertake projects to improve or expand their services.
Encourage Effective Utility Management (``EUM'') and Best Practices,
Including Water Leak Audits and Full-Cost Accounting.
To succeed, every utility must have an accurate understanding of
their financial condition, including the cost of providing water and
waste water services. An accurate understanding of costs and their
sources is also the essential foundation for conducting the cost-
benefit assessments that provide the business case for the adoption of
the technologies discussed previously. Yet a recent survey found that
fewer than a third of water utilities have an accurate appreciation of
their costs of operation, and only a similar percentage operate under
rate structures that fully cover their costs. This situation creates
severe constraints on the ability of utilities to finance their
operations, attract outside investment, or justify technology projects.
One way to close this informational and operational gap is to help
utilities identify the extent of water losses in their systems. Water
is the ``inventory'' of a water utility, and an accurate understanding
of inventory levels, losses, and production and distribution costs,
including associated energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,
is fundamental to understanding operational costs. An appreciation of
those operational costs and their avoidability is, in turn, a vital
prerequisite to demonstrating the benefits of deploying technology that
would mitigate those losses. Potential partners will also require such
information before committing their capital and resources to the
rehabilitation of a failing utility.
A number of major water and wastewater associations (AMWA, NAWC,
NACWA, AWWA, WEF, WERF, WRF, ASDWA and ACWA) and EPA have endorsed the
ten attributes of EUM \1\, asset management and financial viability.
Asset management includes conducting leak audits to understand the true
condition of a utility's transmission and distribution systems.
Financial viability includes an understanding of the full life-cycle
cost of utility operations and value of water resources, which is
heavily impacted by lost water and its embedded energy. Applicants for
Federal support should be encouraged to assess the total costs
associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining their water,
wastewater and storm water systems, including long-term capital costs.
At the same time, EPA should provide more technical assistance to small
utilities on how to conduct the audits and assess costs. Moreover, this
information must be made more transparent and readily available for
public review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective Utility Management, A Primer for Water & Wastewater
Utilities, http://dev.watereum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
Effective-Utility-Management-A-Primer-for-Water-and-Wastewater-
Utilities.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train a 21st Century Workforce.
The Safe Drinking Water Act includes several set-asides related to
operator certification and training for water systems from the funding
authorized for the State revolving funds. Congress should buttress that
authority by tasking the U.S. Department of Labor with developing a
workforce development program that would provide American workers the
skills and credentials needed to support the operation, maintenance,
and improvement of the hi-tech water and wastewater systems of
tomorrow.
increasing infrastructure resilience through pre-disaster mitigation
In 2018, the National Institute of Building Sciences (``NIBS'')
released its ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report'',
concluding that:
Adopting Model Building Codes Saves $11 per $1 Invested
Federal Mitigation Grants Save $6 per $1 Invested
Exceeding Codes Save $4 per $1 Invested
Mitigating Infrastructure Saves $4 per $1 Invested
In recognition of these and other benefits of mitigation,
particularly pre-disaster mitigation, this Committee introduced and
passed the bipartisan DRRA and other disaster recovery provisions in
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which support and incentivize States
and localities to adopt enhanced mitigation measures to protect lives
and taxpayer dollars. On October 5, 2018, President Trump signed the
DRRA into law as part of the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2018. These reforms amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and:
acknowledge the shared responsibility of disaster
response and recovery,
aim to reduce the complexity of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and
build the nation's capacity for the next catastrophic
event.
DRRA also established a new, permanent mechanism to provide
substantial funding for cost-effective, risk-reducing pre-disaster
mitigation projects. This represents a significant increase in reliable
funding for grants for State, local, tribal and territorial
governments, and communities that will enable them to better plan and
execute cost-effective risk mitigation projects. This nationwide pre-
disaster mitigation grant program will impact both public
infrastructure and individual preparedness by increasing residential
resilience through State-sponsored safe home grants. The competition
for these resources will create an incubator for best practices,
lessons learned, and great ideas for projects and programs that can be
tailored at the State and local level to reduce the risks unique to
those communities.
The critical next step for these pre-disaster mitigation programs
is building capacity at the State level to identify risks and cost-
effective projects, then facilitating the development of effective and
efficient grant applications and awards. For its part, the BuildStrong
Coalition has partnered with FEMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to
host a series of resilience summits across the country to help
stakeholders and industry develop the capacity to apply for and
implement these grants. The first summit will be May 2, 2019, in
Washington, DC. Future meetings will be held in Sacramento, CA, and
Houston, TX. Further, through these partnerships we are working to
align and leverage other Federal resilience programs, such as Community
Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds and resources
from the Department of Energy and EPA.
lessons learned from the 2017 storms--risk reducing projects
Much of the discussion in congressional hearings and other fora has
focused primarily upon above-ground buildings, houses, and other
structures. However, the risks to property and human lives and health
arising from damage to infrastructure also require attention. For
example, water is a critical element of most of our firefighting
capabilities in the event of a natural disaster and is essential to the
prevention of disease and other public health threats. However,
earthquakes can rupture water distribution lines unless properly
constructed, wildfires can destroy these vital lifelines and
contaminate water supplies, and floods can jeopardize underground
infrastructure in a manner similar to earthquakes as the ground becomes
saturated and more fluid.
The damage to infrastructure during the major hurricanes of 2017
and the recent wildfires highlight the importance of building a
resilient power grid. Most hospitals, water treatment plants, food
services, communications, search and rescue operations, reconstruction,
and other critical lifeline services depend upon access to electric
power. However, power is almost always interrupted by such storm
events; indeed, there are parts of Puerto Rico that remain without
reliable electricity almost 2 years after Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
Increasing the resilience of our power grids in these areas would
significantly reduce the costs of post-disaster reconstruction and
avoiding life-threatening power interruptions.
To address these issues, the BuildStrong Coalition has proposed
several possible solutions that should be encouraged in soliciting and
reviewing applications for pre-disaster mitigation funding, each of
which would be implemented at the State and local levels and would
reduce the risk of loss in a disaster event.
One example is focusing standards that could improve the resilience
of our electric power distribution systems in disaster prone areas. The
National Electric Safety Code establishes standards for the
construction of transmission and distribution utility poles. Section 25
defines the strength standards required for different areas of the
country, based upon, among other things, loading maps from the American
Society of Civil Engineers--ASCE 74-2010. ASCE wind maps have been
widely adopted by the International Building Code (IBC), International
Residential Code (IRC), and International Existing Building Code
(IEBC).
The ASCE 74 maps show values for wind speed and ice thickness that
are expected to be exceeded every 50 years \2\, identify the weather
risks associated with those areas, and specify the wind speeds that the
poles must withstand. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Florida, and
certain other island and mainland coastal areas are designated as
extreme wind areas, and other areas in the U.S. are considered ``high
risk'' for wind and ice accumulation. Section 250C sets the strength
standards for extreme wind, and 250D for extreme wind and ice. However,
both standards exempt poles of under 60' in height from compliance with
the extreme wind performance criteria, even though the wind
measurements used to designate the wind loads are taken at 33 feet. As
an additional point of reference, an estimated 90 percent of all poles
in use in the U.S. are under 60' in height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2017 NESC Handbook Premier Edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This 60' exemption results in a significant reduction in the size
and strength of poles for many vulnerable and heavily populated coastal
areas. Indeed, even though ASCE 74 would require a wind tolerance of
145 mph in these areas under the exemption the southern U.S. and the
Caribbean territories need only design their systems to withstand a
Category 2 hurricane (114 MPH), and the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to
withstand a tropical storm (75 MPH). Nine hurricanes above Category 2
have hit the U.S. since 2000 \3\, including Hurricanes Irma and Maria,
with winds measured at over 200 MPH and 145 MPH, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, although Puerto Rico and other southeastern coastal areas
have the highest wind loading in the United States, 90 percent of the
utility poles in those areas are exempt from compliance with the
extreme wind standard in Section 25 of the NESC. The impacts of
Hurricanes Irma and Maria vividly demonstrated the consequences of this
exemption. According to news reports, more than 50,000 utility poles
were destroyed in Puerto Rico during those storms, and another 120,000
were lost in Florida \4\. There was widespread loss of power, which
cost an estimated $5 billion to restore. Had all those poles been
installed in accordance with the high wind loading requirements of NESC
250C, including those under 60', there is a high probability those
losses would have been much lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-distribution/ground-after-
hurricane-harvey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many options available to utilities to meet the extreme
wind loading requirements of section 250C and 250D. Wood poles of a
larger size can comply, as can engineered poles made of steel, ductile
iron and concrete. Enforcement of these standards without the exemption
will not exclude poles made from any particular material.
Florida serves as a good example of the benefits of storm
hardening. After the storm seasons of 2004-2005, the Florida Public
Service Commission mandated that investor-owned utilities, and
recommended that municipalities and cooperative utilities, inspect all
poles every 8 years and replace all obsolete poles, including those
below 60 feet, with poles that meet the high wind loads in ASCE 74. In
2018, the Florida Public Service Commission declared that the storm
hardening programs in Florida are working. Outages from 2017's
Hurricane Irma were much less significant than those in 2004-2005 storm
season, and the adoption of more resilient poles reduced the
construction man-hours required to restore hardened feeders by 50
percent. At Florida Power and Light, Florida's largest utility, non-
hardened poles were 10 times more likely to fail than hardened poles
\5\. As a more specific example, more than 1,000 Section 250C-compliant
poles under 60' in height were in service in the Florida Keys when Irma
and Maria made landfall. Not a single such pole was lost, while
approximately 1,000 nearby wooden poles that had been installed under
the 60' exemption failed. A video describing that experience can be
found at: https://t.co/YRHdrkVpuD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Florida Public Service Commission. Docket No. 20170215-EU--
Review of electric utility hurricane preparedness and restoration
actions, July 24, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilitating applications for upgrading the power distribution
system, and eliminating the 60-foot exemption as a prerequisite for
approval, would incentivize States to reform this aspect of disaster
procurement by requiring that all newly installed or repaired electric
distribution poles conform to the requirements of NESC 250C and 250D
without regard to height. This approach would not create any preference
among available materials--all can bid so long as their products meet
the performance standard--but such a measure would greatly reduce the
risk and costs to the U.S. taxpayers.
Similar issues arise in wildfire situations. News reports indicate
that one of the recent wildfires in California was caused when a
transformer exploded on a flammable, wooden pole. In addition, as the
fires spread other flammable poles caught fire with resulting damage to
the distribution systems. Thus, using pre-mitigation grant funding to
encourage the replacement of electrical distribution poles in wildfire-
prone areas with poles made of non-flammable materials could reduce
damage, interruptions, and reconstruction costs.
Although the upfront costs of more resilient poles might be
slightly higher, the long-term savings would be dramatic. For example,
there is an approximately $500 difference between the cost of a wooden
pole that does not conform with section 250C extreme wind standard and
a wooden pole that does. Similarly, the cost difference between a non-
compliant wooden pole and an engineered pole is less than $2,500. But
the typical life expectancy of an engineered pole is three times that
of a wooden pole, and a pole replacement under emergency conditions can
cost more than $10,000. Thus, in a single major hurricane like Maria,
during which 50,000 poles were destroyed in Puerto Rico, the net
savings to communities and the taxpayers could be more than
$500,000,000 from repair costs alone. Those savings would be many times
greater if one assumes a larger geographic impact than one State or
territory, and that more than one such event will occur over the 30-
year lifespan of a typical, non-250C high wind compliant wooden pole.
reducing climate risks while preserving american jobs and communities
In addition to these improvements, Congress can reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, while at the same time preserving and creating American
jobs, through the maintenance and expansion of domestic preferences for
iron and steel products used in infrastructure projects. U.S. producers
have invested heavily to modernize their U.S. operations conform to the
world's most robust environmental standards. We at McWane are proud to
say that our plants are among the safest and most environmentally sound
in the world, but every day we must compete against foreign, State-
owned or subsidized foundries and mills that regularly flout
international trade laws, have no regard for worker safety, the
environment, or public health and are not required to operate by
standards comparable to those with which U.S. manufacturers must
comply.
In fact, the foreign producers with whom U.S. iron and steel
producers most often compete are also the most polluting. According to
the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), Chinese steel
producers emit 2.5 tons of CO2 for each ton of steel manufactured in
China. For the global steel industry, IISI reports that average CO2
emissions were 1.7 tons for each ton of steel produced. The American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and the Steel Manufacturing Association
(SMA) suggest that the figure of 2.5 tons per ton of steel understates
the actual level of Chinese steel CO2 emissions, and that the true
number is closer to four tons of emissions for each ton produced in
China, compared to the worldwide average of 1.7 tons per ton of steel.
Similarly, a typical plant in China emits more than 20 times the
particulate (9.4 lbs. per ton versus 10.4 lbs. per ton) and nearly 35
times the carbon monoxide (149.4 lbs. per ton versus 4.4 lbs. per ton)
than are emitted by a typical U.S. plant. As a 2014 report from the
National Academy of Sciences, ``China's international trade and air
pollution in the United States,'' observed:
As the Chinese economy has grown, the economic structure has
also changed, transitioning from a net importer to a large net
exporter of energy-intensive industrial products. The energy
needed to support this economic growth and transformation has
come from combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal, which has
contributed to a global increase in emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2). At the same time, increased combustion of fossil fuels,
relatively low combustion efficiency, and weak emission control
measures have also led to drastic increases in air pollutants
such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), black carbon (BC), and primary organic carbon
(OC). Indeed, fossil-fuel-intensive manufacturing, large
manufacturing volume, and relatively weak emission controls
have meant that China emits far more pollutants per unit of
gross domestic product (GDP) than countries with more advanced
industrial and emission control technologies. Per unit of GDP
in 2006, China emitted 6-33 times as much air pollutants as the
United States.
In addition to the harm to the environment, these disparities
create significant cost and competitive disadvantages for American
producers, that have led to lost sales, closed plants, lost tax
revenues, lost jobs, and more carbon emissions. Communities across the
country are in decline because the factories that once built our
nation's infrastructure have disappeared, depriving them of the vital
tax revenues and rate payers needed to operate and maintain their water
systems and other public services.
Because carbon emissions impact the global climate system to the
same degree regardless of their country of origin, policies that
encourage the sourcing of materials from better-performing countries
can reduce those emissions. An example of just such a successful policy
is the American Iron and Steel (``AIS'') preference to the Drinking
Water SRF, the Clean Water SRF, and WIFIA. AIS is critical to U.S. iron
and steel producers. It has provided producers with important
incentives to preserve production capacities in the United States, make
significant capital investments to improve manufacturing capabilities,
and maintain workforces that sustain the communities around them. I can
say with pride and relief that AIS has saved at least one of our plants
from closure, preserving hundreds of jobs in an economically depressed
area.
By 2008, our waterworks fittings plant in Anniston, Alabama was the
last surviving domestic manufacturer of those products. At one time
there were as many as a dozen such plants in the United States, but
all, including our other fittings plant in Texas, fell victim to the
unfair foreign competition I described previously. Even that lone
survivor was at risk of closure when the great recession hit, operating
at around 30 percent of its production capacity. But with the
application of AIS to the SRF's, first in ARRA and later through WRDA
and the annual appropriations process, that plant has increased its
capacity utilization to almost 70 percent, added product offerings,
and, more importantly, more than doubled the number of jobs. But the
benefits of AIS are not limited to our operations. Because of AIS some
of the same foreign companies who drove the near destruction of the
American fittings industry have now moved their production to the
United States, first using existing foundries struggling for work, and
more recently purchasing their own production facility. They have done
this specifically in response to AIS. It is hard to conceive of a more
concrete example of AIS's job-creating impact.
AIS was first enacted for both the DWSRF and the CWSRF in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Later in 2014, the Congress
enacted permanent AIS statutes applicable to the CWSRF as well as WIFIA
as part of the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
Congress has continued to apply the policy annually though the
appropriations process to the DWSRF for Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018, and in AWIA Congress extended AIS to the DWSRF for 5 years.
While those of us who make products domestically are very grateful for
these actions, we urge Congress to enact a statute to permanently apply
the AIS procurement preference policy to the DWSRF in any upcoming
authorizing legislation, to bring that program into line with the
others, to secure the benefits of AIS for future generations, and to
eliminate the possibility of a lapse of AIS for the DWSRF, which would
burden EPA with administering overlapping programs subject to
conflicting standards.
Moreover, many other water-related programs have no domestic
content requirement, which not only shifts the production of products
for those programs to sources that produce more greenhouse gas
emissions and deprives the economy of the benefits of AIS, it also
creates administrative inconsistencies and inefficiencies. The programs
with no Buy America requirement include the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Services' Water and Waste Disposal
Program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Community Development Block Grant program, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Rural Water Supply program, the Economic Development
Administration's Public Works and Economic Development Program, and the
Indian Health Services, Facilities and Environmental Health program.
Until Buy America preferences like AIS are made permanent and
applied across the spectrum of taxpayer-funded infrastructure programs,
the thousands of jobs that have been created and supported by this
successful policy are always at risk. It is time to build on what is
already a successful program, and to make AIS permanent for the DWSRF
and other water and DRRA programs as it is for the CWSRF, WIFIA, and
most of the other non-water Federal-aid infrastructure programs.
Further, by encouraging production of materials by high-performing
American facilities instead of more polluting and energy-intensive
facilities in China and elsewhere, application of Buy America policies
will ensure that the carbon emissions associated with production for
infrastructure projects will be as small as possible.
conclusion
These are only a few of the issues and solutions that merit
discussion. The key takeaway, however, is that we can solve a range of
problems--economic, environmental, and climate-related--by tailoring
our Federal polices to take advantage of the technologies of the 21st
century and the efficiency, productivity and commitment of American
workers and industry. And when considering Federal resources, we must
make resilient, cost-effective investments. We at McWane are glad to
have the opportunity to contribute to that process.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Proctor.
And now I recognize Mr. Saumweber for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
Mr. Saumweber. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
the ways in which Federal infrastructure policy can help
mitigate and adapt to climate change. My name is Whitley
Saumweber and I currently serve as the director of the
Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. This project is a new effort on
behalf of CSIS to examine the links between ocean health,
marine resource conflicts and national security challenges.
Prior to joining CSIS, I held appointments as a visiting
fellow at Stanford University and as Associate Director for
Ocean and Coastal Policy in President Obama's White House
Council on Environmental Quality. I have previously worked for
the late Senator Inouye and at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration as an advisor to the two previous
Administrators. Over the course of my career, I have helped to
develop, implement and lead our national ocean, Arctic and
fisheries policies and it is this experience that my testimony
today draws upon.
The second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment
issued late last year makes it clear that the impacts of
climate change are being felt now and, absent significant
changes to the global carbon economy, will be accelerating into
the foreseeable future. Climate change therefore serves as both
a source of immediate challenge and strategic risk. Managing
this risk will require a combination of near-term investments
to adapt existing infrastructure and a sustained commitment to
developing more resilient systems in the face of continuous
change.
The U.S. Marine Transportation System provides for 90
percent of our imported goods, supports $4.6 trillion in
economic activity--roughly one-quarter of our economy--and
sustains 23 million jobs. All of these are at risk if we do not
provide appropriate investments to ensure resilience in our
maritime infrastructure, and to do so in a way that accounts
equally for economic, environmental and social values.
The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System has
identified three primary risks associated to the MTS associated
with climate change: sea level rise, increasing frequency and
potency of coastal storms and the opening of the Arctic. They
also identify an additional 29 environmental factors that may
be exacerbated by climate-related impacts, which would put
maritime infrastructure at further risk. These include such
diverse threats as invasive species, extreme events and
changing migration patterns.
In considering how to respond to such a complicated array
of risk factors, we should be clear on how we prioritize the
impacts based on likelihood of threat and the value of the
infrastructure at risk. But we should also think about how we
define resilience and what we wish our goals to be.
The National Academies of Science has defined resilience as
the ability to prepare, resist, recover and more successfully
adapt to the impacts of adverse events. This is sufficient, so
long as we believe that we have a clear sense of what the
possible range of those events may be. But the current reality
of climate change is that our world is not in steady state.
Rather, we exist in a state of continuous change. We should
therefore recognize that today's standards will be insufficient
to meet tomorrow's needs, just as last year's 100-year flood is
this year's hurricane season.
Sea level rise is a great example of this dynamic as it is
both accelerating and variable across geographies. But these
changes will apply in our communities as well. And when
considering investments in port infrastructure, we should
understand that the nature of regional maritime industries is
likely to change as climate drives changes in regional
economies, global shipping patterns and national security
challenges.
Among the most clear example of these shifts will be in the
Arctic, where we may see an ice-free pole within the next 10 to
20 years. This has tremendous implications for economic
development, resource exploitation, shipping routes and
strategic challenges. Meeting these needs will require us to
consider the level of investment we are currently making and
commit to providing the resources needed to support our
national security and sustainable economic development in the
new ocean.
Moving forward, I commend the committee for considering
climate impacts in its deliberations and recommend the
following priorities. For general maritime infrastructure
needs, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
NOAA should jointly lead a comprehensive assessment of U.S.
port infrastructure and its risk to climate-related hazards.
Each of these agencies have a number of programs on which such
an effort could build. Individual port needs will vary widely
but investments in communication networks for immediate hazard
adaptation and contingency planning and land-use planning to
optimize use of green infrastructure for long-term resilience
should also be priorities. And, finally, investing in Arctic
capabilities for the U.S. Coast Guard and related mission
capacity should be a priority. This includes fully supporting
the Polar Security Cutter program, investing in communication
and vessel monitoring networks to support implementation of the
Bering Strait Port Access Route Study, supporting
implementation of the Alaskan Arctic PARS in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas and providing for engagement with Alaskan Native
communities and governments on the development of a deepwater
port facility in the Bering Strait region and moving forward
with its development based on this input and the outcomes of
the forthcoming U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions and
discussion.
[Mr. Saumweber's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean
Security Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me here today to discuss the ways in which Federal infrastructure
policy can help mitigate and adapt to climate change. My name is
Whitley Saumweber and I currently serve as the Director of the
Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS). This project is a new effort on behalf of
CSIS to examine the links between ocean health, marine resource
conflicts, and national security challenges.
Prior to joining CSIS, I held appointments as a Visiting Fellow at
Stanford University and as Associate Director for Ocean and Coastal
Policy in President Obama's White House Council on Environmental
Quality. I have previously worked in the U.S. Senate for the late
Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) and at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as an Advisor to the two previous
Administrators. I also hold a Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography from the
University of Rhode Island. Over the course of my career I have helped
to develop, implement, and lead our National Ocean, Arctic, and
Fisheries policies and it is this experience that my testimony today
draws upon.
introduction
The second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment issued
last year makes it clear that the impacts of climate change are being
felt now and will be accelerating into the foreseeable future without
significant changes to the global carbon economy. Climate change
therefore serves as both a source of immediate challenge and strategic
risk requiring a combination of immediate investment for adaptation and
sustained investment to support the long-term resilience of affected
systems. From a maritime perspective one of the most important and
vital of these is our Marine Transportation System. The U.S. MTS
accounts for 90 percent of our imported goods, supports $4.6 trillion
in economic activity, and sustains 23 million jobs. All of these are at
risk if we do not provide appropriate investments to ensure resilience
in our maritime infrastructure and to do so in a way that accounts for
economic, environmental, and social values.
The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) has
identified three primary risks to the MTS associated with climate
change: (1) Sea Level Rise (SLR); (2) increasing frequency and potency
of coastal storms; and (3) the opening of the Arctic. They also
identify an additional 29 factors that may be exacerbated by climate
related impacts and which would put maritime infrastructure at risk. In
responding to these risk factors, we should consider the National
Academies of Science definition of resilience as, ``the ability to
prepare, resist, recover, and more successfully adapt to the impacts of
adverse events,'' but also recognize that as we do so we must seek to
account for continuously shifting baseline. For example, the sea level
is rising but the rate at which it is doing so will both increase and
be variable across regions. Similarly, in considering investments in
port infrastructure to service relevant regional maritime industries,
we should consider that the nature of these industries are likely to
change as climate drives changes in regional economies. The port side
needs of the fishing industry will change, for example as commercial
stocks move poleward and the composition of local fleets change.
The most clear example of these shifts is in the Arctic where we
may see an ice free pole within the next 10-20 years.
general recommendations
Risk Assessment--Invest in programs at the U.S. Coast Guard and
NOAA that support a comprehensive risk assessment of major U.S. ports
to the primary climate risk factors contained in the CMTS Risk Factors
Matrix.
Resiliency Standards--Develop a set of standards for port
infrastructure that map to regional predictions of sea level change
under each of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) of green house has
emissions.
Targeted Investment--Consider the use of novel public/private
partnerships, including funds such as the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and National Coastal Resilience
Fund to support investment in port adaptation programs that meet
revised resiliency standards and are applied based on priority risk
assessment needs.
arctic recommendations
President Obama recognized that the Arctic would become
increasingly important from both an economic and strategic perspective
as the polar ice cap melts and new shipping lanes and opportunities for
resource use and extraction emerged. To grapple with these emerging
challenges his Administration developed the first National Strategy for
the Arctic Region, and, in partnership with Canada, in 2016, proposed A
New Model for Arctic Leadership. Both documents called for building a
sustainable Arctic economy, supporting conservation, and supporting
Arctic communities including through increased collaboration with
indigenous communities and valuation of local and traditional
knowledge. Needed investments in Arctic infrastructure should follow a
similar model and make sure that local communities are engaged in
decisionmaking processes and that impacts on sensitive and changing
ecosystems are considered. I list a number of these needs below which
also broadly map to the CMTS' 10-year Arctic infrastructure priorities.
Maritime Domain Awareness and Readiness--
The USCG's National Security Cutter program should be
fully funded and clearly supported in the developing USCG Arctic
Strategy.
The USCG Alaska Arctic Port Access Route Study (PARS)
should be fully funded and completed in a timely manner that allows for
appropriate consultation with local communities.
Support for NOAA's Office of the Coast Survey and
National Geodetic Survey should be increased to accelerate Arctic
surveying, charting, and National Geodetic Reference Frame updates.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should complete their
feasibility study for a deep water port in Northwest Alaska.
Development of a deep water port should be pursued based
on the recommendations of the USACE study and in consultation with
local communities.
Investment in additional oil spill and incident response
infrastructure is critical including pre-positioning and transport
planning for events on the North Slope.
Communications--Communication infrastructure to support both ship
to ship and ship to shore networks is lacking on the North Slope.
Investments are needed to support the expanded use of Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS) and broadband communications.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you for your testimony.
And I want to now turn to Lynn Scarlett.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much. Thank you, members of
the committee, for this opportunity to discuss infrastructure
resilience. I am Lynn Scarlett, vice president of policy and
Government relations at The Nature Conservancy.
As we look to invest in infrastructure in the context of
climate change, nature itself can be a solution. Natural
infrastructure can be clean, green and dollar smart. It is real
and practical. So what is it?
Natural infrastructure refers to investments in natural and
bioengineered systems to contribute to infrastructure needs. It
can be deployed alone or in combination with more traditional
infrastructure. It includes green spaces that absorb and filter
stormwater, reducing flooding and pollution, often at much less
cost than refurbishing pipe-and-tunneling systems.
For example, Philadelphia is putting nature back into the
city to handle sewerage overflow and stormwater at a fraction
of the cost to replace pipes and tunnels. Seattle reduced the
volume of runoff in one neighborhood by 98 percent by using
natural infrastructure and the price tag was 25 percent less
than traditional tools.
Beyond city spaces, natural infrastructure includes the use
of living shorelines of sea marshes, oyster reefs and dunes. In
Howard Beach, New York, for example, the conservancy evaluated
nature-based infrastructure and showed that a combination of
nature-based and grade defenses result in avoided losses of
$244 million from extreme storm events.
The potential risk-reducing benefits of nature's assets are
not hypothetical. In one study, the conservancy and a global
risk modeler for the insurance industry modeled storm surge and
damages from Hurricane Sandy. We determined that coastal
wetlands prevented more than $625 million in property damages.
Nature can help with transportation systems, too,
especially in culvert design. Most culverts across this country
see upsizing as we see more frequent high-intensity storms and
the effects of a changing climate. Using culverts with natural
bottoms reduces erosion and flooding. In New York, for example,
one use of such an approach resulted in a road crossing
surviving seven federally declared flood disasters over the
past 15 years.
We have engaged across the Nation in natural infrastructure
projects. These include one in Hamilton City, California, with
the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce flood damage and restore
ecosystems through levee setbacks and reconnecting 1,400 acres
of flood plain. They include many projects in the Gulf of
Mexico and the eastern seaboard on oyster reef restoration.
They include efforts in, for example, Coquille Valley, Oregon,
to upgrade tide gates and culverts, improve water management at
less cost than traditional levees.
But significant opportunities exist to enhance the extent
and effectiveness of these efforts. We launched a natural
infrastructure initiative with the company Caterpillar as they
and other business leaders recognized the potential of natural
infrastructure. The initiative includes AECOM, Great Lakes
Dredge and Dock, Brown and Root and other partners. The purpose
is to accelerate investment in water-based infrastructure and
promote the use of natural infrastructure.
The Federal Government is also helping lead the way. The
Army Corps has many natural infrastructure projects and
recently released a report called Engineering with Nature. But
we see more opportunities for Federal leadership. These include
consideration of natural infrastructure in Federal agency
planning and in community hazard mitigation planning and
investments. They include increasing reforestation through the
Forest Service Restoration Trust Fund. They include supporting
the Federal Highway Administration in infrastructure
vulnerability assessments and training around its natural
infrastructure guidance for transportation investments.
As we invest in this Nation's infrastructure, let us not
build ourselves back into the 20th century. Nature's solutions
are part of a better, cheaper, smarter future. Thank you.
[Ms. Scarlett's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lynn Scarlett, Vice President for Public Policy
and Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and committee members,
thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's views
on enhancing resilience of our transportation infrastructure. My name
is Lynn Scarlett. I am Vice President for Public Policy and Government
Relations at The Nature Conservancy.
The Conservancy is a global conservation organization dedicated to
conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. Guided by
science, we create innovative, on-the-ground solutions to the world's
toughest challenges so that nature and people can thrive together. We
are tackling climate change, conserving lands, waters and oceans at
unprecedented scale, providing food and water sustainably and helping
make cities more sustainable. Working in all 50 States and 72
countries, we use a collaborative approach that engages local
communities, governments, the private sector and other partners,
including farmers, ranchers and other landowners.
infrastructure needs and natural infrastructure
There are tremendous needs for improving and maintaining all kinds
of infrastructure throughout the United States. Review of the recent
American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 scorecard giving the state of
our nation's infrastructure a D+ summarizes this need. To meet the
needs for upgrading our nation's infrastructure requires investing
significant resources and finding ways to cost effectively and
expeditiously accomplish needed infrastructure investments while
sustaining community, environmental, safety and other widely held
values. One significant tool in meeting the infrastructure demands in a
cost-effective manner is to consider investments in natural
infrastructure.
Natural infrastructure refers to investments in restoration,
conservation of nature and nature-based (bioengineered) systems to
achieve infrastructure needs. Investments in natural infrastructure
often occur combined with investments in more traditional ``gray,'' or
``hard,'' infrastructure like levees, roads and seawalls. Investments
in natural infrastructure help preserve or reintroduce the basic
functions of nature that deliver a suite of benefits in support human
well-being; provide clean water and clean air; and sustain lands that
provide food and recreation opportunities and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Many of these solutions provide infrastructure innovations
as important for their cost-effective performance as are innovations in
high-technology solutions.
investments in natural infrastructure enhance resilience to growing
impacts
Investments in natural infrastructure can help reduce the impacts
of a changing climate. According to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. has sustained 241 weather
and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or
exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 241 events exceeds $1.6
trillion. In 2018 across the U.S., 14 weather and climate disaster
events resulted in losses exceeding $1 billion each. These events
included one drought, eight severe storms, two tropical cyclones, one
wildfire and two winter storms. Overall, these events resulted in the
deaths of 247 people and resulted in significant economic impacts.
Weather-related disasters have been escalating, and the trend is
expected to continue. Over the last 50 years, Americans have seen a 20
percent increase in high-intensity downpours. In addition, research
documents that the proportion of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes
has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent in 35 years (Holland and
Bruyere, 2012). Coastal storm surge and storm impacts will intensify as
sea levels continue to rise the predicted 0.6 feet and 2 feet globally
in the next century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).
Understanding these observed and projected effects are important to
advance prudent management and infrastructure investments.
investments in natural infrastructure are a smart investment
Incorporating nature in our infrastructure designs and investments
provides opportunities to enhance the resilience of our nation's
infrastructure, delivers a host of benefits and ensures that we are not
repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure based on outdated standards and
trends. For example, rebuilding culverts without taking into
consideration trends of increased rainfall events will result in those
culverts being repeatedly blown out, while also damaging roads. We see
many examples of this type of repeat damage and Federal funds being
wasted rebuilding the same culvert or other types of infrastructure, in
the same manner, only to be subsequently destroyed during the next
extreme weather event. We should make smarter investments and rebuild
larger culvert openings or more resilient infrastructure designs that
will accommodate flood waters or withstand other extreme weather
impacts. Doing so also helps avoid costly road closures. Larger culvert
sizes also enhance the health of rivers, benefiting fish and other
wildlife.
what is natural infrastructure?
Defining the terms natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions
can help provide a common understanding of what is meant by these
terms. We have received from Members of Congress and congressional
staff requests for more information on what is meant by these terms.
The terms have been defined in section 1184 of Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) 2016 legislation:
``The term 'natural feature' means a feature that is created
through the action of physical, geological, biological and chemical
processes over time.''
``The term `nature-based feature' means a feature that is
created by human design, engineering and construction to provide risk
reduction in coastal areas by acting in concert with natural
processes.''
WRDA 2018 amended the definition of nature-based feature to strike
the word ``coastal,'' resulting in the term applying to all areas. We
generally agree with this definition.
Natural infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment
and engineered systems that mimic natural processes or work in concert
with natural systems to provide flood, fire and drought risk reduction,
clean water and clean air benefits. Natural infrastructure delivers
economic, societal and environmental benefits.
At its essence, natural infrastructure can protect, restore or
mimic the role that nature plays--ecological processes, including, but
not limited to, water quality and quantity processes. Natural
infrastructure uses vegetation, soil health, land protection, land
management and other elements and practices to protect, maintain and
restore the natural processes required to manage water and other
natural processes, create healthier environments and protect human
communities. Natural infrastructure solutions can be applied on
different scales: at the city, county or regional scales. By using
nature, damages and impacts can be minimized, and communities can
recover more quickly from disasters and impacts.
To illustrate varied types of natural infrastructure projects, we
include a compilation of natural infrastructure projects from
throughout the U.S. in which the Conservancy has been involved. (See
Appendix A.) The Naturally Resilient Communities website, which the
Conservancy developed along with the National Association of Counties,
the Association of State Floodplain Managers, as well as others,
provides an overview of natural infrastructure and case studies
throughout the U.S. that illustrate varied types of projects.
Benefits of natural infrastructure include the following:
Reducing risks to people and structures
Reducing wave heights and storm surge
Storing and conveying water
Improving water quality (and reducing costs of water
treatment)
Reducing drought impacts
Reducing threats of catastrophic fires
Reducing summer heat and improving air quality
Reducing erosion and sedimentation
Providing green spaces, greenways and recreational
opportunities
Providing habitat for fish and wildlife
Types of natural infrastructure include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
River work Coastal work Urban work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconnecting rivers to Conserving/restoring Constructed wetlands
floodplains coastal marshes Bioretention cells
Levee setbacks and Conserving/restoring Planting trees
realignments oyster and shellfish Conserving lands in
Flood bypasses reefs watershed headwaters
Conserving/restoring Conserving/restoring Sustainable forest
watershed forests coral reefs management
Conserving/restoring Building living
river corridors shorelines
Conserving/restoring Conserving/restoring
wetlands intertidal flats
Constructing wetlands Conserving/restoring
Establishing flood mangroves
water detention areas
Fish/flood friendly
culverts/bridges
Dam removal
Establishing filter
strips, grassed
waterways on farm
fields
------------------------------------------------------------------------
investing in natural infrastructure can be economically prudent
The traditional approach to flood and water quality protection in
river-floodplain systems has been to rely on dams and levees to contain
flood waters; build treatment plants and lay miles of pipes to treat
and transport water and wastewater; and, in coastal areas, build sea
walls, bulkheads and other gray infrastructure. While built
infrastructure plays an important role in helping to secure and provide
essential services to communities, it requires substantial investments
for both initial construction and ongoing maintenance. Moreover,
extensive reliance on built infrastructure in the United States during
the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries has encouraged land development
in areas particularly susceptible to flooding and storm damage and
catastrophic flooding when infrastructure fails. And fail it has.
Many disasters during the past decade have involved numerous levee
breaches, dam failures and seawall breaches. Failing gray
infrastructure has led to extensive property and infrastructure
destruction and lives lost.
If left unaddressed, as the nation's water infrastructure and flood
protection infrastructure continue to age, we expect economic losses
will continue to increase--including the taxpayer's large obligation
under the National Flood Insurance Program--along with the risk faced
by tens of millions of Americans who live and work behind levees and
tens of millions more living along the coast.
Renewing the nation's traditional built flood control and water
infrastructure solutions presents a daunting challenge. The American
Society for Civil Engineers reports that there are 30,000 documented
miles of levees in the U.S. protecting communities, critical
infrastructure and valuable property. The levees in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' data base protect an estimated $1.3 trillion in property.
Yet development continues to encroach in floodplains along rivers and
coastal areas, exacerbating flood risk and putting property at risk. An
estimated $80 billion is needed in the next 10 years to maintain and
improve the nation's system of levees. The challenge also exists for
coastal infrastructure. In Massachusetts alone, there are about 140
miles of publicly owned sea walls or other structures along the coast
designed to protect billions of dollars of property. Most were designed
to last a half century but are older than that now. The estimated price
tag to repair and fortify all of them against rising seas is more than
a billion dollars.
Natural infrastructure or natural infrastructure combined with gray
infrastructure is often the most cost-effective and best-performing
option for reducing flood risk while delivering a host of other
benefits such as improved water quality, enhanced habitat for fish and
animals, improved aesthetics and overall contribution to a community's
quality of life.
For example, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that 180 million
people access their drinking water from national forests. More than 5
million of these people live in communities served by small- and
medium-sized utilities that rely on surface water for their drinking
water. At a time when climate-driven droughts and megafires are more
common, these communities will need support to protect both homes and
water supplies. And in urban areas, investments in natural
infrastructure--such as parks and green spaces, as well as dunes and
wetlands--can help increase cities' resilience to climate change, as
well as improve the health, safety and quality of life of urban
residents.
growing body of evidence on effectiveness and cost effectiveness of
natural infrastructure
In Coastal Areas
A growing body of knowledge and experience demonstrate the
effectiveness and cost effectiveness of coastal natural infrastructure.
In the U.S., coastal wetlands act as ``horizontal levees'' for a value
of $23.2 billion per year in protection from storms (Costanza et al.,
2008). Barbier et al. (2013) show that coastal marshes and vegetation
have demonstrable effects on reducing storm surge levels, which
provides significant value in protecting property in southeast
Louisiana. They measured that a mere 1 percent increase in wetland
continuity over 6 kilometers would lower residential property flood
damages by $592,000 to $792,100, and a marginal increase in bottom
friction over 6 kilometers would reduce flood damages by $141,000 to
$258,000.
In a 2016 study, the Conservancy, in partnership with Risk
Management Solutions, a global leading risk modeler for the insurance
industry, Guy Carpenter & Co. and others showed that marsh wetlands
saved more than $650 million in property damages during Hurricane Sandy
and reduced annual property losses by nearly 20 percent in Ocean
County, New Jersey (Narayan et al., 2016b).
Oyster reef development and restoration also yield significant
economic benefits. A 2012 study by Conservancy economist Timm Kroeger
summarized that an investment of $150 million in oyster reef
restoration will achieve the following:
Build 100 miles of oyster reefs
Create 380 jobs per year for 10 years, or rather, 3,800
jobs during the decade-long construction phase
Boost regional household income by $9.7 million a year
during the 10-year construction period
Increase revenues and sales of crab, fish and oyster
harvests by $7.87 million yearly
Save property owners up to $150 million on the
construction of bulkheads
Enhance yearly saltwater angler spending by $4.9 million
in Alabama alone
Increase annual sales by $7.3 million in the commercial
seafood supply chain
In Freshwater Areas
There are also examples of investing in natural infrastructure in
freshwater systems. The best known example is New York City's effort to
protect its water supply. In the late 1990's, New York City initiated a
plan to protect its source water and avoid the cost of a filtration
plant by investing in its 2,000-square-mile watershed. A filtration
plant would have cost the city $8 billion to $10 billion in current
dollars--roughly $6 billion to build and $250 million annually to
maintain. In contrast, the cost of securing natural infrastructure in
the watershed was estimated at $1.5 billion. The watershed program has
staved off the need to build a filtration plant and provided an annual
$100 million injection to the rural economy in the upper reaches of the
watershed by providing supplemental income to farmers and forestland
owners, paying local contractors to install septic systems and set up
stormwater protection measures and promoting ecotourism (Kenny, 2006.)
Another example is from the city of Medford, Oregon. Its wastewater
facility discharges into the Rogue River but exceeds maximum
temperature load requirements as allowed by its total maximum daily
load (TMDL). To meet its temperature TMDL requirements, Medford
evaluated three alternatives: lagoon storage for discharge later in the
year, mechanical chillers and riparian restoration and shading. An
economic analysis showed that riparian restoration was three times more
cost effective than mechanical chillers for reducing thermal loads into
the river and would provide additional benefits such as wildlife
habitat and water filtration.
It is often more cost effective to invest in reduction of risks of
catastrophic wildland fire than to pay for impacts of damaging fires.
For example, thinning 1 acre of dense forest in the critical Rio Grande
and San Juan-Chama headwaters area costs $700 on average, whereas the
economic impact of 1 acre affected by damaging wildfire can be up to
$2,150 per acre. Even if just one large fire burns, the upfront
investment in forest health saves money: Forest thinning to boost fire
resilience is estimated to cost $73 million to $174 million, with
damage estimates between $104 million and $1.3 billion. This approach
makes economic sense over the long term. A recent study estimated the
cost of damages from wildfires from 2009 to 2012 in New Mexico was $1.5
billion. In contrast, the Rio Grande Water Fund estimates a total cost
of $420 million over 20 years to accelerate the pace and scale of
forest treatments and restoration. Preserving and restoring these
forests will help ensure the sustainability of New Mexico's water
supply and increase social and economic benefits for local communities.
Nationally, a rough estimate is that 67 percent of culverts are not
designed to allow for a 1 percent flood (100-year flood) and need
upsizing. Assuming a quarter of those need immediate replacement, the
savings over the life of the new culverts would be $8 trillion. The
savings increase with increased flood risk and grow exponentially when
emergency management is required due to road or bridge washout--none of
the calculations account for the dramatic costs of catastrophic failure
and emergency replacement. When aggregated to a Federal level, culvert
upgrades could represent significant savings to public transportation
budgets.
In Hancock, New York, three flood events between 1996 and 2005
damaged an undersized culvert on Big Hollow Creek. In those 9 years,
Delaware County spent more than $70,000 to repair damages to the
culvert, as well as the road and adjacent ditches. In addition, the
detour length associated with closure of the road for repairs was 18
miles. Late in 2005, with hazard mitigation funding assistance from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the county installed a
three-sided concrete box culvert with a natural bottom, designed to
convey a 100-year storm and provided at a cost of $143,000. The
improved crossing has survived seven federally declared flood
disasters, including Hurricane Irene, without significant damage since
its replacement in 2005 (W. Reynolds, Delaware County Department of
Public Works, pers. comm.).
In Urban Areas
Natural infrastructure in cities is most often called green
infrastructure. Green infrastructure has a proven track record of being
more cost effective, in many cases, than traditional gray
infrastructure solutions in achieving surface water management goals.
For instance, the American Society of Landscape Architects studied 479
green stormwater infrastructure projects, of which 44 percent were
lower than and 31 percent were equivalent to the costs of gray
infrastructure alternatives.
In one example at Episcopal High School in Baton Rouge, the cost of
bioswales and rain gardens constructed in lieu of replacing stormwater
pipes with larger-sized pipes saved the school $390,000, a cost savings
of 78 percent over the original project budget of $500,000.
Green infrastructure projects, beyond level of service and
environmental benefits, have compounding economic benefits. In its
study of the green infrastructure alternative for the city of
Lancaster, Penn., the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that
the added-value benefits amounted to nearly $5 million per year.
congressional actions by this committee and others have enabled
increased investments in natural infrastructure
Congress has taken some important steps toward recognizing,
enabling and funding investment in natural infrastructure. An important
milestone occurred in the special disaster appropriations that Congress
passed in response to Superstorm Sandy. Congress appropriated funding
for several agencies and programs that provided important investments
in natural and nature-based project work resulting in reducing future
flood risk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received $360 million for
coastal resilience projects. This funding spurred important investments
in natural infrastructure. With this funding, the Conservancy led work
in New York to mitigate flooding and improve fish passage in the
Ausable watershed and invested in green infrastructure in Accomack and
Northampton counties in Virginia. The Conservancy also contributed to
work in Delaware restoring Delaware Bay's wetlands and beaches in
Mispillion Harbor Reserve and Milford Neck Conservation area, and in
Massachusetts removed 10 fish barriers in nine communities resulting in
lowering flood risk and improving fish habitat and overall quality of
the streams.
Other sources of funding in the Sandy bill also contributed to
enhanced resilience by helping invest in natural infrastructure. NOAA
was awarded a small amount of funding that it invested in funding
networks of State, academic, local and nongovernmental organizations to
build a learning network to spur planning and implementation of actions
to enhance community resilience. This was an important capacity-
building investment helping grow and disseminate and build the body of
knowledge and capacity to implement future coastal resilience work. One
such investment in New Jersey continues to enable ongoing coastal
resilience work in that State. Natural Resource Conservation Service
was awarded funds through its Emergency Watershed Protection program,
which invests in easement purchases in floodplains to restore
floodplain areas and allow them to function as areas to absorb and slow
floodwaters.
Sandy disaster funding also included $1 billion in disaster funds
for the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) National Resilience
Competition. The competition encouraged communities to develop disaster
recovery plans from past disasters and make investments to lower risk
to future disasters while advancing broader community development
goals. The competition encouraged participants to think expansively
when developing projects that would enable community development goals
and ensure public engagement. As part of the effort, the Rockefeller
Foundation collaborated with HUD and provided workshops and expert
input to applicants to help build capacity and enhance application
quality. Most of the applications in response to this competition
included elements of investment in natural infrastructure. The
Conservancy would like to see this program replicated.
In addition to funding bills, other legislation has advanced the
concept of and enabling conditions for investing in nature as a tool
for reducing risk from a range of impacts such as flooding, drought and
wildfires.
As noted previously, WRDA 2016 provided the most comprehensive
definition of natural and nature-based infrastructure to date. The 2018
WRDA bill builds on this definition to further require the Army Corps
to consider natural and nature-based infrastructure when carrying out
studies of projects.
As evidence of the Army Corps' own work to support investments in
natural infrastructure, the Army Corps held an event at the National
Building Museum in Washington, DC, to launch its new publication,
``Engineering With Nature: An Atlas.'' The book is filled with global
examples of natural and nature-based project work.
further work to be done to enable natural infrastructure investments
Many other statutes have included the need to protect and restore
ecosystems and watersheds to protect the myriad of important services
intact and healthy natural systems provide to people. There are many
more opportunities to continue to include this intent in other
legislation dealing with infrastructure investments and disaster,
wildfire and drought risk reduction. The Conservancy will continue to
advocate for consideration of and investments in natural infrastructure
as the Congress works on developing a bill to invest in infrastructure,
as well as in other appropriate legislative vehicles.
Congress must also ensure that infrastructure is built to enhance
resilience in the context of a changing climate and increasingly
frequent extreme weather and wildfire events. Congress can improve
planning, training and direct investments in nature-based and gray
infrastructure by doing the following:
Requiring resilience and flood and wildfire risk analysis
in federally funded work, and upgrading flood maps and wildfire risk
maps
Bolstering interagency coordination to enhance resilience
Incentivizing enhanced community hazard mitigation
planning and investments
Enhancing consideration of and investments in natural
infrastructure alone or in combination with gray infrastructure to
maximize environmental, societal and economic benefits
Reducing wildfire risk to communities by investing in
future risk reductions following disasters and updating Community
Wildfire Protection Plans
Codifying the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails
program to prioritize corrections to deferred maintenance
Increasing reforestation by investing in the U.S. Forest
Service Reforestation Trust Fund to plant an additional 1 million trees
in 3 years
And Federal agencies can play varying roles in advancing
investments in natural infrastructure, including the following:
Army Corps can continue to invest in natural
infrastructure by offering training and workshops for its staff
throughout the U.S. to help them understand how best to incorporate
nature in their project analysis and implementation
NOAA can provide data, decision support tools such as
online vulnerability assessment and solution analysis tools, technical
assistance and training
U.S. Geological Survey can make its science more
centrally located, accessible and in easy-to-access online GIS-based
tools
FEMA can make more of its flood data available and
accessible to allow better analysis and targeting of risk reduction
actions
Federal Highway Administration can invest more resources
in its infrastructure vulnerability assessment work and dissemination
and training around its soon-to-be-released guidance on incorporation
of natural infrastructure into transportation investments
growing support among businesses and communities
In addition to growing support in Congress to promote investments
in natural infrastructure, the Conservancy has seen encouraging,
growing support from businesses who see investments in nature as
important business investments.
In 2015, the Conservancy joined with Caterpillar and launched the
Natural Infrastructure Initiative (NII). The NII grew out of a
gathering of business leaders recognizing the need to work with and
invest in nature and understanding this as a business opportunity.
Members of the NII in addition to the Conservancy and Caterpillar
include AECOM, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, Ducks Unlimited and Brown
and Root. NII members are working collaboratively to accelerate
investment in water-based natural infrastructure projects as part of a
solution set for infrastructure needs, embed natural infrastructure as
part of ongoing discussions about improving investment in water-based
infrastructure and promote the use of natural infrastructure in
general.
The Conservancy has worked with other companies and organizations
to investigate natural infrastructure solutions and invest in projects.
Some examples include Dow, Jacobs, Boeing, BSNF and the American
Society of Civil Engineers. The Conservancy is committed to working
with businesses who understand the value of making these investments.
In addition to corporate support, the Conservancy has seen growing
support among elected officials and is working with organizations such
as the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative (MRCTI), which
represents cities and towns along the main stem of the Mississippi
River and advocates on issues facing the communities, such as improving
water quality and reducing flood risk. The Conservancy has also worked
with the National Association of County Officials (NACO), who has
joined with us in support of investments in natural infrastructure.
MRCTI and NACO members understand the numerous benefits provided
through investments in nature.
conservancy examples of various types of natural infrastructure work
The Conservancy is a leader in executing projects that serve as
prime examples of investments in natural infrastructure. I would like
to close my testimony by briefly describing a few representative
examples of the Conservancy's work taking place throughout the U.S.
Hamilton City, Calif.--Hamilton City is located approximately 90
miles north of Sacramento and is adjacent to the west bank of the
Sacramento River. The project is a multipurpose flood damage reduction
and ecosystem restoration project consisting of construction of a 6.8-
mile setback levee to provide improved flood protection to the
community and agricultural areas, and reconnection of approximately
1,400 acres to the Sacramento River floodplain and restoration of that
acreage into native riparian habitat. The project was authorized under
WRDA 2007, amended in WRDA 2017 and is estimated to cost $91 million,
of which $31.3 million is the non-Federal contribution. The fact that
this project addresses both flood protection and ecosystem restoration
required new Army Corps policy guidelines to permit these objectives in
a single project. The Conservancy is working with the Army Corps
nationally to encourage expanded implementation of multi-benefit
projects, which is challenging given the Army Corps' methods for
evaluating the cost and benefits of projects. The project will help to
lessen historic flooding that has impacted Hamilton City and result in
enhanced habitat for fish and wildlife.
Pacific Northwest--Throughout the Pacific Northwest, tide gates and
levees are used to control water from rivers and the ocean on low-lying
properties. Tidal wetlands--which are critical to the survival of
salmon--once covered most of the Coquille Valley. Today, less than 10
percent of these historic wetlands in the Coquille Basin remain. The
Conservancy has been working with Federal and State partners in the
Coquille watershed in southwestern Oregon to design, upgrade and
replace tide gates, which is already proving to provide benefits to the
local community and the agricultural grazing lands while at the same
time improving water quality, rearing habitat and fish passage.
The Conservancy and partners have work underway replacing old tide
gates and culverts with seven new tide gates and five new bridges to
dramatically improve fish passage and restore wetland function and
tidal flow in the Coquille basin. By working with the Beaver Slough
Drainage District, China Creek Gun Club, Coquille Indian Tribe, Federal
partners such as NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
entities, this project is reconnecting 7.8 miles of historic channels
to the Coquille River. The new infrastructure requires less
maintenance, resulting in cost savings over time. Local landowners have
reported their excitement about ``raising cattle in the summer and
salmon in the winter.''
The construction projects are projected to generate at least $4.2
million and will support 18 to 25 jobs. Many local businesses will see
new demand in specific industries like nurseries, heavy equipment, rock
or gravel and local labor.
New Jersey--Since Superstorm Sandy, the Conservancy's New Jersey
chapter has been working to demonstrate the success and benefits of
projects that help its coastal salt marshes--which helped reduce
damages in New Jersey during Sandy by nearly $500 million--persist in
the face of sea level rise. One such project tested an innovative
technique in which clean mud and sand from clogged boat channels was
sprayed on top of nearby marshes to help boost the elevation of more
than 60 acres of marsh. This so-called technique of beneficial reuse of
dredged material is aimed at boosting the health of the wetland to help
reduce future storm impacts. This project was the result of a
successful partnership with the Army Corps, the State of New Jersey and
others. The construction on three different marshes was completed about
3 years ago, and the Conservancy is helping to assess the success and
impact of the project. The results have been promising. In combination
with other nature-based solutions, like oyster reef breakwaters to
reduce marsh erosion, the Conservancy is working to expand the
consideration and implementation of a variety of natural infrastructure
investments to help the Jersey Shore become more resilient to the
impacts of climate change.
Washington, DC.--To mitigate stormwater runoff, Washington, DC,
instituted a first-of-its-kind stormwater retention credit (SRC)
market. The market reduces the impact of stormwater runoff--the
largest-growing source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
the fastest-growing source of urban water pollution globally. It allows
land-constrained developers to meet a portion of their stormwater
retention requirements by purchasing SRCs. Credits are generated by
stormwater retention projects elsewhere in the city, including green
infrastructure projects.
Investments in green infrastructure for stormwater retention can
bring income to landowners and provide valuable co-benefits, including
expanded green space, reduced localized flooding, increased flexibility
and onsite revenue options for developers and jobs to build and
maintain green infrastructure sites. Offsite credit projects create
opportunities for infrastructure investments in underserved
communities.
The Conservancy's NatureVest is partnering with Encourage Capital
to establish and capitalize District Stormwater, LLC (DS), which will
finance and develop SRC-generating projects. DS will work with
landowners and community groups to site credit-generating projects in
parts of Washington, DC, that would most benefit from green
infrastructure while creating liquid, cost-competitive credits for sale
in the SRC market. DS anticipates mitigating 500,000 gallons of runoff
annually. This will protect fragile ecosystems, such as the Chesapeake
Bay, that are too often overrun by polluted stormwater that can contain
raw sewage; provide infrastructure services to underserved communities
through increased green space and the reduction of localized flooding;
and inspire new conservation-minded people as they see the benefits of
green infrastructure in their communities.
Gulf of Mexico--Throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern
seaboard, oysters play a vitally important role in supporting healthy
estuaries. Oyster reefs provide multiple benefits, from providing
habitat and food for wildlife, to filtering water, removing nitrogen
and stabilizing eroding coastlines. Oysters are also a favorite cuisine
for people, and States throughout the southeast once had robust oyster
fisheries. A healthy adult oyster can filter up to 50 gallons of water
daily, helping to cleanse estuaries and support aquatic grasses and
other plants that need light to survive. These plants, in turn, yield
benefits like fish production and carbon storage, completing an
invaluable cycle. Healthy oyster reefs also serve as natural buffers
against rising sea tides and hurricanes by forming breakwaters that
help protect shorelines from erosion. Oyster reefs also create economic
value, bringing upwards of $10 million (dockside valuation) into
Florida alone. Oyster reefs have severely declined throughout their
historical ranges all over the world. Today, oyster reefs are
considered one of the planet's most imperiled marine habitats. Over the
last two centuries, more than 85 percent of the world's oyster reefs
have been lost. The Conservancy is working throughout the Gulf of
Mexico, as well as along the eastern seaboard, to restore and build
oyster reefs to maximize the services this important species provides
to people and nature.
Massachusetts--In September 2016, Gov. Charlie Baker issued an
executive order that launched a statewide planning process and a
municipal technical assistance program. A priority is placed on
investing in nature-based solutions to enhance resilience and actions
to mitigate climate change.
Along with the executive order, the State launched a new website,
the resilient MA Climate Clearinghouse, to provide communities access
to the best science and data on expected climate change impacts,
information on planning and actions communities can deploy to build
resilience and avoid loss, and links to important grant programs and
technical assistance. The State has also stood up the Municipal
Vulnerability Preparedness program that provides communities with a
planning expert to walk them through a Conservancy-developed community
resilience building process. Communities must update their hazard
mitigation plans after going through the process and continue to make
progress to be eligible for State mitigation grant funds.
This past year, the Massachusetts legislature-enacted climate
change bond provided $2.4 billion in capital funding for the next 5
years. The focus is on investing in nature-based solutions to lessen
climate impacts and enhance resilience. In January, Baker filed a bill
to increase the real estate transaction fee and use the funds for
climate change adaptation and resilience (more than $1 billion over 10
years).
This program should be replicated at the Federal level. An
important role Federal agencies can play is to provide technical and
planning assistance, provide the latest science in a user-friendly
manner and share best practices to effectively address the challenges
of extreme weather and a changing climate that are inflicting
significant costs on communities throughout our Nation.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations on the need for the Federal Government to prioritize
investment in nature as an important tool for enhancing resilience to
the increasing impacts of extreme weather and climate change. The
Conservancy will continue to lead the way in contributing to the
science and executing projects that demonstrate the important benefits
and services that nature provides to people. The Conservancy will
continue to work with the Congress to recommend and advance policies to
support increased investments in natural infrastructure that help cost
effectively address our nation's infrastructure challenges.
appendix a:
natural infrastructure: what does it mean?
Natural infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment
and engineered systems that mimic natural processes or work in concert
with natural systems to provide flood, fire and drought risk reduction,
clean water, and clean air benefits. Natural infrastructure delivers
economic, societal and environmental benefits.
At its essence, natural infrastructure can protect, restore, or
mimic the role that nature plays--the ecological processes--including,
but not limited to, water quality and quantity processes. Natural
infrastructure uses vegetation, soil health, land protection, land
management and other elements and practices to protect, maintain and
restore the natural processes required to manage water and other
natural processes, create healthier environments, and protect human
communities.
Natural infrastructure solutions can be applied on different
scales: at the city, county or regional scale. By using nature, damages
and impacts can be minimized and communities can recover more quickly
from disasters and impacts.
benefits of natural infrastructure
Keep people and structures out of harm's way
Reduce wave heights and storm surge
Store and convey water
Improve water quality
Reduce drought impacts
Reduce threat of catastrophic fires
Reduce summer heat and improve air quality
Reduce erosion and sedimentation
Provide greenspaces, greenways and recreational
opportunities
Provide habitat for fish and wildlife
types of infrastructure projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
River work Coastal work Urban work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconnecting rivers to Conserving/restoring Constructed wetlands
floodplains coastal marshes Bioretention cells
Levee setbacks and Conserving/restoring Planting trees
realignments oyster and shellfish Conserving lands in
Flood bypasses reefs watershed headwaters
Conserving/restoring Conserving/restoring Sustainable forest
watershed forests coral reefs management
Conserving/restoring Building living
river corridors shorelines
Conserving/restoring Conserving/restoring
wetlands intertidal flats
Constructing wetlands Conserving/restoring
Establishing flood mangroves
water detention areas
Fish/flood friendly
culverts/bridges
Dam removal
Establishing filter
strips, grassed
waterways on farm
fields
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mobile bay, alabama
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
Mobile Bay is the fourth largest estuary in the continental United
States and plays an important role in nurturing the finfish, shrimp and
oysters that are vital to Gulf communities.
Unfortunately, Mobile Bay--like the rest of the Gulf Coast--has
lost many of its oyster reefs, seagrass beds and coastal marshes.
Losing these reefs has meant increased shoreline erosion and related
property damage.
Despite these challenges, Mobile Bay remains one of the largest
potential areas for outright restoration, replacement and enhancement
of these lost habitats on the Northern Gulf Coast.
The Conservancy is working with partners, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, to build 100 miles of oyster reef and plant 1,000
acres of coastal marsh and seagrass here to help replenish the coastal
waters and reduce shoreline flood impacts to local communities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(c) Beth Maynor Young
hamilton city, california
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
California Department of Water Resources, and Reclamation District
2140, the Conservancy is championing a $73 million project where, for
the first time, the Army Corps designed a multi-benefit project to
specifically reduce flood damages and restore critical floodplain
habitat on the Sacramento River.
Construction began in spring 2016 building a new 6.8-mile setback
levee, along with reconnecting 1,450 acres of floodplain between the
new set-back levee and the river.
Approximately 1,361 acres will be restored to native riparian
habitat and significantly reduce flood risk to the city of Hamilton,
which has frequently evacuated due to flooding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Sacramento River supports important agricultural areas and critical
wildlife habitat. (c) Jeff Fricker
emiquon preserve, illinois
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
The Nature Conservancy restored 5,900 acres of functional
floodplain wetlands and five river miles along the Illinois River in
Fulton County, Illinois.
Included in this restoration was, in consultation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the installation of a state-of-the-art flood
control structure.
The final result of this restoration connected floodplain to the
7,000 acres of adjacent Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge lands,
resulting in 14,000 acres of contiguous conservation lands, providing
flood control, environmental restoration, and public access to wildlife
and waterfowl habitat.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Nature Conservancy uses its Emiquon Preserve to demonstrate and
measure the benefits of restored floodplains and wetlands. (c)
Christina Rutter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Water control structure at Emiquon preserve.
south cape may meadows preserve, new jersey
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State
of New Jersey, the Conservancy undertook a $15 million restoration
project that combined natural features like dunes and wetlands with
levees and other engineered structures to control water.
Completed in 2004, the restored preserve has since withstood a
series of severe storms, including Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012.
Storm waves didn't breach the dunes, wetlands remained intact, and
the preserve helped protect neighboring communities, which experienced
only minor flooding unlike similar towns up and down the coast.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Nature Conservancy has helped restore over 630 acres of coastal
dunes, which can help protect communities from storms. (c) Harold E.
Malde
whittenton dam, taunton, massachusetts
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
In Massachusetts alone, there are close to 3,000 dams; many of them
are relics of bygone uses.
The Whittenton Pond Dam was in disrepair, and heavy rains in 2005
brought the threat of a catastrophic breach and flooding of downtown
Taunton, which was evacuated for a week as the dam appeared on the
verge of failure.
Removing the dam was less expensive than repairing it, with
rebuilding cost estimated to be $1.9 million and removal cost of
$447,000.
The dam's removal in 2013 opened 30 miles of river habitat to
vulnerable fish species, avoided $1.5 million in emergency response
cost, increased numbers of two vulnerable species (American eel and
river herring), and increased property values due to the lower flooding
risk.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Whittenton Mills dam, damaged during 2005 storm. photo credit: MA
Division of Ecological Restoration
ausable river watershed, new york
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
Undersized stream crossings are prone to damage from high flow
events and require more frequent maintenance and replacement. During
major storms, undersized culverts block water, clog with debris and
worsen flood impacts, requiring expensive repairs to the culverts,
nearby roads, and private property. When roads shut down due to this
damage, it creates lengthy detours, often affecting access to local
businesses. Poorly designed and installed culverts also block fish and
wildlife movement and impact habitat for economically important
fisheries.
In August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene brought significant rainfall
to much of New England and eastern New York, resulting in unprecedented
flood damage to infrastructure.
The Conservancy secured private and government grant funding to
replace and retrofit high ecological priority, flood-vulnerable
culverts in New England and in upstate New York. To date, The
Conservancy has worked with government and non-profit partners to
complete three culvert replacements and two culvert retrofit projects
in the Ausable River Watershed in the Adirondacks. These projects
connect over 65 miles of previously fragmented fish habitat, mitigate
future flood damage, improve safety on vital local road networks, and
reduce maintenance costs for communities. The culvert upgrades prevent
future road damage that occurs when undersized culverts blow out during
floods.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Roaring Brook culvert prior to replacement. At lower flows this culvert
outlet was perched above the water surface, creating a barrier to the
movement of fish. The stream was constricted by the pipes' combined
span of 12 feet, which caused debris buildup and localized flooding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Roaring Brook culvert replacement: With a width of 35 feet, the new
culvert--an open-bottom concrete box with a natural streambed--allows
the stream to pass freely underneath, opening six miles of upstream
habitat for fish and designed to withstand high water flows.
upper mississippi river
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
In cooperation with a diverse group of Upper Mississippi River
(UMR) stakeholders, The Nature Conservancy is working to garner Federal
appropriations for a dual-purpose program called the Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP). As the name implies, this
program is a measured plan to create a sustainable navigation system
with strategic improvements at 7 of 37 locks and other small-scale
efficiency measures. Safe and efficient movement of traffic would be
renewed on the navigation system, which was constructed almost 80 years
ago and is now facing continual rehabilitation to maintain. At the same
time, comparable funding for ecosystem restoration on the UMR will
afford the opportunity to use additional techniques for river
restoration such as reconnecting 35,000 acres of river floodplain;
providing native fish passage; regenerating floodplain forests; and
managing water levels closer to historic conditions to replicate more
natural seasonal conditions.
These new techniques, along with well-established river enhancement
measures to revitalize river channels, backwaters and floodplain
habitats are estimated to restore 40 percent of degraded UMR ecosystem.
A higher-functioning ecosystem provides human and natural services
through increased nutrient processing, flood storage capacity,
groundwater infiltration, cleaner water, and improved fish and wildlife
habitat.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Lock extensions from 600' to 1200' will increase efficiency at the 7
lock improvement sites by eliminating the need double locking (as shown
in picture) which is standard practice at all but two locks on the 37
lock system of the UMR. Disintegrating concrete and mechanical systems
will be rehabilitated or replaced as the lock in lengthened.
howard beach, queens, new york
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, The Nature Conservancy undertook a
project evaluating the role of nature and nature-based infrastructure
in protecting communities from some of the impacts of climate change.
The community of Howard Beach, Queens, was selected as a case study for
the project because this neighborhood, hit hard during Sandy, is low-
lying and densely populated. Although Howard Beach was used in the
analysis, the study methodology is applicable to coastal communities
across New York City and around the globe.
Experts analyzed several infrastructure alternatives, ranging from
purely nature-based solutions to one consisting of only gray defenses.
The study found that combining natural and gray defenses holds the most
benefits. Analysis shows that a hybrid alternative could result in
avoided losses in this one neighborhood of up to $244 million from the
current 1-in-100-year storm event.
The best conceptual alternative and most cost-effective, according
to the study, utilizes restored marsh habitat on the coast, hard toe
mussel beds along the shoreline, floodgates and sea walls to protect
against storm surge and rising sea levels and rock groins on the
shoreline to help prevent erosion.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Infographic of design alternatives studies.
rio grande water fund, new mexico
Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
The Rio Grande Water Fund is a ground-breaking project that is
engaging private and public partners in proactively protecting vital
watersheds in northern New Mexico.
Frequent, high-severity wildfires and subsequent post-fire flooding
increasingly threaten the Rio Grande's water security and cause
extensive soil erosion that degrade water quality for communities
downstream. Restoring overgrown forests is a proven solution to make
forests safer and healthier, and such efforts were already underway at
a small scale before the devastating Las Conchas fire blazed in 2011.
This fire demonstrated that the pace and scale of these treatments was
insufficient to guarantee water security for Albuquerque and irrigated
agricultural lands. The Rio Grande Water Fund works to generate
sustainable funding for a 20-year, large-scale program to restore the
health of the forest and watershed with treatments that include
thinning overgrown forests, restoring streams and rehabilitating areas
that flood after wildfires.
This approach makes good economic sense over the long-term. A
recent study estimated the cost of damages from wildfires 2009 to 2012
in New Mexico was $15 billion. In contrast, the Rio Grande Water Fund
estimates a total cost of $420 million over 20 years to accelerate the
pace and scale of forest treatments and restoration. Preserving and
restoring these forests will help ensure the sustainability of New
Mexico's water supply and increase social and economic benefits for
local communities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wetlands at Valles Caldera National Preserve. The Rio Grande Water Fund
engages private and public partners in protecting vital watersheds in
northern New Mexico. Photo credit: (c) Alan W. Eckert for The Nature
Conservancy
detroit, michigan
Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
management
Like many aging cities, Detroit faces water infrastructure
challenges. The city's sewer system is combined to collect rainwater
runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipes.
Heavy rain events overwhelm the system's capacity, creating raw sewage
overflows that flood basements and overflow into rivers and ultimately
the Great Lakes.
Under the Clean Water Act, the city is required to completely
eliminate all combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges, yet the costs
of implementing traditional ``gray'' infrastructure are only
increasing, with current estimates at $1.2 billion. To help reduce or
offset these costs, The Nature Conservancy is working with the city to
incorporate green infrastructure, a form of natural infrastructure used
in cities. The design uses green space and natural plant material to
absorb, retain, and slow stormwater runoff, reducing the amount of
water entering the storage facility for treatment, reducing CSO's, and
decreasing surface flooding. This, in turn, should lead to improved
water quality in adjacent rivers and lakes, as well as attractive green
spaces that contribute to neighborhood revitalization by offering
recreational areas and beautification opportunities.
The Conservancy has also provided technical assistance to develop
policies that have helped finance and encourage green infrastructure
solutions within Detroit. These policies have enabled economic markets
and private investment in support of public amenities in new innovative
ways.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Local flooding in Detroit, the result of aging infrastructure and heavy
rain. Photo credit: Michael David-Lorne Jordan/David-Lorne Photographic
louisville, kentucky
Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
management
The Nature Conservancy is working with partners to conduct a
rigorous evaluation of the link between urban vegetation/greenspace and
cardiovascular disease. The goal is to foster the development of public
health policy that incentivizes using increased tree canopy and other
forms of nature to achieve better health outcomes.
The desire is to quantify avoided healthcare costs as a way to
identify and create a funding stream for large-scale and sustained
urban tree and other vegetation plantings.
The aim is to create a replicable model for neighborhood greening
that other cities and developing countries can adopt. The project hopes
to provide more scientific evidence of the value of nature to people.
The Conservancy plans to manage about $8 million in greening
interventions, with planting beginning in 2017 and continuing for a
couple of years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Louisville's heat island has been steadily worsening over the decades,
especially in low-income neighborhoods, where temperatures can be 20
degrees higher than surrounding areas.
washington, dc
Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
management
To mitigate stormwater runoff, Washington D.C. instituted a first-
of-its-kind Stormwater Retention Credit (SRC) market. The market
reduces the impact of stormwater runoff--the largest growing source of
pollution to the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the fastest growing
source of urban water pollution globally. It allows land-constrained
developers to meet a portion of their stormwater retention requirements
by purchasing SRCs. Credits are generated by stormwater retention
projects elsewhere in the city, including green infrastructure
projects. Investments in green infrastructure for stormwater retention
can bring income to landowners and provide valuable co-benefits,
including expanded green space, reduced localized flooding, increased
flexibility and onsite revenue options for developers, and jobs to
build and maintain green infrastructure sites. Offsite credit projects
create opportunities for infrastructure investments in underserved
communities.
The Nature Conservancy's NatureVest is partnering with Encourage
Capital to establish and capitalize District Stormwater, LLC. (DS),
which will finance and develop SRC-generating projects. DS will work
with landowners and community groups to site credit-generating projects
in parts of the District that would most benefit from green
infrastructure, while creating liquid, cost-competitive credits for
sale in the SRC market. DS anticipates mitigating 500,000 gallons of
runoff annually. This will protect fragile ecosystems, such as the
Chesapeake Bay, that are too often overrun by polluted stormwater that
can contain raw sewage; provide infrastructure services to underserved
communities through increased green space and the reduction of
localized flooding; and inspire new conservation-minded people as they
see the benefits of green infrastructure in their communities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Example of a stormwater retention project
long island, new york
Project Type: Water quality protection
In what started with the conservation of 11,000 acres of
bottomlands in the Great South Bay in 2002, followed by hard clam
restoration efforts in collaboration with local, State and Federal
resource managers and stakeholders, The Nature Conservancy has embarked
on a major campaign to improve water quality on Long Island.
After shellfish restoration efforts did not perform as expected,
research was conducted and a group of scientists discovered that
nitrogen pollution from wastewater was contaminating Long Island's
groundwater and bays at a level high enough that marine life could not
thrive. Since that time the situation has worsened and fish kills and
toxic algae blooms have become more frequent.
The Nature Conservancy and partners are currently working with
local, State and Federal agencies as well as stakeholders to upgrade
municipal wastewater infrastructure and onsite wastewater systems from
outdated cesspools and septic systems to technology that will remove
nitrogen pollution and improve water quality. This will secure the
region's fishing and tourism industries into the future, restore tidal
marshes that enhance community resilience to storm impacts, and protect
public health.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo: Kenton Rowe, TNC
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much. Thank you. I wanted to
yield to myself for 5 minutes and I am going to try to get a
question in for each of you. I want to start with Mr. DeGood.
In your testimony, you discuss a dramatic departure from
the status quo, and a lot of what we talk about is funding. Are
you suggesting that we kind of turn over or start over on the
Highway Trust Fund and the Airway Trust Fund and the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund in order to create funding mechanisms?
What do you mean? What is the departure from the status quo?
Mr. DeGood. I think that the basic structure of those
programs is OK. I don't think it is really the need for the
Federal Government to make a higher percentage of project
selection decisions, necessarily. What I do think the Federal
Government has to do is set very clear and very aggressive
targets and then distribute those greenhouse gas reduction
targets to States and metropolitan regions based on the share
of VMT or air travel or marine travel that they may be
responsible for. And so allowing the sort of strength of
federalism to do what it does best, which is have people make
decisions that fit their local needs but be very clear on what
the responsibilities are moving forward.
Mr. Larsen. I think I understand your comment about it
being a break from the status quo and getting States and
localities to go along with that may be difficult. But I
appreciate you bringing it up.
Mr. Proctor, I am not going to ask you to go back 200 years
in the history of your company to talk about how infrastructure
has changed or technology has changed or your workforce has
changed. But perhaps in the last 10 to 15 years how it has
changed, because you talk about training a 21st-century
workforce. What does your workforce--how does it need to be
different today than it was even 10 years ago in looking at the
future of waterworks?
Mr. Proctor. Well, on the manufacturing side, it is
dramatically different. The techniques we use to manufacture
our products include robotics. Most of the melting systems are
computer controlled. Even the finishing systems are 21st-
century type equipment. And so a skilled workforce is essential
to the success of our manufacturing operations.
But in terms of how people use our products, if you look at
water infrastructure, for example, the trillion-dollar number
that you hear people knock around about how much we need to
invest in water, that is really just to restore our
infrastructure back to the condition it was in when it was
originally built. But we have opportunities today to make our
water infrastructure smarter. Wireless remote sensoring,
monitoring, leak detection, all those sorts of mechanisms. And
to do that, it requires that the utilities that are going to
operate these sort of systems have the sort of skills and
technological expertise that it takes to run them.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. I would love to expand on that but I do
want to move on. And I imagine that we will expand on it.
Mr. Saumweber, on resiliency standards for port
infrastructure, is there a broad difference from port to port
in this country on how they deal with infrastructure and
resilience?
Mr. Saumweber. I think a lot of the needs are really
determined by the local situation and what the existing
networks are for a given port. So it is highly variable from
port to port.
Mr. Larsen. But you note in your testimony, I guess you
imply that that is a problem?
Mr. Saumweber. I think the point is that we need to have a
national assessment of risk based on the specifics around each
port's location, its physical nature and its value to the
broader regional infrastructure.
Mr. Larsen. OK, all right.
Ms. Scarlett, the issue of natural infrastructure is
important in my district and my State. We are doing a lot of
restoration, habitat restoration. One of the challenges that we
have with habitat restoration, if you just look at Leque
Island, L-e-q-u-e for the clerk, Leque Island, the number of
different sources of funding in order to do that restoration
has made it a longer project than many want. But it is also
going to function in terms of resiliency for not just a habitat
but for the surrounding area.
Has your organization given thought to funding mechanisms
or breaking down stovepipes among funding mechanisms?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, we have given a lot of thought to
funding mechanisms, both public and public-private. I want to
mention one. We have actually been working with the insurance
industry to model the effectiveness of natural infrastructure
in risk reduction. And not in the U.S. yet but there is
potential here. In Mexico, we have actually worked on creation
of a bed tax across a tourist district and deploying the bed
tax to support reef restoration and reef protection as well as
invest in an insurance fund to insure the reef. It is very
innovative. It has potential in the U.S.
But we are looking at other things, such as teaming up, for
example, with water districts and where nature's solutions can
actually better handle wastewater, for example, or water
supplies, and use ratepayer fees to invest. So there are a
variety of sources, depending on the circumstance.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Graves.
Oh, sorry, I yield to Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman.
You mentioned the high-intensity storms, Ms. Scarlett, and
I appreciate you being here. How many ``Gone with the Wind''
jokes do you get with that name? But you mentioned the high-
intensity storms. And we have had some. But when you look at
the high-intensity storms over the years, particularly the
hurricanes, five of them occurred before 1960, one of them was
1961. There have only been two since the 2000s, 2004 and 2005.
And I think when you start looking at the flooding issues, it
has a lot to do with runoff issues in urban areas, you know,
the paved surfaces, the construction in flood zones and the
failure to do flood mitigation.
For instance, in the 2016 Louisiana flood, the damages were
somewhere between $10 and $15 billion, there were a number of
lives lost. The Army Corps of Engineers had studied a diversion
for years, the Comite River over to the Lilly Bayou, and didn't
do it. And as a result, you had a 100-year, 1,000-year flood
with catastrophic consequences. And I am happy to report,
largely because of the work of my colleague, Garret Graves,
that they are now going to do that diversion, so I just want to
point that out.
I do appreciate all the witnesses being here, and
particularly one of my constituents, Mr. Proctor, I appreciate
you being here. I wanted to ask you a question about how does
disaster preparedness relate to water infrastructure? As I have
just pointed out, there was an opportunity, years in advance of
the Louisiana flood, to mitigate that. Can you talk about that
a little bit?
Mr. Proctor. Yes, sir. Well, water is one of the most
essential services that is needed to combat or deal with a
disaster. For example, fire losses are the most significant
losses that occur. In an earthquake, it is second only to the
damage that occurs because the ground is moving, buildings
fall, that sort of thing.
If you do not have water service, sprinkler systems do not
work, hydrants do not work, the firefighters cannot put those
fires out. So it is critical to make sure that you can maintain
your water service during an earthquake event or in the
aftermath.
Another area where it becomes important is floods. In an
earthquake, the soil tends to liquify and that is what puts
underground infrastructure at risk. When you have a flood, you
can have the same sort of thing happen, where the soils become
saturated and the ground starts to move. And it results in
telescoping of pipelines and sometimes they pull apart, or
actual destruction of the lines if they are put under stress.
And then finally, underground infrastructure can be at risk
in a wildfire. Santa Rosa, California, is a good example of
what happens when the water infrastructure can melt or
otherwise suffer damage because of the intense temperatures
that occur during wildfires. So it is important to do things to
maintain the resiliency of those systems for those reasons.
Some things that can be done to do that, number one, make
certain in the design of the systems you use the most durable
materials possible. In the Kobe earthquake, for example, steel
and iron pipe failed at a rate of one-third of other materials.
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you about that. Because in a prior
life, I worked for two international engineering companies. We
did work all around the world, really, but particularly here in
the United States. And when we would do work in California, we
had specifications that we had to design to to mitigate against
an earthquake.
How do you do that in water systems? Because when the earth
is moving, that--obviously, it has an impact on surface
structures but subsurface? Can you talk a little bit about the
design criteria now and the materials that you are using that
would mitigate against the loss of water?
Mr. Proctor. Well, two things. Number one, using more
durable materials means that your infrastructure is better able
to sustain those stresses. But the other thing is there are new
earthquake seismic joints that allow pipelines to bend and flex
and telescope and contract when the earth is moving around it.
And those joints can also be used in flood situations like I
talked about a second ago.
A demonstration of the efficacy of those joints is that,
again, during the Kobe earthquake, not a single ductile iron
pipeline failed that had one of these earthquake joints;
whereas, other nonrestrained systems that did not have that
sort of flexibility, there were very much higher rates of
failure.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for his answer. My time
has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. The representative from Illinois,
Mr. Garcia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman.
To Mr. DeGood, during the first panel, we heard from more
than one witness who mentioned that infrastructure investment
and consequently the effects of climate change have
historically fallen disproportionately on low-income and
minority communities. You raised that point in your testimony.
Why is this? And does solving this issue fall on the
Federal, State or local government?
Mr. DeGood. I think it is important to recognize that, for
the most part, State and local governments are the ones who are
making project selection decisions and acting as the project
sponsor. So for the most part, the Federal Government acts as a
fairly passive funder or cofunder. You know, and I mentioned in
my testimony the importance of public participation in the
planning process and I cannot stress that enough. You know,
there have been calls at times to try to limit the scope of
environmental review, to put artificial deadlines on how long
it can take for projects to go through that process, and I
think that that is the wrong way to go about it.
What we have seen when we have done these lookbacks is
that, with a little bit more thought on the front end, we can
reduce the level of impact both on natural environments as well
as our local communities. And I think the underlying challenge
is that when many of these project decisions were made in the
1960s and 1970s, we just had a political system that didn't
particularly care so much what communities of color had to say.
And I think it is about empowerment and making sure that
people have a seat at the table.
Mr. Garcia. And what can we do to make sure that it does
not reoccur again if, in fact, we have learned lessons about
climate change and begin to change course in how we address it?
Mr. DeGood. I think that is a good question. I think it
really comes back to making sure that elected officials are
held accountable and that planners are held accountable for
making sure that people have had a chance to have their voice
heard during the project planning phase.
Mr. Garcia. Another question on natural infrastructure. Can
you provide some examples of how we can save money by utilizing
natural infrastructure over investing further in man-made
structures?
Mr. DeGood. You know, I think the witness down at the end
probably has more to say about that. Thank you.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, there are all kinds of natural
infrastructure. But I will mention one where there are clear
cost savings, and that is with stormwater management and
addressed combined sewerage overflow problems in cities. And
Philadelphia pioneered use of natural infrastructure and at a
fraction of the cost of what it would have taken to, for
example, dig under the streets, build bigger pipes and tunnels
and so forth.
We are seeing that in Detroit. The Nature Conservancy is
involved in a partnership there. In Los Angeles, here in
Washington, DC. So that is one example where there are very
clear cost efficiencies with use of natural infrastructure.
In other cases, on coastal resilience, we have done a look
at natural infrastructure, at traditional infrastructure and
then at hybrids and find sometimes that the hybrid comes in
most cost effective.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And for Mr. Proctor, how do we
create a well-coordinated, well-funded effort to educate the
public on the importance of investment in our infrastructure?
And the second question is, what efforts are we making here at
the national level to drive public support to build public
support for investments in infrastructure that is needed? And,
of course, mindful of the fact that there will be opportunities
for public-private collaboration and partnerships, given that
you come from the private sector.
Mr. Proctor. Well, unfortunately, the water sector
traditionally has been sort of out of sight, out of mind. When
a constituent hits a pothole in a road, elected officials or
operators hear about it. When the water system is deteriorating
and water is leaking out into the ground, people don't know
about it and so it doesn't get the same degree of attention.
One of the ways that we could educate the public so that
the issues become more prominent would be to first of all
ensure that all of our utilities know what the full cost of
their operations are, including the cost associated with losing
30 percent of the water that goes into our pipelines. Less than
one-third of the utilities in the country have that
appreciation of their full cost.
Once the utilities know those costs, and one of the ways to
do that, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, is through
doing water leak audits. Once we know what those full costs
are, then we need to have a level of transparency that ensures
that the public is aware of the extent of the loss that is
going on and the extent of the true cost of providing the water
service that many of us take for granted.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Garcia. Just to note,
you don't need to be a big city. The city of Everett has
combined 100,000 people and they are doing neighborhood
retrofits with natural landscaping as well to deal with the CSO
issues. And the conservation district works with Veterans
Conservation Corps in the city of Lynnwood to do some things
that are very similar, as well. So it can happen locally.
It looks like we have Mr. Rouda for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, I'm Harley Rouda from Orange County, California. And
last week, I introduced House bill 3317, the Coastal
Communities Adaptation Act. We are aimed at helping coastal
cities and towns brace themselves for climate change-related
events and the bill would make Federal funds available for
communities to help address that.
Ms. Scarlett, the question I wanted to ask you in that
regard, since you have a focus in this area and I really
appreciate the story you shared earlier with Seattle, but my
guess is we can talk about hundreds of opportunities, thousands
of opportunities, across the U.S. in finding natural ways to
address this.
Two questions there. One, how do you drive the narrative,
the dialogue, with the decisionmakers to look at alternative
options to man-made outcomes? And second, how would some sort
of economic incentives from the Federal Government help that
process along?
Ms. Scarlett. First, with respect to motivating
decisionmakers to consider these options, we are a significant
science-based organization. And one thing we find with
decisionmakers is the first question of, well, does it work?
And so we have invested a lot of research into the actual
functionality, for example, of coastal resilience. In fact, we
worked with California to look at coastal resilience across the
whole coast of that State. So one issue is providing the
information.
But the other is the messenger matters. So we have teamed
up with the Association of General Contractors, with stormwater
managers, with coastal beach managers, those whose role it is
to provide that resilience and risk reduction, schooled them in
these opportunities and then they become the voice. And that,
we find, is a good pathway to influencing decisionmakers.
Mr. Rouda. And so the second piece of that, because I think
you mentioned in the Seattle example, that you brought that
project in at 25 percent less than what traditional problem-
solving would have created. That is not always the case. So
economic incentives can help bridge the gap for some
municipalities to make the right decision or the best decision;
is that correct?
Ms. Scarlett. Yeah, I think there are two ways to look at
that. On the one hand, not always cheaper and therefore
economic incentives can help and we applaud anything Congress
can do to amplify and support investments in natural
infrastructure.
The other thing, though, as we've worked with the Army
Corps of Engineers, is to actually broaden how we think about
benefits. So, for example, coastal resilience infrastructure
often not only yields risk reduction but improved fisheries and
other economic benefits. If you look at the full picture, often
you come out with a very positive economic outcome.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. And then, Mr. Proctor, and then for
the--for all of you as well, we have a lot of discussion about
the public-private partnership opportunities. And I think it is
safe to say there are certain infrastructure projects that do
not rise to a private-public opportunity, that it is really the
Government's job to address that. Can you talk a little bit
about where the cutoff point is or where are those
opportunities that can be public-private and those that
definitely need to be sitting in the public hands?
Mr. Proctor. As a member of the private sector, I would
like to think that there is nothing the private sector cannot
do. But let me say this about P3s. A lot of people, when they
think of P3s, they instantly think that you are talking about
either consolidation or privatization. That is not necessarily
the case. In fact, it is really the exception.
There are opportunities for public-to-public partnerships
that can help small utilities, for example, partner with larger
utilities to acquire the level of expertise that they need to
have to be able to do things like deploy new technology or
better operate their systems or comply with regulations or what
have you. So there are a lot of partner opportunities out there
that do not get a lot of attention but they could be important
in helping small utilities meet some of the challenges that
they have.
Also, when you talk about partnerships, there is a whole
spectrum of different forms that can take. It can be something
as significant, certainly, as consolidation. But it can also be
something that is much less intrusive like, for example, a
simple cogeneration contract with a private partner. Or it
could just be a concession agreement or maybe a savings
agreement where, if a private partner comes in and installs
technology that could reduce a utility's cost, then the private
partner shares in some of those savings but guarantees a
certain level of savings back to those utilities so that they
are certain to receive some of the benefits. But there are a
lot of options there that are not fully exploited.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. I recognize myself for 5
minutes. I was at the end of the line.
Ms. Scarlett, I read some of your information and I was
looking at your urban work on page 4. It had the planting of
the trees. And that was a long time ago, you started going
after planting more trees. And yet we don't hear any more about
it. What happened?
Ms. Scarlett. Well, the good news is that we're seeing
again a renewed effort to expand tree canopy where you plant
trees. But, you know, we have had a--with respect to tree
canopy in cities, there have been a view sometimes that
maintenance costs and so on and so forth are costly and we
began to see, actually, a loss of trees, a significant loss of
trees in cities. That is beginning to change course and we are
very supportive of that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great. Now you also mentioned, somebody,
that the Army Corps of Engineers has been engineering with
nature. I chair the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee on this committee and I have not heard about it so
I have to ask about that. Could you kindly touch on that?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, so there are--I do not want to give the
impression that the entire Army Corps of Engineers is rabidly
focused on natural infrastructure.
Mrs. Napolitano. It takes them a long time to pick up, let
me tell you.
Ms. Scarlett. But there is a growing interest in natural
infrastructure because they, too, recognize the benefits and
cost effectiveness.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does it have to be a change in language
for them to accept it and do the work?
Ms. Scarlett. The big challenge for them, we got some
language in the Water Resources Development Act 2016 and 2018
that stuck in a few little words on natural infrastructure.
There is still another issue that would be very helpful for
Congress to address and that is, when they do their cost-
benefit analysis, they are still required really to look at
just one use and one benefit. So, for example, flood risk
reduction. If they were able to look at multiple benefits, then
the cost-benefit analysis would play out potentially
differently and we think that would be helpful.
Mrs. Napolitano. I agree with you.
Today, there was a hearing in the Committee on Natural
Resources on climate change. But one of the witnesses was
giving misleading information, saying that the drought was
over, that the reservoirs and the rivers were full. And I think
that is very misleading because no way are they anywhere near
full.
Ms. Scarlett. Maybe our water infrastructure person would
speak to that.
When you look at the effects of a changing climate, one of
the significant impacts is, in fact, changes in precipitation
pattern and the expected length, lengthening of chronic
drought. So we do see, depending upon place to place to place,
extensive drought. Look at Australia right now, but certainly
parts of California, that is correct. There are other places
that get heavy rainfall.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. One of the questions I will ask
again of this panel, I asked in the last one, public education
and public training of the workforce that you need to replace
your aging workforce? Anybody?
Mr. DeGood. Yes, I completely agree. The Center for
American Progress has pushed hard for the notion that we need
to twin any conversation about robust national infrastructure
investment with a conversation about workforce development. And
I think it is long overdue. I am glad you brought it up.
Mrs. Napolitano. But you talk to education institutions
about the need of that type of training?
Mr. DeGood. Yes, and I think it depends sort of how broadly
we want to try to define infrastructure. Obviously, each sector
is going to have its own unique needs and its unique
challenges. And I think that it is incumbent that we have this
workforce conversation in parallel with figuring out what
specific facilities we think we need to build.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Saumweber. I would just add that a slightly related
topic is the issue of boundaries between science, communication
and policymakers and enhancing the ability of folks on both
sides of that divide to be able to speak to each other. So
facilitating better input of science and new science around
climate and around resilience issues into policy discussions
and vice versa. And that is something that I have worked on in
the past quite extensively with a number of boundary
organizations and is something that is of great need.
Mrs. Napolitano. But it is also in language that the public
can understand, or most.
Mr. Saumweber. Absolutely, 100 percent agree. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir. I yield myself back. Mr.
Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. I am here, thank you very much. I appreciate
it. We were at another long hearing so I apologize for being
late, but this is critically important work so I appreciate the
panelists for being very patient.
Before I was lucky enough be elected to Congress, I served
as mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, one of the largest cities in
America, and I would politely argue the climate change issues
facing our city are as dramatic as anywhere else in the
country. So much of the attention is on the coastal
communities, and should have a lot of attention on the coastal
communities. But extreme heat and drought in Arizona and in
Phoenix are incredibly difficult issues that we are dealing
with. So I wanted to talk a little bit in that context.
Ms. Scarlett, we are working, in the city of Phoenix,
working very closely with The Nature Conservancy on river
management in our community. City of Phoenix is investing local
tax dollars, not just on infrastructure in our city but
actually investing in river management outside of our city, in
some cases hours outside of our city. Because the quality of
the rivers and the quality of the water that we receive are one
and the same. We are also investing in forest management. The
city of Phoenix is working with a lot of nonprofit entities to
make sure that we have the strongest forest system possible
because that also impacts the quality of our water.
And I want to talk a little bit about, as we make important
infrastructure decisions here on this committee, and we are
going to because it is so critically important that we do an
infrastructure bill for America, the movement of water, the
efficient movement of water, particularly from sources of water
that may be stronger than other areas. In Arizona, obviously,
Colorado River is a diminishing resource. Tragically and sadly,
we have to deal with it. Moving water from other entities that
may be in a stronger water position is a critically important
infrastructure item.
And maybe, I do not know if you are in a position to talk a
little bit about that as water management, water movement, as a
part of any larger infrastructure bill? Or any of the
panelists, please.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, I can speak to that. Thank you very
much, both for the partnership with The Nature Conservancy and
your broadening to recognize the connectivity between cities
and the surrounding countryside.
You know, The Nature Conservancy has a big emphasis on what
we call water funds, which is precisely to work with cities to
recognize a lot of their water sourcing comes not from the city
itself but from outside. And so in a number of cities,
Albuquerque, Santa Fe, elsewhere, we are working with cities to
take their water district funding and actually invest in
watershed restoration. Two benefits, improved water quality and
less sedimentation. But also a lot of that work is fuels
treatment; that is, improving forest health to reduce risk of
catastrophic wildland fire.
But in places like Phoenix, we are also doing a lot of work
on things like groundwater recharge, water banking, so that you
have better sort of storage of water in a natural way to then
be better positioned to withstand changes in water
availability. So there are a lot of different tools. We think
you need them all.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that very much. Because again, I
am going to certainly be an advocate for thinking about water
and water planning and movement of water, efficient movement of
water as one of the critically important infrastructure
investments that we are likely to make.
The other thing I was lucky enough to do as mayor was pass
a significant public transportation infrastructure initiative,
a 35-year, $32 billion plan that supported much improved bus
transportation, new investments in light rail, 60 miles of
light rail, bikeability, walkability, et cetera.
The next question is for Mr. DeGood. I apologize if it has
already been asked before. For those of us who have worked so
passionately on these issues, it seems obvious. But I want the
people watching at home, and I will be able to report back to
the people that I represent, why is public transportation
infrastructure investment so critically related to the issue of
climate change and fighting climate change?
Mr. DeGood. Well, first and foremost, too many Americans
simply do not have access to other options beyond driving. So
whether or not they are trying to go across country or whether
or not they are trying to go one-quarter mile away to pick up
some groceries for that week, they have to drive. And so part
of what you were able to do as mayor was to set that city on a
different trajectory to where you can now plan to have growth
around those facilities so that people do not always have to
drive to satisfy their daily needs.
And we also know, of course, that when you have access to
options, your total annual emissions will drop, your total
transportation-related emissions will drop. And that is also
critical.
Mr. Stanton. Other strategic investments made, obviously
solar, moving our entire fleet to alternative fuel vehicles,
and changing streetlights to LED. Little things but these are
important infrastructure investments where the Federal
Government has not been most recently but needs to be a better
partner to local government.
Thanks for your testimony. I will yield back the time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Miller, you are next.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today for a long time. As you
all have heard, I understand the importance of being good
stewards of our environment. My home State of West Virginia is
abundant in natural resources, which provide critical jobs, and
is the cornerstone of our State's economy. Furthermore, the
companies who mine the land in my State certainly understand
the importance of caring for the environment, protecting the
delicate ecosystem, providing clean water and improving the
infrastructure in the State. Considering these critical aspects
in total is absolutely necessary for ensuring the longevity of
the land and these precious resources.
That is why I am worried about broad, sweeping and
dangerous proposals such as the Green New Deal. Such proposals
seek a misguided, one-size-fits-all approach that poses an
imminent threat to the economy of my State, critical jobs for
my constituents and the lifeblood of West Virginia. The intent
of the Green New Deal is to completely halt natural energy
production, stop the use of air travel and cars, and end cattle
farming. This is just a rebranded war on coal, oil and gas.
Coal, oil and gas production is at its most efficient. In
West Virginia, nearly 30,000 people work in the energy industry
and 93 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Plans like
the Green New Deal would certainly be a death blow to our
economy. We can and must do better.
The previous administration took devastating steps that put
the coal industry in my State on life support. We need a more
commonsense approach to protecting the environment than just
eliminating our energy industry altogether. My constituents
demand it. I will do everything in my power to make sure that
we protect the economy of West Virginia and the jobs of my
constituents.
To the whole panel, how can we ensure that we protect and
promote existing energy jobs under any new proposed
infrastructure plans?
OK, Mr. Proctor, in your testimony, you discuss the
importance of keeping good jobs in America. How can Congress be
a partner to industry to ensure jobs stay here in the United
States?
Mr. Proctor. Well, one of the primary mechanisms and one
that has been shown to work very well is using domestic
preferences when it comes to infrastructure investment. Three
of the four major water programs already have a domestic
preference, otherwise known as Buy American requirement for
iron and steel products that go into our water infrastructure.
And it has successfully not only preserved jobs but brought
jobs back from overseas into the United States within our
industry.
That same sort of program would work well when it comes to
disaster mitigation. Now, let me say right upfront that in the
event of a natural disaster, our primary and if not only focus
needs to be getting relief to the people who are affected by
that natural disaster as quickly as possible. But when you are
talking about predisaster mitigation, the things that happen
before the disasters, when you have time to think about the
impacts, that is a perfect opportunity to think not only about
the immediate disaster preparedness impacts but also the
overall impacts on the economy. And that would be a situation
where using a domestic preference for iron and steel products
would have not only the benefit of helping to make certain that
our infrastructure is hardened, to make certain that the
products are produced here in the United States where
environmental emissions are a fraction of what they are
overseas, but also to get the multiplier effect of
infrastructure investment so that we get the full bang for our
buck.
I think the statistics that you frequently see are that
every dollar of infrastructure that is invested here in the
United States produces something like $1.75 or $2 of increased
GDP. That is even more the case when you invest those dollars
in domestically produced iron and steel materials.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And how can Congress help industry
maintain a competitive advantage against foreign nations or
with foreign nations?
Mr. Proctor. Is that to me also?
Mrs. Miller. Should I just yield back my time or may he
answer?
Mr. Proctor. Well, one measure that I touched on briefly
earlier is to make certain that our workforce has the skills
that they need to be able to operate the foundries, the
factories and the water systems of today. But the other thing
is to make certain that, as we build out our infrastructure,
that we do it in a smart way so that we are more efficient. And
also, as I mentioned earlier, to level the playing field so
that when--we are proud of the safety and environmental
performance of our facilities over here. We have invested
hundreds of millions of dollars to have the best facilities in
the world.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Proctor, I think your time is up.
Mr. Proctor. OK, thank you.
Mrs. Miller. I yield back my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, you're on.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you
to all of you for coming to such an important hearing this
afternoon.
I represent, I mentioned earlier, I believe, one of the
most beautiful districts in this country, the southernmost
district in Florida. It includes Monroe County, the Florida
Keys, and we are ground zero for the effects of climate change.
We, along the Florida Keys, as you probably already know, Ms.
Scarlett, I did some work with Coral Restoration Foundation as
well as some work with The Nature Conservancy at the time. And
we have, it is the only living coral reef in the entire United
States. It is the third largest coral reefs in the entire
planet. It is a very delicate ecosystem.
And I had the opportunity to see firsthand the effects of
climate change on our corals. We are right now plagued by not
only the ocean acidification which is impacting the corals by
causing mass bleaching, but now we have seen a bacterial
infection that is now going all the way down to Looe Key, which
is a very delicate and lush coral reef. If you have ever been
down there, you will know exactly what I mean. But we are
extremely concerned because it seems that we do not have the
answers as to why this is happening.
I want to ask you, Ms. Scarlett, maybe also you can
comment, Mr. Saumweber, but what is it that we can do to
protect our coral reefs, since they are part of such an
important, not just for a way of life but also for our
commercial industries, for our economy in Florida, what can we
do in Congress to protect the reefs and to get to the bottom of
what is causing this bacterial infection that is killing about
50 percent of the corals that are being infected by this
bacteria?
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much. I had the opportunity to
be in the Keys just last week. It was lovely.
So a couple of things. First, obviously, we need more
science to the degree that we don't wholly understand what is
going on with any particular reef. So we know acidification is
occurring, we know there is runoff, nutrient runoff from on-
land activities. We know those adversely affect reefs. But to
find the particular causes in particular reefs requires more
science.
But in terms of additionally what we can do, we are very
active in something, in a Global Mangrove Alliance. And
mangrove restoration plays a very significant role in sort of
minimizing coastal erosion, enhancing coastal health in
general. We are also very actively involved in coral reef
restoration.
A lot of people do not realize that there are tools and
ways to actually restore reefs and we are doing that in a
number of places actually around the world, not simply on the
U.S. coast.
And then finally, you know, reducing those other stressors.
There is climate change and the effects on a warming ocean,
ocean acidification. But to the degree that that is amplified
by nutrient runoff and other factors, it simply puts those
corals under more and more stress. So thinking about it in a
systems way is part of the solution coupled with the science.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. And you did mention
mangroves. And my only concern with using mangroves as natural
infrastructure to prevent that runoff and, you know, protect
our coastal communities is that we saw the destruction of the
mangroves just last year with Hurricane Irma and it takes years
for these mangroves to regrow.
So what can we do, using not only mangroves but maybe other
types of natural infrastructure to protect our coastal
communities?
Ms. Scarlett. I think it is--so thank you for that. You
know, natural systems cannot do everything everywhere under
every circumstance. Certainly, we have found that mangroves and
mangrove restoration are an extraordinarily important tool. But
when you have extremely high-intensity storms, you are going to
get some destruction and it does take a long time to restore
them. And so that is why we are also doing things like coral
reef restoration. We find that coral reefs themselves, if you
restore them, attenuate waves, reduce erosion, reduce risks to
communities. So it is a really multipronged approach and it has
to be tailored to place.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And if I may, Madam Chair, one more
question, since I am the last?
You mentioned also, you know, the runoff. And, as you know,
we have the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that we
have been trying to complete for the past 18 years. So what is
the importance of this type of project to the future resiliency
of our community?
Ms. Scarlett. I cannot stress how important Everglades
restoration is and how congressional support for it and funding
for it is essential. Everglades restoration does a number of
things but, one, as you get the waters flowing across the
rivers of grass, it actually pushes freshwater out and prevents
saltwater intrusion, an incredibly important issue for Florida,
so that is one. Secondly, of course, Everglades restoration,
part of the process of having stormwater management areas is to
actually reduce the runoff from the agricultural sector that
then finds its way out to the ocean, so very important.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Very important.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Scarlett, would you mind responding in
writing to the lady?
Ms. Scarlett. I would be happy to do that. I spent 8 years
at the Department of the Interior and hundreds of hours on that
topic.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I thank everybody for being here,
the witnesses for testimony. Sorry it was such a long meeting.
And your comments were very helpful and enlightening for
today's hearing.
But before we close, I want to thank the passenger rail
operator in my district, Metrolink, for being in the audience.
Their CEO, Stephanie Wiggins--Ms. Wiggins--and board chair,
Brian Humphrey. Metrolink is in the process of replacing 40
locomotives with new tier 4 locomotives that reduce NOx and
particulate matter by 86 percent. Thank you for being here.
Are there any further questions?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. I ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain
open for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like again to thank the witnesses. Sorry for the
long hearing, but your testimony was very important to all of
us. And although many were not here, they are listening in
their office or in other places.
No other Members have anything to add? No. The committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, for calling today's hearing to examine
how transportation and infrastructure impact climate change and explore
solutions to promote resiliency.
For decades, Washingtonians have seen and felt the harmful impacts
of climate change.
As detailed in the fourth National Climate Assessment \1\, rising
temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions in the Pacific Northwest have
resulted in record-breaking wildfires, an acidifying ocean that hurts
shellfish hatcheries and declining salmon runs from a lack of suitable
habitats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington state's transportation sector is its largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for nearly 50 percent of all
emissions and nearly 64 percent of an average household's energy
expenses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/
statebudget/highlights/budget19/clean-transportation-policy-brief.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To respond to the growing challenges resulting from climate change,
Congress, the administration, states and industry must join to reduce
emissions and foster innovation to encourage sustainability.
Investing in more sustainable transit, maritime transportation,
bridge infrastructure and aviation will help maintain the vitality of
our wildlife, wilderness areas and green spaces for the use and
enjoyment of current and future generations.
As someone who uses public transportation every day, and as cochair
of the bipartisan Bus Caucus, I understand how critical reliable bus
systems are for commuters.
With the expansion of more efficient transit options, Congress must
support states' efforts to meet carbon emission reduction targets. In
my home state of Washington, localities are taking significant steps to
ensure a cleaner transportation network.
Washington state's electric grid is among the most sustainable and
cleanest in the country, making the electrification of transportation a
viable option to address the impacts of climate change.
Recently, the state launched several initiatives to electrify
transit, including a requirement that 50 percent of all new state-owned
and leased passenger vehicles be electric by 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen firsthand how the transit electrification benefits
Washington's Second District. Last September, I attended the ribbon
cutting for Everett Transit's first electric bus.
With $3.4 million in federal funding from the Low or No Emission
Bus Program, the City of Everett was able to replace a decades-old
diesel fuel bus, serve a high-frequency route and reduce local carbon
emissions.
Everett Transit estimates that transitioning four of its diesel
buses will lower carbon emissions by nearly 4,000 pounds annually and
reduce the amount of particulate matter released into the atmosphere by
500 pounds each year.
In the Pacific Northwest, ferries are critical to keeping the
economy moving, carrying commuters and goods around the region.
Ferries help relieve congestion, serve rural communities and can
serve as an interim solution when other transportation systems are
unavailable.
However, ferries are among the largest greenhouse gas generators,
accounting for 73 percent of Washington state's annual carbon
emissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C78A08B-19A1-4919-B6E6-
E9EF83E6376D/125314/WSFHybridElectricPropulsionConversionProject.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this issue, Washington State Ferries is working to
convert its largest passenger vessels, the Jumbo Mark II, to hybrid-
electric propulsion.
The agency estimates this conversion will reduce total carbon
emissions by 25 percent. Additionally, the new hybrid-electric ferries
will reduce vessel noise, lessening the impact on endangered Southern
Resident orcas and other wildlife in the Puget Sound.
Innovative maritime projects, such as the hybrid-electric
initiative, promote sustainability, improve the transportation network
and generate cost-savings. But these goals cannot be accomplished
without federal buy-in.
Congress must provide stable and predictable federal funding for
``greening'' U.S. maritime to ensure the system remains competitive,
encourage new jobs and preserve a healthy environment.
According to the Association of Washington Business, Washington
state alone needs over $190 billion in infrastructure investment, with
bridges requiring $4.3 billion.
Washington state is home to 7,410 bridges. Almost 5,000 have been
deemed to need maintenance. Significant funding is needed to ensure the
structural integrity and environmental sustainability of bridges and
roads.
In 2017, the Washington State Department of Transportation launched
a funding initiative to extend the service life of the state's bridges
through planned and focused preventative maintenance activities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/
2016/10/2019-WA-Infrastructure-Report-Card.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve the federal government's role in these local projects, I
joined Reps. Cicilline, Young and Davis to introduce the IMAGINE Act.
This bill would promote the use of innovative materials and advanced
technologies to improve safety of the nation's infrastructure, promote
resiliency and support jobs and local economies.
As chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I recognize the role
aviation and aerospace can play in efforts to mitigate the effects of
climate change.
The subcommittee will focus on fostering innovation in U.S.
aviation and aerospace through the advancement of NextGen, as well as
the development and deployment of new and greener technologies to
bolster U.S. jobs.
Washington state is the aerospace capital of the country, and in
the Second District, 23,000 women and men support the aviation economy
by making the safest aircrafts and aerospace products in the world.
Several of the 1,450 suppliers in Washington state are working on
cutting-edge technologies to make U.S. aviation more efficient and
environmentally-sound.
To that end, I am pleased that we have a witness today, Ms. Nancy
Young with Airlines for America, to speak to how the U.S. aviation
industry continues to make strides to improve fuel efficiency, green
ground operations and advance more sustainable propulsion.
The long-term Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization
bill that Congress passed last year makes progress toward NextGen
implementation by including local communities and airports in the
process.
NextGen's Performance-Based Navigation procedures and Terminal
Flight Data Manager deployment will modernize air traffic control to
allow carriers to fly more directly and precisely, reduce aircraft fuel
burn and improve the sustainability of the overall aviation system.
For instance, the FAA's Greener Skies initiative improves
efficiency of flights landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
in Washington state.
It is estimated that Greener Skies will cut fuel consumption by 2.1
million gallons annually and reduce carbon emissions by 22,000 metric
tons. In addition, the initiative will reduce aircraft noise exposure
for nearly 750,000 people living within the affected flight
corridor.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, robust funding for the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, supports the development of new
aircraft technologies to advance sustainable alternative jet fuels.
Airports across the country are also working to reduce the carbon
footprint of their operations, through efforts like electric conversion
of their ground service vehicles, use of renewable energy including
solar, sustainable fuel initiatives and expanded recycling programs.
I have had the chance to visit a few companies in my district at
the forefront of innovative, energy efficient aviation technology.
For example, Zunum Aero in Bothell, Washington, is developing
hybrid electric aircraft capable of flying up to 12 people between 350
and 500 miles. The company aims to bring the aircraft to market as soon
as 2022.
Zunum projects its electric propulsion prototype will cut community
and cabin noise by an estimated 75 percent and emissions by 80
percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://zunum.aero/our-charge/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One area where we will continue to see tremendous growth is in
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or drones.
UAS are flourishing in the skies at a pace we did not imagine ten
years ago. There is no denying the extensive societal and commercial
benefits of unmanned aircraft and their applications.
Drones are used to perform critical infrastructure inspections of
bridges and railroads and assist in recovery efforts following natural
disasters and wildfires. In addition, small drone package delivery
could produce lower greenhouse gas emissions and consume less energy.
Further, passenger air vehicles (PAVs) are also slated to present a
dramatic change in the transportation in and around urban centers in
the very near future.
With recent advances in design and technology, PAV concepts in
development will have the ability to reduce traffic congestion and the
demand on our roads and bridges by carrying every day commuters through
the air, at low-altitudes, to work and other nearby destinations.
Of course, before this occurs there are many questions that will
need to be answered to safely integrate them into complex airspace.
This effort will require the FAA to develop a comprehensive regulatory
framework to integrate these operations into U.S. airspace.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this timely hearing.
This committee is uniquely positioned to make considerable progress
to address climate change.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how Congress
can be a better partner to advance efforts to green transportation and
infrastructure projects across the U.S.
Article Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Science, August 28, 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 ``Climate Impact
of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'', J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A.
Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for holding
this hearing addressing the impact that federal infrastructure policy
can have on climate change. The American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA) is a non-profit trade association
representing 603 Class II and Class III railroads in the United States,
Canada and Mexico as well as numerous suppliers and contractors to the
short line and regional railroad industry. Short lines operate 47.500
route miles of track in 49 states, or approximately 29% of the national
railroad network, touching in origination or termination one out of
every five cars moving on the national railroad system, serving
customers who otherwise would be cut off from the national railroad
network.
While passenger and freight roadway vehicles account for 83% of
total greenhouse gas emissions, freight rail accounts for only 2%. As
Rep. LaMalfa noted during the hearing, freight rail moves one ton of
freight 479 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. Class II and Class III
railroads alone moved 12,074,000 carloads of freight in 2015, equaling
34,778,000 truckloads. According to the Association of American
Railroads, if 10% of the freight currently moved by truck was moved to
rail, fuel savings would be more than 1.5 billion gallons per year.
This is equivalent to removing 3.2 million cars from the highways
during the same period.
Transporting goods by rail reduces natural fuel used, and reduces
wear and tear, assisting the fuel efficiency of the motoring public.
Congress can facilitate shippers maximizing their use of freight
rail in two ways:
Supporting the Short Line Tax Credit, also known as 45G.
For 12 years the short line tax credit has proven its worth. It has
enhanced capital investment into short line railroads, it has
significantly improved competitive rail service for shippers, it has
helped improve railroad safety and it has been the difference between
piecemeal and corridor improvements. Helping short lines continue to
grow freight traffic through infrastructure improvements will deliver
long term benefits to the environment.
Opposing any increase in truck size or length is critical
to keeping freight on the rails. It has been established both in actual
practice, in those states that have allowed bigger trucks on state
roads, and in many well-constructed diversion studies, that if truck
lengths and weights are increased, freight will be diverted from the
rails onto the highways. This modal shift will contribute to climate
change by inflicting more damage to pavement, reducing fuel
efficiencies for cars and trucks that use the roads. Additional weights
and axles needed to support that increased weights contributes to
``rolling resistance,'' which leads to more fuel consumption.
As Ranking Member Graves noted during the hearing, the freight rail
industry is making progress in the area of climate change by
implementing technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel
efficiency and reduce its carbon footprint. We believe that policies
supporting these efforts by the freight rail industry is one answer to
address climate change.
ASLRRA and our member railroads urge the committee to consider the
impact that tax and truck size and weight policies can have on climate
change and on the efforts that Class II and III railroads are already
making to provide safe, reliable, and fuel-efficient transportation.
Statement of Ian J. Jeffries, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Graves of Missouri
On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads,
thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the record.
AAR members account for the vast majority of freight railroad mileage,
employees, and traffic in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Railroads have a strong record of success in meeting our nation's
transportation needs in an environmentally-friendly fashion. They are
committed to pursuing further technological and operational
advancements that will lead to continued tangible improvements in fuel
efficiency, mobility, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality.
For this reason, I respectfully submit that policymakers should
take steps to attract more freight to rail, thereby expanding the
substantial greenhouse gas and other public benefits of freight rail
transportation. Steps policymakers can take include removing policies
that inappropriately tilt the transportation marketplace in favor of
other modes; encouraging greater use of rail-related public-private
partnerships; and retaining the existing system of balanced regulation
that protects rail customers against abusive railroad conduct but also
helps ensure railroads are financially able to make the network
investments they need to serve their customers safely, reliably, and
cost effectively.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
railroads are the most fuel-efficient way to move freight over land
According to the EPA, transportation accounted for 28.2 percent of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. The vast majority of
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to
fossil fuel consumption: higher fuel consumption means more emissions.
Railroads, though, are the most fuel-efficient way to move freight over
land. In 2017, railroads moved one ton of freight an average of 479
miles per gallon of fuel--roughly the distance from Coos Bay, Oregon to
San Francisco, or from Hannibal, Missouri to Columbus, Ohio.
Indeed, according to an independent study for the Federal Railroad
Administration, freight railroads on average are four times more fuel
efficient than trucks. That means, on average, moving freight by rail
instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent. The
railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight railroads
account for just 2.0 percent of transportation-related greenhouse gas
emissions and just 0.6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
according to the EPA, even though railroads account for well over a
third of intercity freight volume.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If just 10 percent of the freight that moves by Class 7 or Class 8
(the largest) trucks moved by rail instead, fuel savings would be more
than 1.5 billion gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions
would fall by more than 17 million tons--equivalent to removing 3.2
million cars from the highways for a year or planting 400 million
trees.
railroads are constantly working to improve fuel efficiency
Over the years, railroads have worked hard to improve their fuel
efficiency--on a ton-miles per gallon basis, rail fuel efficiency in
2017 was up 104 percent over 1980 and up 21 percent over 2000. In 2017
alone, U.S. freight railroads consumed 732 million fewer gallons of
fuel and emitted 8.2 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they
would have if their fuel efficiency had remained constant since 2000.
From 2000 through 2017, U.S. freight railroads consumed 8.3 billion
fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 92 million fewer tons of carbon
dioxide than they would have if their fuel efficiency had not improved.
A single train can carry the freight of several hundred trucks,
meaning that moving more freight by rail also reduces highway
congestion, which in 2018 cost Americans an average of 97 hours, or
$1,348, per driver just in terms of lost time, according to INRIX (a
highway traffic analytics firms). Reducing congestion also reduces
wasted fuel (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) by motorists who
take longer to get where they want to go. Moving freight by rail
instead of trucks has the added bonus of reducing highway wear and tear
and the pressure to build costly new highways, freeing up limited funds
for other purposes.
U.S. freight railroads are moving more freight than in the past,
but using less fuel to do so. How have railroads managed this? Through
technological innovations, new investments, improved operating
practices, and a lot of hard work.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Steps railroads have taken individually or collectively to reduce
fuel consumption include:
Acquiring thousands of new, more efficient locomotives
and removing from service thousands of older, less fuel-efficient
locomotives.
Developing and installing highly advanced fuel management
systems that, among other things, calculate the most fuel-efficient
speed for a train over a given route; determine the most efficient
spacing and timing of trains on a railroad's system; and monitor
locomotive functions and performance to ensure peak efficiency.
Installing idling-reduction technologies, such as stop-
start systems that shut down a locomotive when it is not in use and
restart it when it is needed, and expanding the use of distributed
power (positioning locomotives in the middle of trains) to reduce the
total horsepower required for train movements.
Increasing the amount of freight in rail cars and on
trains. Thanks to improved freight car design and other factors, the
amount of freight railroads carried in an average train in 2017 was
3,630 tons, up from 2,923 tons in 2000.
Enhancing operating practices and rail car components to
reduce fuel use. For example, advanced lubrication techniques save fuel
by reducing friction; improving the aerodynamic profile of trains saves
fuel by reducing drag.
Providing employee training to help locomotive engineers
develop and implement best practices and improve awareness of fuel-
efficient operations.
Increasing the use of zero-emission cranes to transfer
containers between ships, trucks, and trains at ports and rail
facilities.
In recent years, railroads have begun to investigate moving away
from diesel locomotives in favor of alternatives--for example, to
cleaner burning natural gas, or even potentially to batteries or fuel
cells. At this point, it's not at all clear that an alternative will
have the combination of affordability, reliability, and capability to
be feasible for widespread use, but it does show that railroads are
willing to ``look outside the box'' in terms of enhancing
sustainability and environmental preservation.
what policymakers can do to encourage more freight to move by rail
Using freight railroads more means emitting fewer greenhouse gas
emissions. Policy-makers can help make this happen by removing
impediments to moving freight by rail and supporting policies that
incentivize shippers to ship by rail.
For example, policymakers can adopt a more equitable system of
funding non-rail transportation infrastructure. America's freight
railroads, which are almost entirely privately owned, operate
overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and
pay for themselves. By contrast, trucks and barges operate on highways
and waterways that are largely taxpayer funded.
With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public
road and bridge infrastructure, the United States has historically
relied upon a ``user pays'' system. Until relatively recently, that
system worked well. Unfortunately, the user-pays model has been eroded
as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have not kept up with HTF
investment needs and so have had to be supplemented with general
taxpayer dollars. General fund transfers to the HTF since 2008 have
totaled almost $144 billion, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, and will require another $191 billion between 2020 and 2029 to
keep the HTF solvent.
Unfortunately, moving away from a user-pays system distorts the
competitive environment by making it appear that trucks are less
expensive than they really are and puts other modes, especially rail,
at a disadvantage. Congress could help ameliorate this modal inequity
by reaffirming the ``user pays'' requirement, preferably through a
vehicle miles traveled fee or a weight-distance fee.
On a related note, policymakers should retain existing truck length
and weight limits. The taxes and fees heavy trucks pay are already far
less than the cost of the damage heavy trucks cause. This huge
underpayment would become even greater, and the freight transportation
marketplace would become even more distorted, if truck length and
weight limits were increased.
A greater use of rail-related public-private partnerships would
also lead to more freight moving by rail. Under these arrangements,
public entities devote public dollars equivalent to the public benefits
that will accrue from a project, while railroads contribute resources
commensurate with the private gains expected to accrue. Without a
partnership, many projects that promise substantial public benefits
(such as reduced highway congestion by taking trucks off highways, or
increased rail capacity for use by passenger trains) in addition to
private benefits (such as enabling more efficient freight train
operations) are likely to be delayed or never started at all because
neither side can justify the full investment needed to complete them.
Cooperation makes these projects feasible.
Finally, policymakers should keep the existing system of balanced
rail rate and service regulation. Today's balanced rail regulatory
system protects rail customers against unreasonable railroad conduct
while allowing railroads to largely decide for themselves how to manage
their operations. The current system has worked extremely well for
railroads and their customers. However, some want to again give
government regulators control over crucial areas of rail operations.
That would be a profound mistake. It would prevent America's railroads
from making the massive investments a best-in-the-world freight rail
system requires and would inexorably lead to less freight moving by
environmentally friendly rail.
conclusion
The key to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions
is reducing fuel consumption in transportation. Research and
development of new technologies and alternative fuels offers much
promise and as previously noted the railroad industry is driving many
initiatives in this arena. However, future promise does not help the
nation today. Here's the takeaway that I ask each of you to remember.
There is no need to wait for the promises of tomorrow from technologies
and new alternative fuels that are not yet ready to be brought to
market. America's freight railroads offer a simple, Cost-effective and
meaningful way to help. I urge the Committee to consider the simple
infrastructure policy considerations that I outlined on behalf of our
member railroads. Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity
to provide a written statement.
Comments of the Southern Environmental Law Center, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) thanks the U.S. House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its recent hearing
on ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate
and Adapt to Climate Change.'' This critically important subject
demands far greater attention than it has received at the federal level
in recent years. We offer these comments on key issues and strategies
related to transportation and climate change, and provide insight into
how these issues are affecting our region.
The connections between our transportation system and climate
change are clear and significant. Transportation has surpassed the
electricity sector as the nation's largest contributor of greenhouse
gas (GHG) pollution, comprising 28.7% of the national total in 2017.\1\
In addition, the effects of climate change on our transportation
infrastructure, including sea level rise and increased flooding from
more severe storms, are being felt in both coastal and inland
communities across the country. There is a critical need to increase
our efforts at the federal, state, and local levels on each of these
topics. We must both reduce our transportation system's contribution to
global GHG emissions and enhance the resiliency of our transportation
systems and our communities to the effects of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Draft Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017'' at Table 2-10 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below we outline a number of approaches and strategies to reduce
GHG pollution. Higher fuel efficiency standards and increased adoption
of electric and other zero- and low-emission technologies are important
components of any transportation-related emission reduction strategy.
Achieving meaningful reductions, however, will also require substantial
efforts to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in our
transportation system. To accomplish this, we must pay close attention
to how our transportation system drives land use patterns, as well as
encourage a shift away from motor vehicle use to cleaner transportation
modes and reduce single-occupancy travel with a particular emphasis on
shared and active transportation. Congestion pricing and similar
strategies can also play a role in reducing vehicle emissions. In
addition, as important as it is to address passenger vehicle emissions,
VMT reductions and shifts to cleaner alternatives are needed in the
freight sector as well. It is also imperative that we make
consideration of GHG emissions a central factor in our transportation
planning processes--either directly, or indirectly via a proxy like
VMT.
Enhancing the resiliency of our transportation infrastructure and
communities is also essential. Resiliency considerations must be
incorporated into the location and planning decisions for new projects,
as well as decisions about whether and where to rebuild at-risk
infrastructure. Effective maintenance of our existing infrastructure is
also increasingly important. In addition, we must protect and augment
the many features that provide natural resiliency and serve as
effective carbon sinks, such as our forests, wetlands, and marshes.
i. reducing ghg emissions
As others noted during your hearing on this matter and in written
testimony, there are many available approaches and opportunities to
reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. Efforts to promote cleaner
technologies such as electric and other zero- and low-emissions
vehicles are an essential piece of this puzzle, and have significant
growth potential in the coming years due in part to rapid improvements
in electric vehicle (EV) technology and affordability. But to achieve
meaningful reductions from our transportation sector, we must also
substantially reduce VMT, favor transportation investments that
encourage more compact, walkable development, and incorporate GHG
emissions considerations in our transportation plans and project-
specific environmental reviews.
In addition to achieving GHG reductions, advancements in these
areas provide important co-benefits, including more equitable and
accessible transportation systems, economic growth and vibrancy,
traffic congestion reductions, and improvements to public health--both
physical and mental. Such advancements are also necessary to meet the
changing needs of America's residents and businesses, which
increasingly seek walkable communities with diverse transportation
options.
A. Promoting Cleaner Technologies
i.) Fuel Efficiency Standards
Fuel efficiency standards are one area in which the federal
government plays a crucial role in promoting a shift toward cleaner
transportation technologies. Unfortunately, the current administration
has set us down the wrong path. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standards adopted by the Obama
Administration in 2012 for passenger cars and light duty trucks were
estimated to save 4 billion barrels of oil and to reduce GHG emissions
by the equivalent of 2 billion metric tons over the lifetime of these
light duty vehicles produced in model years 2017 to 2025.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 Fed. Reg.
62624, 62627 (Oct. 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last summer, however, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
to roll back these clean car standards and freeze fuel economy and CO2
emissions standards for light duty vehicles at 2020 levels for five
years--a proposal that would result in an increase in petroleum
consumption of 0.5 million barrels per day by the early 2030s. This
proposed rollback is a step in the wrong direction, and would seriously
undermine future efforts to reduce GHG emissions across our
transportation system. Additionally, as explained in a letter SELC sent
to the U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA, the change calls into
question the accuracy of many environmental reviews completed for
projects in recent years that assumed the Obama-era clean car standards
would be in place in their future emissions projections.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from Trip Pollard et al., SELC to Elaine Chao, U.S.
Department of Transportation et al., ``Re-evaluating Completed NEPA
Reviews under Proposed Rollback of Clean Car Rules'' (Aug. 27, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii.) Electric and Other Zero- and Low-Emissions Vehicle
Technologies
This is an important time for the future of zero- and low-emissions
technologies, particularly in the case of EVs. In recent years, EV
battery prices have dropped dramatically even as vehicle ranges have
increased. For instance, the range of the Nissan Leaf has increased
from 73 miles in 2011 to 151 miles for the 2018 version. The Southeast
is now home to over 65,000 EVs--a five-fold increase since 2013, and
the rate of adoption is expected to continue to increase in the coming
years with further improvements in technology and as most major auto
manufactures have pledged to significantly increase their EV
production.
The significant influx in funding for clean vehicles and electric
charging infrastructure resulting from the Volkswagen emissions
cheating settlement serves as another key catalyst in the anticipated
future growth of EVs. As part of this settlement, $2 billion was set
aside for EV charging infrastructure and education (which has become
the ``Electrify America'' program), as well as $2.9 billion in
additional mitigation funds apportioned to states in which the relevant
VW vehicles were sold. States are already taking advantage of this new
funding to further promote EVs. Last fall, Virginia awarded a contract
to a private entity to install new EV charging stations across the
state--devoting the maximum allowable 15% of its mitigation funds
toward this effort, and also announced that it will be allocating an
additional 15% for electric transit buses. North Carolina has likewise
committed to devote the maximum 15% of its mitigation funds toward
charging stations.
Foremost among the benefits of EVs is that they are a ``zero
emissions'' technology, producing no tailpipe emissions. Although EVs
require electricity to operate, which does not always come from
renewable energy sources, the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative
Fuels Data Center estimates that even in the traditionally fossil fuel-
reliant Southeast, EVs are responsible for roughly 75% less GHG
emissions than gasoline-powered vehicles.\4\ This benefit will increase
over time as these states continue to shift toward cleaner energy
sources. Additional public health and environmental benefits flow from
a reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), reducing harmful ground-level ozone as well as
nitrogen loads to water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. EVs are also
typically less expensive to maintain and operate than gasoline-powered
vehicles, and the purchase price of EVs is predicted to decline to a
level on par with gasoline vehicles in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center,
http://afdc.energy.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many steps that Congress and federal agencies can take
(or continue taking) to support these efforts. Important grants and
funding sources that support electric and low-emissions technologies
should be continued and expanded, such as federal tax credit programs
for EV purchases, the Federal Transit Administration's ``Low or No
Emission Vehicle'' and EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
grant programs, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Additional
areas where federal support is needed include providing data and
technical support to states, localities, and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) to identify and plan for EV charging
infrastructure needs. Increased federal funding should also be provided
to support the installation of charging stations in key areas such as
Alternative Fuel Corridors designated by FHWA under the FAST Act.
iii.) Other State and Regional Efforts
It is also important to recognize initiatives being undertaken by
regional, state, and local bodies across the country to reduce
transportation-related GHG emissions. For example, the Transportation
and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a coalition of Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic states and the District of Columbia working to reduce carbon
emissions and develop clean energy solutions for the transportation
sector. Significantly, TCI members announced in December that they will
embark on a year-long study to explore the creation of a regional ``cap
and invest'' program that would limit transportation-related emissions
and encourage investment in low-carbon technologies.\5\ Other important
regional efforts include the bi-coastal Multi-State ZEV Task Force,
comprised of eight states committed to taking action to expand the
adoption of zero emissions vehicles and charging infrastructure.
Similar initiatives include the West Coast Electric Highway and TCI's
Northeast Electric Vehicle Network--both regional programs to create a
network of EV charging stations to enable convenient travel both
locally and throughout these regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See TCI, ``Transportation and Climate Initiative Statement''
(Dec. 18, 2018), available at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/
Final_TCI-statement_20181218_formatted.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also a host of individual and collaborative efforts being
undertaken by states, localities, MPOs, and non-governmental
organizations and businesses to contribute toward reducing our
transportation GHG emissions. California is leading the way on a number
of these initiatives, including through the adoption of its Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Law (S.B. 375). S.B. 375 requires
GHG reduction targets to be set for light duty vehicles for each MPO
area of the state, as well as the development of transportation and/or
land use strategies to meet these targets. California, along with New
York, Massachusetts, and Oregon (all of which are U.S. Climate Alliance
Members), have also established statewide VMT reduction targets.
Congress and federal agencies should encourage these transformative
efforts through data sharing and technical support, as well as
increased grant and/or direct funding for these activities wherever
possible through programs such as those identified in the previous
section (Low-No, DERA, CMAQ, etc.). The U.S. Department of Energy's
Clean Cities Coalition Network should also be continued and expanded,
with an increasing emphasis on zero emissions vehicles. Finally, as
discussed further below, we urge you to strengthen (or in some cases,
reinstate) nationwide strategies along the lines of a number of these
efforts, including transportation GHG performance standards and
reduction targets for the National Highway System applicable to all
states and MPOs, as well as the potential establishment of related VMT
reduction targets.
B. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
Studies are clear that technological improvements alone--such as
EVs--will not sufficiently reduce GHG emissions from the transportation
sector. Meaningfully reducing GHG emissions from transportation will
also require reducing VMT from both passenger and freight vehicles. In
order to do so, we must provide greater travel options for both
residents and businesses, while also prioritizing transportation
investments that encourage more compact and transit-oriented
development patterns and enable our communities to reduce their
reliance on personal car travel.
i.) Encouraging Cleaner Transportation Modes
An essential component in reducing VMT is to significantly increase
our investment in multimodal, shared, and active transportation
options. Public transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and pedestrian
options can meet people's transportation needs without the high GHG
emissions associated with solo private car trips. When bus and ride-
sharing fleets are powered with electricity, the GHG emissions
reductions are even greater. Increasing investment in freight rail can
also provide significant benefits--railroads are on average four times
more fuel efficient than trucks, generating 75% fewer GHG emissions.\6\
Congress should explore how best to incentivize, and increase funding
for, multimodal transportation projects and services which will help
reduce VMT, while also benefitting Americans beyond the direct
reduction in GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 2017 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan at 2, available at http:/
/www.drpt.virginia.gov/rail/reference-materials/virginiastate-rail-
plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing VMT through greater mode options creates healthier
communities. One study of individuals living near the Charlotte Lynx
light rail system showed significant increases in physical health,
including that light rail users lost weight and substantially reduced
their likelihood of becoming obese.\7\ Public transportation access and
walkable communities are also associated with numerous mental health
benefits, such as reducing emotional stress and symptoms of
depression.\8\ Moreover, public transit use is generally safer, with a
much lower fatality rate than private automobile travel.\9\ As one
researcher has observed, ``[p]eople who live or work in transit
oriented communities tend to drive fewer annual miles, drive at lower
speeds, and have better travel options that allow them to avoid high
risk driving, such as after drinking alcohol or when ill.'' \10\ Mixed-
use neighborhoods with public transportation access correspond to lower
rates of obesity, while sprawling neighborhoods correspond to higher
rates of hypertension, diabetes, asthma, and cancer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ John M. MacDonald, et al., The Effect of Light Rail Transit on
Body Mass Index and Physical Activity, 39 AM. J. PREVENTIVE MED. 105,
108 (2010). The study concluded that ``[t]he findings from the current
study suggest that increasing the access to LRT transit for individuals
to commute to work may help overcome some of the barriers to engaging
in daily utilitarian exercise.'' Id. at 110.
\8\ TODD LITMAN, VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE, EVALUATING
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HEALTH BENEFITS 17 (2015), available at http://
www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf.
\9\ Id. at 8-9.
\10\ Id. at 8.
\11\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding public transit and designing for ``complete streets''
that serve all transportation users, including bicyclists and
pedestrians, are also important in creating a more equitable
transportation system. Elderly and disabled residents often rely on
public transit for their transportation needs. Similarly, ensuring
public transit is affordable and connects key employment and education
hubs helps provide disenfranchised communities, such as low-income and
minority families, with greater access to upward mobility
opportunities. In turn, transit stations that can be reached by
bicycling or walking are more accessible by a diverse array of
passengers.
Further, reducing VMT through shifts to other modes does not come
at a cost to economic development. Recent examples have illustrated
that businesses are increasingly seeking to locate and invest in
communities with good public transit systems, and which are walkable
and bikeable. During their respective headquarters searches, both
Amazon and Apple identified access to public transit as important to
their decisions. Mercedes-Benz relocated to downtown Atlanta, \12\ and
Kaiser-Permanente decided on Georgia over Colorado because of the
public transit options available, specifically the rail system in
Atlanta's Midtown area.\13\ The Charlotte Lynx light rail system has
proven to be an enormous economic success for the area with around $2
billion invested in development along the rail line's original route,
and a slew of new development projects along the line's extension that
opened in 2018.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Matt Kempner and J. Scott Trubey, MARTA A Sudden Factor in
Company Moves, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Jan. 16, 2015, http://
www.myajc.com/news/business/marta-a-sudden-factor-in-company-moves/
njpnF/.
\13\ Maria Saporta, Transit and Walkability Key Factors in Kaiser
Permanente's Decision to Put 900 New Jobs in Midtown, SAPORTAREPORT,
Apr. 17, 2015, http://saportareport.com/transit-and-walkability-key-
factors-in-kaiser-permanentes-decision-to-put-900-new-jobs-in-midtown/.
\14\ Melissa Oyler, Charlotte's Light Rail: A City Changed Forever,
BISNOW, Mar. 12, 2018, https://www.bisnow.com/charlotte/news/
construction-development/development-popping-up-like-weeds-along-
charlottes-light-rail-opening-this-week-85974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii.) Prioritizing Investments that Encourage Sustainable Land Use
Patterns
In order to make effective reductions in VMT, and in turn GHG
emissions, state, local and federal transportation planners need to
plan for a future transportation network that is less dependent on
single occupancy driving. Simply put, transportation and land use
decisions need to be considered together. Much of our current land use
patterns have been developed with private car use in mind.\15\ In turn,
we have a transportation network that facilitates car-centric suburban
and exurban sprawl--this both leads to increased VMT and swaths of
natural areas being destroyed for large highways and corresponding
sprawling neighborhoods. Such destruction of key environmental
resources further contributes to climate change by eliminating carbon
sinks like forests and wetlands. These pressures are particularly acute
in the South, where sprawling suburban development has already led to
environmental destruction, and where population numbers are expected to
explode in coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DOT, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions--Volume 1: Synthesis Report to Congress ES-10 (2010),
available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/
DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. (``[O]ur
historic approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-
intensive system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving away from these land use patterns is both necessary for
climate goals and in line with changing preferences of the American
public. Suburban living with lengthy commutes is no longer the American
dream. Instead, younger generations are increasingly looking to live in
communities where they can live, work, and play without getting into a
car. More and more people, particularly in the Millennial generation,
are consciously driving less and prefer to use alternate modes of
transportation.\16\ The vast majority of Millennials express a
preference for living in more urbanized, mixed-use, walkable
communities with public transportation access.\17\ Existing compact,
mixed-use development along public transportation routes have shown
that such less automobile-dependent communities are a reality with
corresponding real benefits: ``[r]esidents of communities with high-
quality, well integrated public transit . . . own half as many
vehicles, drive half as many annual miles, walk and bicycle four times
more, and use public transit ten times more than residents of more
automobile-dependent communities.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ TONY DUTZIK & PHINEAS BAXANDALL, U.S. PIRG FUND & FRONTIER
GRP., A NEW DIRECTION: OUR CHANGING RELATIONSHIP WITH DRIVING AND THE
IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 21-25 (2013), available at http://
www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf.
\17\ Id. at 23; Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs, Subways to
Driveways, NIELSON (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/
insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-
driveways.html.
\18\ LITMAN, supra note 8, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These preferences are pertinent to decisions about our future
transportation network and climate change. A USDOT report identified
changes to land use patterns as one of the transportation-related
strategies with the greatest potential to reduce emissions,\19\ and it
has been estimated that compact development can decrease driving rates
by as much as 40% and in turn help reduce GHG emissions.\20\ These
considerations must be a key factor in transportation planning and
funding decisions at all levels of government, not only to meet our
communities' evolving transportation needs, but also to ensure that we
are capturing the significant GHG reduction potential offered by these
changing preferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOT, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions--Volume 1: Synthesis Report to Congress 3-18 (2010),
available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/
DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.
\20\ Reid Ewing et al., Urban Land Institute, Growing Cooler: The
Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change 9, 33, 114 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Considering GHG Emissions in Planning and Environmental Reviews
Another crucial strategy to reduce GHG emissions from the
transportation sector is to ensure that GHG considerations are made a
central component of planning and decision-making for our
transportation systems. An important action was taken in this area in
early 2017 when FHWA published a final rule to incorporate a CO2-
specific performance measure into transportation planning
processes.\21\ This measure would have required states and MPOs to
track carbon emissions of vehicles traveling on the National Highway
System, establish targets for reducing these emissions, and report on
progress in meeting their targets. The Trump Administration, however,
subsequently delayed and then ultimately repealed the performance
measure. This measure would have been a key step toward ensuring that
states and MPOs give due consideration to the GHG emissions-related
effects of their transportation planning decisions, and should be
reinstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program, 82 Fed. Reg. 5970 (Jan. 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar scenario has played out in the context of environmental
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the wake
of court decisions finding that NEPA requires consideration of the GHG
emissions of proposed actions and in relation to reasonable
alternatives, and after years of public input and discussion, the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidance in August
2016 outlining how federal agencies should approach climate change
analyses in NEPA documents to ensure compliance with the statute.\22\
Among other things, CEQ provided that NEPA reviews should include
analysis of a proposed action's expected GHG emissions, the relative
GHG emissions of the proposal and alternative options, and potential
climate-related risks and resiliency considerations related to the
action and potential alternatives.\23\ In March 2017, President Trump
signed an Executive Order directing that this guidance be revoked.\24\
We understand that new guidance may soon be issued, and we hope that
such guidance will be consistent with settled law that requires
agencies to consider air quality and climate change impacts likely to
result from a project, including indirect impacts.\25\ It is also
important that this new guidance echo the 2016 version in providing
clarity to federal agencies about the proper review of alternatives in
relation to climate change, as well as resiliency considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Christina Goldfuss, CEQ, ``Final Guidance for Federal
Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act
Reviews'' (Aug. 1, 2016); see also Notice of Availability at 81 Fed.
Reg. 51866 (Aug. 5, 2016).
\23\ In this regard, the guidance stated: ``Considering
alternatives, including alternatives that mitigate GHG emissions, is
fundamental to the NEPA process . . . Agency decisions are aided when
there are reasonable alternatives that allow for comparing GHG
emissions and carbon sequestration potential, trade-offs with other
environmental values, and the risk from--and resilience to--climate
change inherent in a proposed action and its design.'' Goldfuss, supra
note 23 at 14-15.
\24\ Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (Mar. 28, 2017).
\25\ See, e.g. Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp.
Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an Environmental
Impact Statement insufficient with regards to climate impacts from
increased coal consumption because ``when the nature of the effect is
reasonably foreseeable but its extent is not,'' the agency cannot
ignore that effect); Sierra Club, et al. v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (concluding that FERC should have estimated amount of
power-plant carbon emissions that would result from project pipelines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. enhancing resiliency of infrastructure
Even as we discuss how to reduce GHG emissions, we are experiencing
the effects of climate change right now with rising sea levels,
increasing frequency and severity of storms, heavier rainfall events
and more.\26\ Southeastern states are being hit particularly hard with
many coastal communities regularly suffering from flood and storm
events. Indeed, Southern communities such as Hampton Roads and
Charleston are among the areas most-threatened by sea level rise in the
nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Trip Pollard, Damage Control: Adapting Transportation to a
Changing Climate, 39 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 365 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On average, Southeastern coastline areas have already experienced
one foot of sea level rise in the last century.\27\ By the end of this
century, Southeastern shorelines could see over six feet of sea level
rise by intermediate estimates, and the severity of storms and the
damages they cause will continue to increase. For example, with
Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018, the Carolina
coast was dealt two so-called 1,000-year storms in only two years.\28\
Scientists found that climate change made Florence able to grow larger
and drop 50% more rain compared to a world without high greenhouse gas
emissions.\29\ One study found that if there had not been the
significant sea level rise seen in the area since 1970, one out of five
of the homes impacted by Florence along the Carolina coast would have
had far less damage.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ According to gauge observational data not modeling. S.
Jevrejeva et al., Sea Level Projections to AD2500 with a New Generation
of Climate Change Scenarios, 80-81 GLOBAL & PLANETARY CHANGE 14 (2012),
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.09.006.
\28\ Exceedance Probability Analysis for Selected Storm Events,
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.'s Nat'l Weather Serv.'s
Hydrometeorological Design Studies Ctr., http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/
hdsc/aep_storm_analysis (last modified Apr. 21, 2017).
\29\ Kevin A. Reed et al., The Human Influence on Hurricane
Florence, Stoney Brook University (Sept. 12, 2018), https://cpb-
use1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/
climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf.
\30\ Andrew Freedman, Study: Sea Level Rise Boosted Hurricane
Florence's Coastal Flooding, Axios (Sept. 24, 2018), https://
www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-hurricane-florence-coastal-flooding-
a32d013f-5b66-470a-9536-7a54c3001d64.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation infrastructure projects must be planned, and
maintained, against this backdrop of climate change impacts. While much
discussion of adaptation and resiliency focuses on how to effectively
rebuild after a flood or storm event, more attention must be paid to
how thoughtful planning of transportation projects can prevent some of
this damage from happening in the first place.
A. Incorporating Resiliency into Location and Planning Decisions
Large transportation infrastructure projects have a profound impact
on the built and natural environments. For example, large highways
often require the destruction of significant natural resources in their
path such as forests and wetlands, and can cause further indirect harm
by inducing growth into previously undisturbed areas. In the context of
sea level rise and storm events, this dynamic of induced growth
counsels against supporting projects that will bring growth into flood-
prone areas. For example, the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge along the
North Carolina Outer Banks would encourage growth in areas that will be
underwater from rising seas within a few decades. Similarly problematic
are proposals that would encourage growth in flood plains that are
becoming increasingly subject to flood events. In essence, such
projects invite greater future storm damage. Additionally, as sea level
rise brings the coast inland, marshes will similarly migrate inland,
which means that transportation proposals must be considered based on
both existing wetland areas as well as anticipated future wetland
locations. Transportation planners must take a long view when
considering whether a project makes sense; just because it can be built
now, does not mean it should be.
Such transportation projects also run the risk of replacing natural
features that manage flood events and sea level rise--such as forests,
wetlands, and marshes--with impervious surfaces, undermining the
natural ability of a project area to mitigate these effects and
potentially exacerbating flooding issues. Transportation agencies must
take a hard look at how proposed projects might harm natural resiliency
features in the face of storm, flooding, and sea level projections.
Specifically, as discussed above, transportation agencies must take
these climate change impacts into account in their environmental
reviews under NEPA. This should include reconsidering the regulations
that allow agencies to rebuild a road, highway or bridge in its exact
same location after being destroyed in a state-declared emergency
event, without being subject to NEPA review to consider whether the
facility should in fact be rebuilt at all in light of changing storm,
flooding, and sea level patterns. See 23 C.F.R. Sec. 771.117(c)(9).
B. Ensuring Proper Maintenance of Existing Facilities
A proactive approach with a long-term view is also needed with
existing transportation facilities. Increasingly extreme weather events
have meant increasing wear on our transportation infrastructure. Main
corridors have been shut down for days at a time in the wake of severe
storms, such as I-40 in North Carolina after Hurricane Florence. As
these events become increasingly common, transportation agencies need
to inventory their existing facilities and determine how best to
maintain or upgrade infrastructure to be ready for the next severe
weather or flooding event. Adequate and properly maintained stormwater
facilities can help to guard against flooding of our roads and bridges
and in some cases enable agencies to avoid building costly and
unnecessary new infrastructure to address flooding issues. Such a ``fix
it first'' approach is more cost-effective both in terms of dollars and
environmental impacts.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. To
meaningfully reduce GHG emissions and plan for a resilient future it is
imperative that transportation laws, policies, and decision-makers take
climate change seriously. We encourage you to continue exploring and to
take steps to increase funding opportunities and make policy changes to
reduce transportation-related GHG emissions along the lines of the
recommendations provided above. We further encourage you to ensure that
climate change and its effects, like sea level rise and severe storm
events, are being adequately considered during transportation project
planning and environmental reviews.
Letter of February 22, 2019, from Matthew J. Strickler, Secretary of
Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon
February 22, 2019.
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chair
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2134 Rayburn
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Defazio and Ranking Member Graves:
I am writing today to offer the Commonwealth of Virginia's
perspective on ways the federal government can better assist Virginia
and other states in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of sea level
rise and extreme weather events. Please accept this testimony for the
record of the February 27, 2019 Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee hearing titled ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy
Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change.''
Virginia has much at stake as Congress considers legislation to
address our country's aging infrastructure. In addition to help
repairing and modernizing roads, bridges, and railways, the
Commonwealth requires the assistance of the federal government to make
coastal communities and critical assets more resilient to climate
change and natural hazards.
Sea level rise and more frequent and intense weather events have
combined with land subsidence to dramatically increase flooding and
storm damage risk to coastal Virginia. We are not unique among coastal
states in this regard, but with nearly 10,000 miles of tidal shoreline,
the deepest and one of the busiest ports on the east coast, and
numerous military installations including the largest naval base in the
world, we are uniquely vulnerable.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/faqs/shoreline_miles.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently published, Fourth National Climate Assessment report
summary includes the following findings regarding infrastructure:
Climate change and extreme weather events are expected to
increasingly disrupt our Nation's energy and transportation systems,
threatening more frequent and longer-lasting power outages, fuel
shortages, and service disruptions, with cascading impacts on other
critical sectors. The continued increase in the frequency and extent of
high-tide flooding due to sea level rise threatens America's trillion-
dollar coastal property market and public infrastructure, with
cascading impacts to the larger economy . . . Expected increases in the
severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events will affect inland
infrastructure in every region, including access to roads, the
viability of bridges, and the safety of pipelines. Flooding from heavy
rainfall, storm surge, and rising high tides is expected to compound
existing issues with aging infrastructure in the Northeast.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
In Virginia, these warnings are already ringing true. According to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2017 Sea Level
Trends Map, all eight of the sea level monitoring stations in the
Commonwealth show a relative sea level rise of one to two feet per
century, among the highest rates of sea level rise on the east or west
coasts.\3\ The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission estimates the
negative impacts on private property and public infrastructure from
three feet of sea level rise in Southeastern Virginia, in the tens of
billions of dollars.\4\ As this trend continues, the costs and profound
impacts of natural hazards associated with climate change will only
increase the longer we wait to address them. Public health and safety,
our environment and natural resources, and the economic wellbeing of
the Commonwealth, including our ports, military installations,
transportation infrastructure, tourism assets, farms, forests, and
fisheries are all at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.html
\4\ https://www.hrpdcva.gov/uploads/docs/
HRPDC_ClimateChangeReport2012_Full_
Reduced.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must act now to protect lives and property and reduce taxpayer
exposure through fiscally responsible planning. It is important to
understand that we must not only work to make our existing
infrastructure more resilient to sea level rise and other natural
hazards, but that we will need to build new infrastructure, both green
and grey, for the express purpose of making our coastal communities
more resilient.
Virginia is already doing its part. Last November, Governor Northam
issued Executive Order (EO) 24: Increasing Virginia's Resilience to Sea
Level Rise and Natural Hazards. This sweeping directive establishes a
roadmap for making Virginia more resilient, including the creation of a
Coastal Resilience Master Plan for the Commonwealth. A copy of E0-24 is
attached for your reference.
Given the enormous scope of this problem and the significant cost
required to better protect people and property from extreme weather and
sea level rise, Virginia will require the assistance of the federal
government to address this pressing issue and to implement our Master
Plan. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, we respectfully urge
the Committee and Congress to consider the following recommendations as
you develop infrastructure legislation:
1. Provide robust funding to help states and localities address sea
level rise and extreme weather events
As detailed in this letter, the cost of making the United States
more resilient to extreme weather and sea level rise is enormous.
Without consistent, dedicated funding, coordinated fully across federal
agencies, states like Virginia will not be able to adequately protect
their citizens and the built and natural infrastructure that underpins
their economies. In particular, we urge Congress to make significant
investments in pre-disaster mitigation and resilience funding, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood protection projects. To meet the
challenge before us, we will need unprecedented investment from the
federal government to better protect America's coasts. We urge the
committee to prioritize flood control projects for those areas most at
risk, and to also prioritize projects that are part of comprehensive
regional or multi-state plans rather than free-standing projects that
may be advanced by a particular locality or interest.
2. Encourage green infrastructure solutions where applicable
Science has shown us that natural defenses against flooding, storm
surge, erosion, and other forces are often our most effective--and most
cost effective--solutions for protecting vulnerable areas. By reducing
storm water runoff and allowing floodplains to function, green
infrastructure can help manage both localized and riverine floods. In
areas impacted by localized flooding, green infrastructure practices
absorb rainfall, preventing water from overwhelming pipe networks and
pooling in streets or basements. In coastal areas, natural or nature-
based buffers and living shorelines can reduce storm surge and absorb
flood waters. In addition, green infrastructure provides an array of
co-benefits including improved water quality and productive fish and
wildlife habitat. To the maximum extent possible, the Corps should look
first toward natural and nature based infrastructure solutions for
coastal protection and flood risk reduction, reserving more costly gray
infrastructure for situations where it is the only feasible option. In
Virginia, we hope to anchor our Coastal Resilience Master Plan with a
limited number of structural flood protection projects, while we fill
in the gaps with an array of softer solutions including coastal barrier
protection, land acquisition, property buyouts, buffers, living
shorelines and more.
3. Help states organize and prioritize flood control proiects
For years, cities and towns have taken the lead on requesting Army
Corps flood control studies and construction projects, which has led
led to a long list of regional studies that either overlap or leave
gaps in coverage along jurisdictional lines. To ensure that studies are
providing the maximum benefit, the Corps should assist states in
prioritizing and aggregating flood control projects. Furthermore, the
Corps should prioritize new studies and new projects according to the
greatest flood risk and the greatest economic needs, as well as giving
priority to projects that are part of a regional comprehensive plan. In
addition, the Corps should provide regional guidance for how to best
address sea level rise and pre-disaster hazard mitigation.
4. Deliver timely Army Corps studies and consider third party analysis
and study
In recent years, appropriations bills have limited the number of
Corps flood control feasibility studies and project starts in any given
year. We simply cannot afford the delay. Congress and the Corps must
devise a way to expand capacity to complete such studies more quickly
and begin detailed planning and project execution to reduce flooding
and extreme weather risk.
In an effort to address the critical need for flood control and
pre-disaster hazard mitigation, some cities or towns have engaged
private engineering companies to undertake studies on how to best
reduce flooding. For example, Virginia Beach has spent more than $4
million studying its vulnerabilities to flooding and sea level rise.
Rather than begin a new feasibility study by the Corps, Congress should
ensure that the Corps will accept and validate viable commercial and
academic study work as the basis for, or in lieu of, a full feasibility
study.
5. Ensure strong environmental review
While both the need and desire for coastal protection projects are
urgent, we must resist the temptation to circumvent or weaken bedrock
environmental laws. This goes for all infrastructure projects. Robust
reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act will help ensure
that projects with negative unintended consequences are not selected,
and that the needs of impacted communities--particularly environmental
justice communities--are taken into account. Similarly, thorough and
effective consultation under the Endangered Species Act is necessary to
protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plants that serve as proxies for
the health of entire natural systems.
I understand and appreciate the challenging task that lies ahead of
you in developing this infrastructure package, and I thank you for your
consideration of these requests. Please do not hesitate to contact me
if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Matthew J. Strickler,
Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Daniel Sperling
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. I apologize, but I have no expertise in this area.
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Daniel Sperling
Question 2: Your testimony raised the issue of the importance of land
use in reducing greenhouse emissions. One problem we face in California
is a shortage of housing located at a reasonable distance from job
opportunities, with the consequence of more development sprawling out
from urban centers and long, ``super commutes.''
How do you think federal policy changes can achieve better
coordination of land use and housing production with infrastructure
investments?
Answer. The federal government should review the design of two
California laws (Senate Bills 375 and 743), and what we have learned.
These two laws, described below, provide a framework for better
coordinating land use, housing and transportation.
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,
Senate Bill (SB) 375, (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) is intended to
encourage regional planning that integrates land use, housing and
transportation policy in a way that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from driving, and ultimately results in healthier, more
efficient, and equitable communities. Under SB 375, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) incorporate sustainable transportation
strategies (e.g. local, regional and state transportation projects) and
land use decisions (e.g. local general plans) in the development of
their regional transportation plans to meet greenhouse gas reduction
targets.
We have learned two lessons so far from the implementation of this
law. First, most of the strategies for achieving GHG emission
reductions are the same strategies one would pursue to improve the
performance and benefits of transportation investments and decisions.
And second, for this type of law to be successful, strong carrots are
needed. Carrots are needed to motivate local leaders and community
groups to reframe and align transportation and environmental strategies
and investments--a paradigm shift for the transportation community.
California's Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of
2013), creates a process to change the way transportation impacts are
analyzed under the California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Specifically, it changes the metric of transportation impact in
environmental reviews of projects from ``level of service'' to vehicle
miles travelled (VMT). Lead agencies evaluate vehicle travel associated
with new development as part of the project's environmental review and,
if the impact is significant, mitigate those impacts by reducing
vehicle travel. This new metric is aligned with the achievement of SB
375 and more broadly, sustainable transportation goals.
Question 3: What role do you think metropolitan planning
organizations can play in helping to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases? What should the federal government ask MPOs to do differently in
the way that they formulate transportation plans and prioritize
investments in transportation improvements?
Answer. See above No. 2. CARB has compiled a list of best practices
for MPOs in the development of regional transportation plans that meet
GHG reduction targets under SB 375. They can be found in Appendix C of
a legislatively-required review of SB375 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
sites/default/files/2018-11/
Final2018Report_SB150_112618_05_AppendixC.pdf
Question 4: Should the federal government require states to measure
and report on their annual greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
sources? What about measuring and reporting on aggregate vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)?
Answer. Yes. The California Department of Transportation and the
California Air Resources Board submitted comments on the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) MAP-21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
the National Performance Management Measures. California strongly urged
the FHWA to retain and implement the GHG performance measure
established in the third performance measure final rule. As FHWA
correctly recognized then, the GHG performance measure is an important
mechanism to contribute to states' and U.S.'s efforts to reduce
transportation's contribution to climate change by creating
transparency and clarity in tracking total emissions from the sector.
The comment letter can be found here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
transprog/map21/implementation/
ctcarb_110317_jt_cmt_ltr_for_the_fhwa_map-21_pm3_ghg_mea_nprm.pdf
Question 5: Even when transit service options exist, passengers may
instead choose to drive or take a taxi, because they perceive that the
transit service is unreliable, too slow, or simply too inconvenient.
Besides the obvious need for greater investment in transit and the
need for land use planning and housing development coordinated with
transit, is there anything the federal government can do to incentivize
transit agencies to perform better, spend money more effectively, and
do more to innovate to provide better service to passengers?
Answer. A wide variety of new technologies and business models have
come into existence in the past few years. They present many
opportunities to reduce costs to users, transit operators, and
infrastructure providers. But they are new and often untested.
i. The federal government should create a large program to fund
pilot projects that bring together innovators, technical experts,
community members, and decision-making partners to find creative
solutions for accelerating a change in travel choices away from single-
occupancy vehicles while improving accessibility and access to
opportunity. Pilot projects could test which incentives best motivate
travelers to shift to more sustainable travel modes; provide real-time
consumer information; develop strategies for making the traveler
experience outside of the single-occupancy vehicle more seamless;
explore enhancements to transit operations; and/or better integrate
walking, cycling, transit, and carpool options via mobility hubs or
other approaches.
ii. Leverage experts to provide insight into the demands on the
future transportation system, identify the transformative technologies,
solutions, partnerships, and critical steps to meet those demands, in a
way that provides clear environmental benefits and fosters greater
livability, access to destinations, and compact infill development
rather than accelerating sprawl. To highlight a few examples in
California that could be done nationally: the State has initiated a
Multi-agency Workgroup on Automated Vehicles to address deployment of
connected and automated vehicles in California, and Senate Bill 1014
(Skinner, 2018) now directs a number of agencies within the state to
foster the use of cleaner cars and more carpooling in ride-hailing
trips and directs establishment of goals for reducing the greenhouse
gas emissions, including targets for the use of zero emission vehicles.
iii. Electrification of buses. Electric buses substantially lower
operating costs, due to more efficient use of fuel and substantially
lower maintenance costs. It is likely that EV transit buses will
eventually have a lower total cost of ownership than diesel in most
applications.
iv. New types of buses. DOT and others should start re-evaluating
the standard 40 foot bus as the default transit vehicle. Automated and
networked technologies may offer the ability to provide high-grade
service using minibuses or vans, to areas which are often uneconomical
for conventional buses.
Question 6: Between electrification, automation, and so-called ``smart
cities'' we are clearly in the midst of technological innovations in
transportation. Some may go so far as to put complete faith in
technology's ability to solve many of our urban transportation
challenges, believing that advances in technology will make certain
forms of public transit obsolete. However, these technological advances
will not necessarily, by themselves, address our needs for greater
equity in mobility and accessibility, for connecting underserved
communities with more opportunities, for walkable and bike-able urban
spaces, for dynamic, diverse, and thriving neighborhoods. And our
transit systems are clearly suffering from inadequate investment.
Given our current need for better public transit on one hand, and
the many technological innovations that are appearing on the horizon on
the other hand, how should the current, changing landscape of
technology innovations inform our planning and decision-making around
public transportation?
Answer. Planning should explore a range of possible futures and
identify what policies can be expected to provide win-win solutions.
California's MPOs are already exploring the impacts on innovations on
their plans and policies.
Also see No. 5 above.
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Daniel Sperling
Question 7: You mention in your testimony that California has, in part,
addressed energy efficiency through performance standards. In 1993,
President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'', which instructed regulatory agencies to
``specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior
or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt.'' This
policy was maintained by President George W. Bush and President Barack
Obama.
In your experience, do you agree that performance and outcome-based
regulations, which provide just as much safety, are more effective than
prescriptive procedural regulations in seeing efficiencies made across
various industries?
Answer. As a generalization, using market-based and performance-
based policies are preferable because they do not pick winners and
losers and they motivate innovation. Prescriptive regulations are
sometimes appropriate, but only if the desired technologies or actions
are clear, obvious, and likely to be effective. CARB's success in
reducing emissions from mobile sources has relied on a combination of
incentives, prescriptive regulations, performance standards, and market
instruments. This approach has allowed the state to overcome market and
technology barriers for low carbon fuels and low and zero emissions
vehicles, and develop pilot programs to support innovation and
technology deployment. California has long recognized that there is no
single solution for any sector and that working with industry and the
broader public through a transparent process can help identify which
approach is most cost-effective and feasible while achieving the
desired environmental and public health outcomes. California's
regulatory process requires that a performance-based regulation be
considered when any rule is proposed. As a result, in practice, most of
California's regulations are performance based and most major
greenhouse gas regulations affecting transportation include a credit-
trading market mechanism.
Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia for Vicki Arroyo
Question 1: In your testimony, you discussed the historical burdens
disproportionately shouldered by low-income communities.
Can you discuss how climate change heightens those discrepancies
for communities of color or low-income individuals and what Federal
programs can help to reverse years of inequitable planning and
development?
Answer. The negative impacts of climate change are not experienced
equally by all individuals and communities; rather, communities of
color, low-income communities, and individuals with disabilities are
among those that typically feel the burdens of increased heat and heat
waves, flooding, drought, hurricanes and other storms, and other
climate stressors disproportionately.\1\ These ``frontline
communities'' are more likely to live in areas with higher exposure to
pollutants and impacts like extreme heat and flooding that are
exacerbated by a changing climate. At the same time they are less
likely to have the resources to adapt to the impacts of climate change
or to evacuate when faced with a major disaster event like a hurricane,
as was clearly demonstrated during Hurricane Katrina.\2\ This unequal
distribution of climate and disaster impacts is due in large part to
the effects of decades of systematic oppression through inequitable
planning and policymaking at federal, state, and local levels. As a
result, individuals in frontline communities may be more vulnerable to
health-related effects (e.g., asthma) and infrastructure failures
(e.g., due to sub-standard housing and aging infrastructure) resulting
from climate change and natural disasters, while receiving less
protection from government services and policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more discussion on how frontline communities experience
climate change and disaster event impacts disproportionately, see
NAACP, In the Eye of the Storm: A People's Guide to Transforming Crisis
and Advancing Equity in the Disaster Continuum, (2018), available at
https://live-naacp-site.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/
NAACP_InTheEyeOfTheStorm.pdf; Rejane Frederick, Rebecca Cokley, Hannah
Leibson, and Eliza Schultz, Center for American Progress, Serving the
Hardest Hit: Centering People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning
and Response Efforts, Sept. 24, 2018, available at https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/reports/2018/09/24/458467/
serving-hardest-hit/.
\2\ For a discussion of historical inequality in disaster law and
policy, see Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and Inequality, available at
https://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/
Disaster_Law_and_Inequality_Farber.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, in addition to the disproportionate effects of
environmental disasters on frontline communities, recent research has
shown that FEMA disaster aid may also be contributing to an increase in
wealth inequality along racial lines.\3\ While the researchers note
that the cause is unclear, it has been shown from past events (e.g.,
Hurricane Katrina) that FEMA aid is not distributed equitably and the
impacts of selective infrastructure redevelopment, while positive for
some communities, can be conversely detrimental to others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ University of Pittsburgh News Services, ``Natural Disasters,
FEMA Aid Widen Racial Wealth Gap,'' Aug. 27, 2018, http://
www.news.pitt.edu/news/natural-disasters-fema-aid-widen-racial-wealth-
gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should act to ensure that funding through Federal disaster
recovery programs (as well as other programs that provide funding to
states and local governments for infrastructure or community
investments) is distributed equitably to help reverse decades of
inequality in Federal investments at state and local levels.
Additionally, more could be done to ensure that frontline communities
and environmental justice and community-based organizations have a
voice in decision making relating to Federal investments and disaster
planning and recovery. The Federal government should also be doing more
to track these disproportionate impacts of climate change and natural
disasters so as to better target future investments and government
services (e.g., emergency management and response) to benefit frontline
communities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, in Disaster Law and Inequality, Farber notes that
FEMA should include demographic information alongside flood hazard maps
and consider such information in environmental reviews of major federal
projects that impact disaster preparedness (e.g., levees), and
demographic statistics should be collected and immediately published
following disaster events. Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and
Inequality, 13, available at https://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/
Disaster_Law_and_Inequality_Farber.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Vicki Arroyo
Question 2: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. Governors from both parties are enacting ambitious
proposals to invest in transportation infrastructure, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and make transportation systems more resilient to the
impacts of climate change. For example, Massachusetts Governor Baker
established the Commission on the Future of Transportation in the
Commonwealth to advise his administration on the needs and challenges
of the transportation system of the future.\5\ In California, governors
from both parties have enacted a cap-and-trade system that includes
transportation fuels, and have used the proceeds generated from the
program to invest in multi-modal low-carbon transportation
solutions.\6\ A federal infrastructure bill would be strengthened and
made more effective by building from the successful investments and
planning processes underway in states across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission on the Future of
Transportation, https://www.mass.gov/orgs/commission-on-the-future-of-
transportation
\6\ State of California, California Climate Investments, http://
www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Vicki Arroyo
Question 3: A Your testimony raised the issue of the importance of land
use in reducing greenhouse emissions. One problem we face in California
is a shortage of housing located at a reasonable distance from job
opportunities, with the consequence of more development sprawling out
from urban centers and long, ``super commutes.''
How do you think federal policy changes can achieve better
coordination of land use and housing production with infrastructure
investments?
Answer. One important strategy for transportation and housing
policy is transit-oriented development. One policy idea to incentivize
transit-oriented development would be a federal program to provide low-
cost financing for housing investment near transit and rail hubs. This
program could be structured similarly to the Federal Highway
Administration's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Smart Growth America, Legislative Priorities, https://
smartgrowthamerica.org/our-vision/advocacy/legislative-priorities/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have explored incentive programs for smart growth and in-
fill development, as an effective strategy for creating more affordable
housing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In Massachusetts, the
Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act has offered cities and towns a
financial incentive to build residential dwellings in designed ``smart
growth'' districts.\8\ A federal program that made community
development funding available for smart growth, infill, and transit-
oriented development could serve as an effective policy mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See: 760 CMR 59, http://www.mass.gov/hed/community/planning/
chapter-40-r.html
Question 4: What role do you think metropolitan planning
organizations can play in helping to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases? What should the federal government ask MPOs to do differently in
the way that they formulate transportation plans and prioritize
investments in transportation improvements?
Answer. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have a critical
role in reducing transportation GHG emissions through their roles
coordinating active transportation, public transit, and traffic demand
management strategies as part of the transportation planning process.
The importance of MPOs to transportation and emission reduction
planning is increasingly due to demographic trends: suburban counties
are the fastest growing area type in the United States, with a 16
percent growth since 2000, \9\ and MPOs can play a critical ensuring
that population and economic growth in urban and suburban counties is
decoupled from increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Pew Research Center, Demographic and economic trends in urban,
suburban and rural communities (May 22, 2018), https://
www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-
urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While most land use planning authority is held at the state and
local level, the federal government could incentive MPOs and regional
planners to consider GHG emissions and develop strategies to reduce
emissions through the structure of transportation funding programs. For
example, the federal government could require transportation GHG
emissions evaluation as part of the longrange transportation plans and
three-year statewide transportation improvement programs developed by
MPOs.
Several states already require MPOs to set and meet mandatory or
voluntary GHG emission reduction goals for transportation. For example,
under California's Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
of 2008 (S.B. 375), the state sets a GHG target for each MPO and
requires each MPO to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategies to
meet its GHG target.\10\ These Sustainable Communities Strategies are
incorporated into each MPO's federally required long-range
transportation plan.\11\ The California requirement does not penalize
MPOs that do not achieve the target, but does provide incentives for
those that do. Oregon has passed legislation that requires the MPO for
Portland (and encourages other MPOs) to conduct scenario planning for
meeting transportation-sector GHGs reductions targets set by the
state.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ California Air Resources Board, Sustainable Communities,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm
\11\ Cal . Gov't Code Sec. 14522.1
\12\ Chapter 865 Oregon Laws 2009 (House Bill 2001); Chapter 85
Oregon Laws 2010 Special Session (Senate Bill 1059). See also Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Targets, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012, (May
19, 2011).
Question 5: Should the federal government require states to measure
and report on their annual greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
sources? What about measuring and reporting on aggregate vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)?
Answer. In January 2017, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) issued a regulation requiring states to identify a GHG
performance measure and report on progress.\13\ The GHG performance
measure was repealed in May 2018.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program, 82 Fed. Reg. 5979, 5993-6003 (Jan. 18, 2017).
\14\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program, 83 Fed. Reg. 24920, (May 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When U.S. FHWA issued the draft rule to establish the performance
measure (and again during regulatory repeal of the performance
measure), several state departments of transportation submitted
comments in favor of the GHG performance measure. For example,
Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Zelle submitted a
comment suggesting that the performance measure was ``needed as an
authority to track efforts to reduce transportation GHG emissions'' and
that the rule as originally promulgated would not be an administrative
burden; estimating the ``burden for analysis and reporting to be less
than two hours per year.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Comment from Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota
Department of Transportation; Re: Federal Highway Administration's
``National Performance Management Measures; Assessing the Performance
of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate
System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program;'' proposed rule (Docket Number FHWA-2017-0025); https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FHWA-2017-0025-0148
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an institution such as Georgetown Climate Center, with a goal
of supporting state and local government policymakers, accurate and
timely data on vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions from the
transportation sector is important for conducting analysis.
Question 6: Even when transit service options exist, passengers may
instead choose to drive or take a taxi, because they perceive that the
transit service is unreliable, too slow, or simply too inconvenient.
Besides the obvious need for greater investment in transit and the
need for land use planning and housing development coordinated with
transit, is there anything the federal government can do to incentivize
transit agencies to perform better, spend money more effectively, and
do more to innovate to provide better service to passengers?
Answer. Electric transit buses offer an enormous opportunity for
improved public transit that reduces air pollution and GHG emissions,
while providing a better experience for passengers. Federal programs to
increase technical support for transit agencies will lead to a more
efficient and faster transition to electric fleets. Additionally,
federal funding programs could significantly increase their impact by
incentivizing private financing of transit buses (monetizing the
operational cost savings of electric buses).
Technical Assistance to Support Fleet Transition:
The federal government could provide valuable support for transit
fleet electrification by significantly expanding grant funding for both
technical analyses and fleet transition planning for transit agencies.
This planning assistance could be highly effective at ensuring cost-
efficient investments in electric buses and charging infrastructure.
Transit agencies with medium-term plans to electrify their entire fleet
face significant logistical challenges for operations, routing, and
charging buses. While limited-scale pilot deployments of electric
transit buses provide valuable experience, many of the challenges of
full fleet electrification will not be answered through a pilot
deployment. For example, the charging infrastructure considerations for
five electric buses will be very different than those for 100 electric
buses (for example, depending on electric distribution infrastructure
capacity and constraints, a transit agency may favor `depot' charging
for a limited pilot deployment, but will require on-route charging for
a fully electrified fleet). Federal funding for fleet assessment and
transition plans for transit agencies will help to ensure that pilot
projects are effectively and efficiently deployed.
Leveraging Public Funds with Electric Transit Bus Financing
Electric transit buses are already nearly competitive with diesel
buses on a total cost of ownership basis (when including fuel and
maintenance costs), and will reach cost parity over the coming
years.\16\ One important opportunity is to explore how clean energy
financing strategies, such as ``Pay As You Save'' financing, \17\ could
to increase the impact of federal funding and help meet the huge demand
from transit bus fleets for federal support. Clean energy financing
strategies could leverage limited public-sector funding by attracting
low-cost private financing that monetizes the operational cost savings
of electric transit buses. The U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration's ``Low- or No-Emission'' (``Low-No'')
Grant program has been instrumental in providing the funding needed by
transit agencies to add zero-emission buses to their fleets, but this
funding is generally not paired with financing--in general, the grant
funding pays for the entire upfront cost premium of electric transit
buses. Congress could authorize a modified or expanded Low-No grant
program that incentivizes transit agency applications that include
private financing and investment. As an alternative (to avoid
penalizing transit agencies without a willing financing partner) this
could be developed as a complementary program in addition to the
existing Low-No grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
Lower CO2, C40 (Mar. 29, 2018),
https://c40-productionimages.s3.amazonaws.com/other_uploads/images/
1726_BNEF_C40_Electric_buses_in_cities_
FINAL_APPROVED_%282%29.original.pdf?1523363881.
\17\ Tariffed On-Bill Finance to Accelerate Clean Transit, CLEAN
ENERGY WORKS, http://www.cleanenergyworks.org/home/clean-transit/
Question 7: Between electrification, automation, and so-called ``smart
cities'' we are clearly in the midst of technological innovations in
transportation. Some may go so far as to put complete faith in
technology's ability to solve many of our urban transportation
challenges, believing that advances in technology will make certain
forms of public transit obsolete. However, these technological advances
will not necessarily, by themselves, address our needs for greater
equity in mobility and accessibility, for connecting underserved
communities with more opportunities, for walkable and bike-able urban
spaces, for dynamic, diverse, and thriving neighborhoods. And our
transit systems are clearly suffering from inadequate investment.
Given our current need for better public transit on one hand, and
the many technological innovations that are appearing on the horizon on
the other hand, how should the current, changing landscape of
technology innovations inform our planning and decision-making around
public transportation?
Answer. While automated vehicles have the potential to create
significant benefits for public safety and mobility; the energy,
emissions, equity, and land use implications are very uncertain, and
may depend on the fuel type and public transportation infrastructure
used by these vehicles, as well as public policy intervention.\18\
Leading transportation researchers and forecasts are showing that the
deployment of automated vehicles could lead to a significant increase
or decrease in emissions. A recent study conducted by several U.S.
national labs concluded that the deployment of highly automated
vehicles (in the absence of electrification) could lead to a 200
percent increase or 60 percent decrease in fuel use.\19\ Recent
analysis has discussed the enormous opportunities from aligning the
emerging technology trends of vehicle electrification and automation,
along with shared use of vehicles. However, most analyses point to the
need for strong public policies to ensure that automated vehicles
result in a reduction in vehicle emissions and increase in mobility
options, rather than an increase in congestion, vehicle miles traveled,
fuel use, and emissions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Zia Wadud, Don MacKenzie, and Paul Leiby (2016) https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415002694
\19\ T.S. Stephens, et. al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs
of Connected and Automated Vehicles (2016), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy17osti/67216.pdf
\20\ See generally UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies,
Three Revolutions Policy Initiative, https://3rev.ucdavis.edu/
policybriefs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the timeline for deployment of fully automated
vehicles outside of small geo-fenced areas is highly uncertain. Ford
Motor Co. chief executive officer Jim Hackett said at an April 2019
event: ``We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles,'' and
that the near-term applications will be limited.\21\ Policy makers
should not wait for the arrival of full vehicle automation to address
challenges such as air pollution, GHG emissions, and more inequitable
mobility.
At the same time, policymakers can implement programs to improve
transportation in the near term while preparing for the ultimate
arrival of highly automated vehicles. For example, transitioning to
zero-emission transit and for-hire vehicle fleets will establish the
charging infrastructure and routing logistics that will enable zero-
emission driverless transit (when the technology is mature). Cities
across the country are developing strategies and working with
businesses to deploy shared electric mobility.\22\ The federal
government could provide additional support to better integrate
traditional, fixed-line transit with new on-demand shared-use options.
For example, transit agencies across the country are exploring
partnerships with transportation networking companies to offer
discounts for trips that begin or end at a transit station.\23\ Another
idea being piloted is transit agencies replacing low-occupancy transit
routes with an on-demand ride-hailing option, \24\ which can create the
opportunity to reinvest cost savings into providing better service
along core transit routes. If done effectively and in consultation with
affected communities, programs such as these can help to modernize
transit services and prepare for upcoming technology deployments. On
the other hand, policymakers should be mindful of recent studies
finding that transportation networking companies such as Lyft and Uber
are increasing vehicle miles traveled and congestion and decreasing
transit use.\25\ Policies to encourage shared trips (such as a per-trip
fee, rather than per-booking fee), connections with transit, and
electrification of these vehicles will be critical for this new
mobility option to be in the public interest.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Keith Naughton, Bloomberg News, ``Ford CEO Tamps Down
Expectations for First Autonomous Vehicles'' (April 9, 2019), https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/ford-ceo-tamps-down-
expectations-for-first-autonomous-vehicles
\22\ Seattle Department of Transportation, EVSE Roadmap for Shared
Mobility Hubs (December 2018), http://evsharedmobility.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2018/12/SDOT_EVSE_Roadmap_
for_Shared_Mobility_Hubs.pdf
\23\ See, e.g., City of Charlotte, North Carolina, ``CATS Announces
First Mile / Last Mile Partnership with Lyft'' (April 9, 2018), https:/
/charlottenc.gov/newsroom/releases/Pages/PR-20180409.aspx
\24\ For example, the City of Arlington, Texas, contracts with Via
to provide on-demand rides. ``Transportation--City of Arlington, TX,''
www.arlington-tx.gov/residents/transportation
\25\ See e.g., Schaller Consulting, The New Automobility: Lyft,
Uber and the Future of American Cities (July 25, 2018), http://
www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf
\26\ Daniel Sperling, Three Revolutions: Steering Automated,
Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future, Island Press 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Vicki Arroyo
Question 8: In your testimony, you talk about how the United States has
experienced extreme weather-related events that have cost over $1
billion (adds up to $1.6 trillion since 1980). In fiscal year 2018
alone, Congress provided over $100 billion in assistance for federal
disasters, in large part due to hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria--
causing damage to infrastructure, communities, and cities.
Understanding your testimony focuses on transportation resiliency,
clearly there is more that the federal government can do on projects to
mitigate and help communities recover from disasters.
Do you think the federal government can be doing more to track how
federal money is being spent on disasters, including the nature of
specific awards and loans?
Answer. Better tracking of federal disaster recovery dollars across
the many agencies involved in recovery efforts could significantly
improve the efficiency of research efforts relating to disaster
recovery, and lead to improved program effectiveness. Organizations
that have conducted research in the past on federal disaster recovery
programs have overwhelmingly noted the complexity and administrative
challenges of these programs, and lack of transparency in assessing how
funds are spent and how effective those investments are after the fact.
For example, our Center hosted workshops with federal agencies, states,
and other stakeholders several years back to discuss opportunities for
improving federal programs to better support state and local
resilience, including one workshop focused primarily on disaster relief
programs. Based on input at those events, we found across the board
that beneficiaries of federal program funding could benefit from
improved interagency collaboration and alignment of program funding
streams, paperwork, and regulatory requirements. Along these lines,
stakeholders reported a need for recipients' reporting requirements to
be aligned across federal disaster relief programs as well.\27\
Similarly, by aligning federal agencies' reporting requirements
relating to their disaster-related expenditures, overall transparency
regarding disaster costs could be improved; this was suggested in a
recent CRS report on 2017 disaster supplemental appropriations.\28\
Improved tracking of federal spending related to disaster events could
also help to identify where post-disaster investments are contributing
to improved resilience and future hazard mitigation, which ultimately
will help translate to cost savings through avoided losses in the
future when the next disaster strikes, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Georgetown Climate Center, Preparing Our Communities for
Climate Impacts: Recommendations for Federal Action, Chapter 2 (2014),
available at https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/report/GCC%20-
%20Recommendations%20for%20Federal%20Action%20-%20September%202014.pdf.
\28\ See Congressional Research Service, 2017 Disaster Supplemental
Appropriations: Overview, 22-23 (March 20, 2018), available at https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45084.pdf.
Question 9: Should the Federal government have a more centralized
way to report how Federal money is being spent so that researchers like
you can better understand what efforts the federal government is doing
to focus and help mitigate disasters?
Answer. A centralized reporting system for tracking federal
spending relating to disasters would be a vast improvement in terms of
government transparency and accountability. With a trend towards
increasing extreme weather events and related costs, it is important
for the Federal government and researchers to understand where and how
recovery dollars are being utilized. This may help identify
opportunities for cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation, and ensure
that post-disaster recovery funds in the future are spent wisely on
investments that will withstand extreme storms and other environmental
conditions of the future.
Question 10: As a follow-up, my home state of North Carolina has been
recovering from Hurricane Matthew for more than two years. Extreme
weather conditions like hurricanes and flooding put immense strain on,
not only federal resources, but also on state and local resources in
responding to these events. We have identified that there are more than
17 federal agencies involved in federal assistance, not to mention
countless state, local, tribal, and various non-profit organizations as
well. In your research of states and cities and how they respond to
natural disasters, surely you must have seen many instances of
bureaucratic slow-downs and inefficiencies that should be addressed.
Do you think it would be beneficial to have a lead federal agency
in charge of coordinating state, local, and federal response efforts,
as well as undertaking efforts to provide assessments related to damage
caused by disasters to better streamline the federal response?
Answer. If done effectively, having a lead federal agency to
coordinate disaster response across federal agencies and with state and
local emergency management agencies could prove useful to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of disaster response and recovery.
Similarly, it would benefit federal agencies, researchers, and the
American public if federal agencies improved in their tracking of
disaster spending and efforts, and having a single agency to coordinate
the gathering and reporting of these efforts could help to improve
government efficiency and accountability.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Vicki Arroyo
Question 11: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
(ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
Answer. States across the country are taking different approaches
to existing nuclear power generation assets as part of the transition
to lower carbon electricity generation. For example, New York developed
a clean energy standard (CES) that includes a renewable energy standard
(RES) and the zero-emissions credit (ZEC) requirement.\29\ The CES was
established to ``provide[]support for safely-operating upstate nuclear
plants'' while ensuring that 50 percent of New York State's electricity
will be generated by renewables by 2030 (this goal was later increased
to 70 percent renewable sources, such as solar and wind, by 2030).\30\
The New York Clean Energy Standard complements other regulatory
programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The New York
Public Service Commission order approving the CES cited the example of
Germany, where an ``abrupt closure of all its nuclear plants resulted
in a large increase in the use of coal, causing total carbon emissions
to rise despite an aggressive increase in solar generation.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard, N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm.,
Case 15-E-0302 (Aug. 1, 2016).
\30\ New York State Energy Research and Development Agency,
``Renewing the Energy Vision, Clean Energy Standard,'' https://
www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Clean-Energy-Standard
\31\ Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard, N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm.,
Case 15-E-0302 (Aug. 1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Vicki Arroyo
Question 12: Please list all the modes of transportation you used
en-route to this hearing (If a vehicle was used for travel, please
clarify if it had an internal combustion engine).
Answer. I drove from my home in Arlington to the Georgetown Climate
Center in the morning in my electric car, a Chevrolet Bolt. For the
trip from Georgetown Law to the Capitol Visitor Center, my staff and I
traveled in a taxi cab licensed by the District of Columbia Department
of For-Hire Vehicles. It had an internal combustion engine, but may
have been a hybrid.
Questions 13 and 14: During the hearing, I asked about spatial gaps
in the global surface temperature station coverage and the impact these
unaccounted-for swaths of the globe on the temperature record's
validity. Based on your response, it seems like there was some
confusion about the study I cited and the temperature record it
referred to so I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few
things and explore this issue further.
First, the global average surface temperature data refers to the
input data for the three main global temperature histories--the NOAA
Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature (MLOST) record, the NASA-GISS
(GISTEMP) record, and the Hadley-CRU (HADCRU) record--not the satellite
record. The satellite datasets did not begin until 1979 so even if this
was the dataset in question, it would do nothing to alleviate the gaps
in station coverage in the Southern Hemisphere and the oceans
referenced in Hansen et al. (1981). It is incredibly important to
understand that the gap in coverage referenced by Hansen et al. (1981)
is not for any one of the three temperature records, rather this
surface area is not recorded in the data archives used as the land
temperature and sea surface temperature (SST) inputs used for all three
records. Though they are produced by different entities, these three
records are comprised of nearly identical surface temperature input
data--the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) for land surface
temperature (LST) inputs and the International Comprehensive Ocean-
Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) for SST inputs--with very little
exception; the best available estimate is that 90-95 percent of the raw
data is the same in all three records.\32\ \33\ Given the significant
overlap of raw data underlying the three temperature records, it is
incredibly important that the data be accurate and its coverage be
widespread. As I stated in my line of questioning, Hansen et al.
(1981), relaying concerns about the existence of Southern Hemisphere
and oceanic data,\34\ seriously calls into question the extent of the
raw data coverage and the validity of the three temperature records
relying upon the raw data in the GHCN and ICOADS that now claim to have
credible station temperature records going back to 1880.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ McKitrick, Ross, A Critical Review of Global Surface
Temperature Data Products (August 5, 2010): 4. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=1653928
\33\ Pielke, R. A., Sr. et al., Unresolved issues with the
assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends, J.
Geophys. Res., 112, (December 29, 2007), D24S08, doi:10.1029/
2006JD008229.
\34\ ``Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due
to the uneven station distribution with the Southern Hemisphere and
ocean areas poorly represented, and the small number of stations for
earlier times.'' James Hansen et al., ``Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'', Science, Vol. 213, no. 4511 (August 28,
1981): 961. See: http://www.sealevel.info/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf.
\35\ ``Source of the temperature data: GHCN-v3 1880-01/2019'',
NASA-GISS, S.HEMISPH. Station Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees
Celsius, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that Dr. James Hansen is not a scientist who
``might quibble with'' the theory of global warming; in fact, he was
one of the earliest and remains one of the most prominent proponents of
the theory of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. Dr. Hansen
became the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1981
and oversaw the creation and development of the GISTEMP temperature
analysis; which filled in the gaps by extrapolating the existing
southern hemisphere data to fill the entire hemisphere.\36\
Interestingly, GISTEMP was refined in 1987; providing the scientific
basis of his 1988 testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources where he claimed ``it was 99 percent certain that the
warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup
of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.'' \37\
This timeline is suspect and his predictions were significantly warmer
than what has been observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NASA-GISS, ``History of GISTEMP'', https://data.giss.nasa.gov/
gistemp/history/
\37\ Shabecoff, ``Global Warming Has Begun'', NYT (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years later, other leaders in the climate science community
privately acknowledged the lack of temperature data and its impact on
the warming trend in the data. Dr. Raymond Bradley, Research Director
at the Climate System Research Center at UMass-Amherst, responded to an
email from Dr. Thomas Crowley, at the University of Edinburgh, stating:
``One cautionary note--talking to Phil Jones last week, he mentioned
that the recent addition of SH buoy data has added data from areas of
the globe hitherto undersampled; it may have `suppressed' the ocean
area warming relative to land.'' \38\ In response to this exchange, Dr.
Phil Jones, then-Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, responded, ``in addition to the issue of
many more drifters providing measurements over the last 5-10 years, the
measurements are coming in from places where we didn't have much ship
data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normal are
mostly made up as there is very little ship data there. Whatever causes
the divergence in your plot is down to the ocean.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Email from Dr. Raymond Bradley to Drs. Thomas Crowley and
Michael Mann. April 13, 2009. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
\39\ Email from Dr. Phil Jones to Dr. Thomas Crowley April 14,
2009. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an especially damning admission because it shows that the
addition of actual observational data curbed the warming trend in the
extrapolated data. Worse, the directors of two of the three main
organizations overseeing global temperature histories have admitted
that the raw data underlying their histories are incomplete.
Questions 13 and 14 Given this background information, do you
believe the data is credible and there is a sufficient enough amount of
it to claim that it is a reasonable depiction of the global average
surface temperature since the 1880s? If so, please explain how these
significant problems with the data were overcome in a manner that
allows you to claim this.
Answer. It is important to point out that the Hansen paper you cite
was from 1981, the year I graduated from high school. This was long
before the dramatic increase in computing power that has revolutionized
climate science and allowed us to carry phones with as much power as
the original supercomputers in our pockets. Since then, scientists have
collected 38 years of additional data, both from sensors all over the
world and from satellites. They have also made tremendous strides in
analyzing the data. All of this scientific work tells the same story:
that the planet has warmed at a rapid pace since pre-industrial days.
For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
aimed to address many of the questions and concerns raised by the
congressman. The project used 39,390 unique stations in their analysis,
``more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global
Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M).'' http://
static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf
Using this vastly larger data set led them to the same conclusions
as earlier studies. In fact: ``Berkeley Earth also has carefully
studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban
heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We
have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.'' http://
berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
In addition, four leading scientific institutions, UK's Met Office
Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA's
National Climatic Data Center, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency
have all analyzed the temperature data using different approaches.\40\
Their results are remarkably similar, increasing the level of
confidence in the results. There is no question that the planet has
warmed significantly (and rapidly) due to human activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ NASA Climate 365 project--a collaboration of the NASA Earth
Science News Team, NASA Goddard and Jet Propulsion Laboratory
communications teams, and NASA websites Earth Observatory and Global
Climate Change. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/9/graphic-
earths-temperature-record/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, even though the planetary warming as seen in actual
temperature measurements is both complete and scientifically
persuasive, it is also important to add that the detailed record of
past climate does not rely on temperature measurements alone. Important
data also come from tree rings, coral reefs, sediments, pollen--and
especially ice cores. In fact, data from those sources have enabled
scientists to put together a remarkably detailed picture of the
planet's temperature over thousands and even millions of years. That
record shows that the recent planetary warming from human activities is
unprecedented in the planet's history, in both the size and speed of
the warming.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. https://
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Question 15: In response to my questions regarding the extent of
the global temperature observational station coverage, you stated the
following: ``The impacts have only become more severe and more obvious
based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme events. We know
that we are at CO2 levels that have never been experienced since
millions of years ago and that's going to lead to dramatic impacts like
sea level rise and more intense and frequent storms, etc., etc.'' Given
the pervasiveness of these claims in the public discourse about climate
change and the Committee's jurisdiction over the federal management of
emergencies, natural disasters, and flood control, I'd like to explore
the link between human greenhouse gas emissions and these extreme
weather events.
All the rhetoric around rapid climate change related sea level rise
in the 20th century are not in line with the validated tidal gauge
data. For example, the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4)
claimed ``global average sea level has risen by about 7-8 inches since
1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since
1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantia contribution to
this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater
than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years.'' \42\ Dr.
Nils-Axel Morner reviewed the rates of sea level change projected by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others with
the actual tidal gauge and satellite data. He found, ``At most, global
average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per
century. It is probably not rising at all.'' \43\ Claims that tidal
gauges show a significant trend in sea level rise fail to account for
non-climate change related factors causing localized rise; this leaves
them ``bound to exaggerate sea-level rise.'' \44\ Removing the gauges
that are sited in uplifted and subsiding locations, separates the
actual sea level rise from the noise created due to shifts in the
gauges physical location. ``This leaves 68 [NOAA] sites of reasonable
stability. These sites give a present rate of sea level rise of 1.0
( 1.0) mm/year [.039 ( .039) in/year].'' \45\
\46\ The raw data from ``two distinct satellite systems [the TOPEX/
POSEIDON sea-level satellites and the GRACE gravitational-anomaly
satellites], using very different measurement methods, produced raw
data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at
all.'' \47\ This shows the NCA4 significantly over-estimated the sea-
level rise of the past century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive summary: 10.
\43\ Nils-Axel Morner, Sea level is not rising, Centre for
Democracy and Independence, Reprinted by Science and Public Policy
Institute, December 6, 2012: 4. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
\44\ Ibid.
\45\ Ibid. 11.
\46\ This sample size of 68 sites is still significantly larger
than those used by IPCC authors in their ``representative'' records.
Morner notes that the studies used rely upon 6, 9 and 25 gauges
respectively; their rates of rise of higher than the mean of all 159
NOAA sites by a range of 0.8-1.3. Morner, 10-11.
\47\ Ibid. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this track record of failure, do you still believe they are
correct in claiming: ``Global average sea levels are expected to
continue to rise--by at least several inches in the next 15 years and
by 1-4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be
ruled out''? \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive summary: 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The ``researcher'' whom you cite on sea level rise, Dr.
Nils-Axel Morner is a well-known climate ``denier \49\'' funded by such
climate-denying donors as the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family
Foundation.\50\ His interpretation of the sea level rise data has been
thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. To quote from one of
the rebuttals, ``Nils-Axel Morner's claims regarding sea level rise are
the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy
theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification which
are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that
Morner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level
rise or climate science in general.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/18/climate-denial-co2-
coalition-trump-morner-funding-sea-level-research-dodgy-journals
\50\ https://www.desmogblog.com/co2-coalition
\51\ https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-
sea-level-rise.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Morner's assertions have also been considered in the NCA4's
assessment of the data, which has concluded, as your question states,
that sea levels ``are expected to continue to rise. . . . [and] a rise
of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.'' Given the NCA4's
thorough analysis of the data (and the careful debunking of Dr.
Morner's false claims), there is, in fact, no ``track record of
failure'' (as your question claims) and no reason to doubt the NCA4's
conclusion. If you have further concerns with the NCA4's conclusions,
it would be more appropriate to raise those concerns with the federal
agency scientists who conducted the Assessment directly.
It is also important to note that many of the past predictions
about the rate of climate change (including sea level rise) have been
wrong--because they underestimated the rate of change. As scientists
have gathered more empirical data, they have consistently learned that
planetary warming is occurring at a faster rate than previously
expected.\52\ In two of the many recent examples, research has shown
that oceans are warming 40% faster than expected \53\, and that
glaciers are melting faster than expected.\54\ Both phenomena are
contributing to a faster-than-predicated rate of sea level rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Global warming will happen faster than we think, Nature 564,
30-32 (2018)doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07586-5
\53\ How fast are the oceans warming? Science, 11 Jan 2019: Vol.
363, Issue 6423, pp. 128-129, DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7619
\54\ Zemp, M., Huss, M., Thibert, E., Eckert, N., McNabb, R.,
Huber, J., Barandun, M., Machguth, H., Nussbaumer, S.U., Gartner-Roer,
I., Thomson, L., Paul, F., Maussion, F., Kutuzov, S., and Cogley, J.G.
Global glacier mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise
from 1961 to 2016. Nature, 2019 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1071-0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Center serves states and cities on a bipartisan basis that are
already struggling with the impacts of climate change, including
increased ``sunny day'' flooding (not associated with storms) and with
saltwater intrusion. To the residents of these communities, this is not
an academic question or debate.
Question 16: NCA4 claimed, ``A projected increase in the intensity
of hurricanes in the North Atlantic (medium confidence) could increase
the probability of extreme flooding along most of the U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf Coast states beyond what would be projected based solely on
relative sea level rise.'' \55\ It is important to note that NOAA's
overview of the current research on the topic concluded, ``Therefore,
we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that
human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already caused
a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.'' \56\
Additionally, the claim that climate change will contribute to more
intense storms is not brought out by the recent past. Despite claims of
rapid warming during the past century, the recent past is marked by an
overall lack of intense storms. As noted in the Wall Street Journal,
there was a 12-year drought in major land-falling US hurricanes prior
to Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and despite the intensity of the
2017 hurricane season it was not the most active, ``Last year's
Atlantic hurricane season was particularly hyperactive, ranking as the
seventh most intense Atlantic season since records began in 1851.''
\57\ They further note, that ``cyclones (as hurricanes are known
elsewhere) are found in all three tropical oceans, and globally the
Accumulated Cyclone Energy index--which measures the combined intensity
and duration of these storms--is currently running 20% below its long-
term average.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive Summary: 27.
\56\ Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Global Warming
and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results, (Last Revised:
February 8, 2019). https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-
hurricanes/
\57\ Peiser, B. and Ridley M., ``Bad Weather is No Reason for
Climate Alarm'', Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2018. https://
www.wsj.com/articles/bad-weather-is-no-reason-for-climate-alarm-
1515779859
\58\ Peiser and Ridley, ``Bad Weather''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the above information, can you please elaborate on what you
meant when you claimed, ``the impacts have only become more severe and
more obvious based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme
events'' and explain the causal link to human-caused greenhouse gas
concentrations?
Answer. As mentioned above, our Center supports communities and
states on the front lines of climate impacts experiencing changes that
are not consistent with past norms since recordkeeping began.This
question suggests that you may not yet be familiar with a relatively
new field of climate science that is known as ``climate attribution''
science. The idea is to ask the question of whether extreme events like
severe rain storms or heat waves have become more intense or common
because of climate change caused by human activities. Thanks to recent
advances in climate science, the question can now be addressed with a
significant amount of certainty and accuracy.\59\ \60\ \61\ More than
170 studies have shown that, in case after case, from the European heat
wave of 2003 \62\ to Hurricane Harvey, \63\ actual events were more
extreme or more likely, or both, because of human-caused climate
change. The link between events that are more extreme and/or more
frequent can also be predicted from basic physics. Because of planetary
warming, the atmosphere contains more energy and more moisture. And
because of more complicated atmospheric physics, that moisture is more
likely to be released in more extreme rainfall events.\64\ This has
been projected by models for some time but now it is coming to pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Droughts, heatwaves and floods: How to tell when climate
change is to blame,''Nature 560, 20-22 (2018)
\60\ ``Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on
Climate Change,'' Scientific American, January 2, 2018. https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-
natural-disasters-on-climate-change/
\61\ Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of
Climate Change, National Academies of Science, 2016.https://
www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
\62\ Daniel Mitchell et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 074006,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006
\63\ Trenberth, K. E., Cheng, L., Jacobs, P., Zhang, Y., & Fasullo,
J. (2018). Hurricane Harvey links to ocean heat content and climate
change adaptation. Earth's Future, 6. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018EF000825
\64\ ``Why extreme rains are gaining strength as the climate
warms.'' Nature 563, 458-460 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/
d41586-018-07447-1
Question 17: The NCA4 Climate Science Special Report claimed:
``Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by
about 1.8 +F (1.0 +C) over the last 115 years (1901-2016). This period
is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization . . . it is
extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of
greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since
the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is
no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the
observational evidence.'' \65\ These claims are contradicted by EPA's
US Annual Heat Wave Index,\66\ which clearly shows the 1930s to be the
hottest decade on record and Dr. John Christy's testimony before the
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, ``In terms of heat
waves, the number of 100 +F days observed in the U.S. from a controlled
set of weather stations. It is not only clear that hot days have not
increased, but it is interesting that in the most recent years there
has been a relative dearth of them.'' \67\ The US data record is by far
the most complete in the world so using it alleviates the station
distribution concerns that exist in the global record. By using a
controlled set, Dr. Christy eliminates the potential contamination
effects by citing stations in compliance with NOAA standards. Once the
data quality concerns are significantly addressed, it becomes clear
that temperature doesn't necessarily rise as greenhouse gas
concentrations increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017: Executive summary. In: Climate
Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I
[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart,
and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 10, doi: 10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.
\66\ EPA. US Annual Heat Wave Index. Updated August, 2016. https://
www.epa.gov/climate-
indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
\67\ Christy, J.R., Testimony before the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, February 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this information, can you explain why the NCA4 claim provides
a reasonable representation of the temperature throughout the 20th
century?
Answer. The 1930s were indeed a relatively hot period in U.S.
history. But that information needs to be put in the proper context--
which, if done, actually supports the overwhelming evidence for human-
caused planetary warming.
First, the complete temperature record shows that 1934, while warm,
was not as hot as temperatures in the U.S. in at least seven other
years (all recent)--1998, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016 (and possibly 2017 &
2018).
Second, and more important, it's crucial to remember that the U.S.
represents only 2% of the total surface area of the planet. When the
whole planet is considered, 1934 was not especially hot. In fact,
globally, 1934 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the
20th century.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, there is some intriguing evidence that suggests that the
1934 heat wave in the U.S. is actually an early example of human-caused
climate change. To quote from the paper, ``We identify the first
record-breaking warm summers and years for which a discernible
contribution can be attributed to human influence. We find a
significant human contribution to the probability of record-breaking
global temperature events as early as the 1930s.'' \69\ Since the
Industrial Revolution was already well underway, perhaps this finding
should not be surprising after all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ King, A. D., M. T. Black, S.-K. Min, E. M. Fischer, D. M.
Mitchell, L. J. Harrington and S. E. Perkins-Kirkpatrick (2016),
Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences,
Geophys Res. Lett.,43, 3438-3443, doi:10.1002/2015GL067448
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Thomas P. Lyon
Question 1: Is there a conflict between calling for continuing tax
cuts for EV and for EV technology, versus relying on the market to
place where those EV charging stations are, much like we rely on the
market to place gas stations? Should the market lead or should Federal
tax credit policy lead?
Answer. Thank you for this question, which raises some complex
issues. As Jaffe et al. (2005) explain, markets--while extremely useful
for allocation of most goods and services--may fail us in a variety of
ways when it comes to the environment. First, pollution harms innocent
third parties and damages the environment, but market prices will not
force the polluter to pay for these damages; as a result there tends to
be too much pollution and too much damage to human health and to the
natural environment. Second, research and development (R&D) generates
an accumulation of knowledge whose benefits cannot be fully
appropriated by the researcher; as a result there tends to be too
little R&D. Third, early adopters of a new technology produce benefits
for later adopters by testing the product and building a network of
users, benefits that are not appropriated by the early adopter; as a
result adoption of beneficial new technologies tends to be too slow.
Subsidies for the adoption of new technologies such as electric
vehicles (EVs) and EV chargers redress the first and the third of these
market failures. With regard to the first failure, subsidies directly
induce buyers to switch from internal combustion engines (ICEs) to EVs,
which are cleaner in most parts of the U.S. This aspect of the subsidy
will remain justifiable as long as the U.S. fails to impose a price on
carbon. With regard to the third failure, subsidies accelerate the
adoption of the new technology, helping it come down the learning curve
faster and thereby lower its production costs and improve its quality.
As adoption diffuses throughout society, and the new technology reaches
maturity, the need for this aspect of the subsidy will gradually
disappear.
It is appropriate to raise the question of how close EV technology
is to maturity. There are over a million EVs on the road in the U.S.,
\1\ out of 276.1 million registered vehicles, roughly 0.3% of the
total. This suggests that EV technology has some way to go to reach
maturity. Nevertheless, most manufacturers see them becoming a much
bigger part of the market over the next decade, suggesting that
maturity is within sight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-has-1-
million-electric-vehicles-but-does-it-matter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The placement of charging stations raises a separate issue. There
is a chicken-and-egg aspect to the rollout of EVs and fast charging
stations. Manufacturers are reluctant to install charging stations
until the market for EVs gets large enough to make them profitable. But
consumers are reluctant to buy EVs until the network of charging
stations is extensive enough to allay range anxiety. To make matters
worse, there is currently a range of charging standards used in the
market place, which means not all EVs can charge at all charging
stations. This further weakens incentives to invest in charging
stations, because the competing standards reduce the demand for any one
of them. Thus, there is a case to be made for public policy to lead by
(1) requiring compatibility between charging standards, and (2) funding
the rollout of EV charging stations.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Thomas P. Lyon
Question 2: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. Thank you for this question. Unfortunately, I am afraid I
am not in a good position to answer it. It is of a political nature,
and I would defer to members of the Committee on questions like this,
as they will likely have more insight into the politics of the
situation than I will.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Thomas P. Lyon
Question 3: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
(ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
Answer. Thank you for this question, which raises two different
sets of complex issues. Nuclear power in the U.S. has been at a virtual
standstill since the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979. No new
nuclear plants were begun after the incident until 2013, when
construction on the V. C. Summer Generating Station Units 2 and 3 in
South Carolina and the Vogtle Generating Station units 3 and 4 in
Georgia commenced. The Summer units have subsequently been cancelled,
after the company invested roughly $9 billion in them. South Carolina
customers have already paid out $2 billion to cover the costs of these
units that will never produce a single megawatt-hour of energy.\2\ On
October 19, 2016, TVA's Unit-2 reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear
Generating Station became the first US reactor to enter commercial
operation since 1996--after being under construction for 43 years.
Unfortunately, the plant has already suffered an extended, unplanned
shutdown for maintenance.\3\ These plants illustrate the challenging
economics of building new nuclear plants in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/
gov-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors.html
\3\ https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nuclear-
shutdown-20170508-story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the difficulty of building new nuclear plants, there is a
strong case to be made for continuing to operate existing plants, since
they produce carbon-free electricity. In fact, one could make a case
for providing subsidies for the continued operation of nuclear plants
due to their climate benefits.
Natural gas raises a different set of issues. Some argue that it
can be used as a ``bridge fuel'' in the medium-term because it is
cleaner than burning coal. Others argue that we should not be investing
in long-lived equipment that will lock us into using natural gas for
the next 50 years. It is true that when combusted to produce
electricity, natural gas is much cleaner than coal--provided methane
leakage is controlled. New evidence has emerged in recent years that
there is substantial leakage from natural gas pipelines and associated
equipment, and this can overwhelm the climate benefits of using natural
gas to produce electricity if there is as much as 3% leakage of
methane. The most recent estimates put the leakage rate at 2.3%, so the
climate benefits of natural gas do appear to exist, but they are
considerably smaller than once thought.\4\ Even as a ``bridge fuel,''
then, natural gas needs to be monitored much more carefully than it has
been in the past and leaks must be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-
leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-
matters-98918
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There remains the question of whether it makes sense to commit to
new infrastructure that would lock the U.S. into the use of fossil
fuels for 50 years or more, corresponding to the expected lifespan of a
new pipeline. Scientific research indicates a need to radically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years, \5\ so investing in
new infrastructure that will increase natural gas production and its
associated emissions for 50 years is hard to justify. Justification
from a social perspective would require that natural gas will displace
coal-fired electric generation, that any new pipelines will be
monitored intensively for leaks, that there is a credible system for
remediation of leaks, and that there is no realistic possibility of
using renewable sources instead of natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-
2040.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A tale of
two market failures: Technology and environmental policy.'' Ecological
economics 54, no. 2-3 (2005): 164-174.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Ben Prochazka
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. Historically, there has been a critical need for federal,
state, and local governments to cooperate on transportation
infrastructure. In general, our hope is that any federal infrastructure
bill would help to support the nationwide expansion of charging
infrastructure and help to support all sectors of on-road electrified
transportation.
While range anxiety is gradually decreasing as battery capacity
improves, there is a clear need to expand electric vehicle (EV)
charging infrastructure across the country in order to accelerate the
transition to EVs and meet the future needs of our transportation
system. There are opportunities to simultaneously enhance coordination
around signage and wayfinding in order to increase the visibility of EV
chargers and bolster consumer and business confidence in their
availability.
As I highlighted at the hearing, we can address this challenge
through a combination of incentives, sound policies, and pilot programs
to spur the installation of more EV chargers--and, more broadly,
establish a network of charging corridors spanning the United States.
Some of this work has already begun at the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) through the Alternative Fuel Corridors program,
which was authorized under the FAST Act of 2015. Since enactment, FHWA
has already conducted two rounds of designations for sections of the
National Highway System that currently have, or are on track to have,
sufficient EV charging infrastructure. However, much work remains to be
done. Significant gaps remain throughout the National Highway System--
and the FAST Act did not authorize funding through this program to
support state and local efforts to expand the availability of charging
infrastructure in their jurisdictions.
It is our hope that any infrastructure legislation advanced in this
Congress will empower the federal government, states, and localities to
accelerate the transition to electrified transportation. This is best
accomplished through sound, forward-looking policies that promote
productive collaboration across all levels of government.
Question from Hon. Lloyd Smucker for Ben Prochazka
Question 2: How do electric vehicles do their part in providing for
user fees to pay for our roads and highways?
Answer. For nearly a century, gasoline taxes have been a primary
method for extracting user fees to fund transportation infrastructure.
There is not yet a widely agreed-upon solution for charging EV drivers
for their use of the road. However, as EVs begin to comprise a larger
share of the national fleet, they will need to do their part in
contributing to the federal Highway Trust Fund, as well as state and
local transportation funds. In the process, and in order to not stifle
American innovation, it will be important to make sure we are only
asking EV drivers to pay no more than their fair share.
While drivers of battery electric vehicles do not pay gas taxes at
the pump, there are other ways that they contribute to transportation
funding at the state and local level today. Whenever drivers charge
their EVs, there is a tax associated with the electricity usage that
goes toward the general fund of their state and/or locality, which has
a formula that is used to finance transportation infrastructure.
Additionally many states are already working to address a fair and
equitable cost solution for all who use our nation's roads.
One proposed solution is the establishment of a vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) fee, which can align user fees with the number of miles
driven rather than quantity of gas purchased. This would also insulate
dedicated transportation funding from further volatility as EVs take a
growing share of the U.S. fleet. VMT pilot programs are currently
underway in states like Oregon and Washington, which are experimenting
with a range of different technologies and reporting methods that would
be needed to support the creation of a statewide VMT fee. The findings
of these pilots will provide valuable insights for other states and
Congress in evaluating how to adequately fund our infrastructure in the
future.
Ultimately, providing the necessary funding to support our roads
and highways is a challenge that extends far beyond EVs, which still
account for a very small portion of road use and road impacts at this
stage. Increases in fuel efficiency and the growing hybrid vehicle
market have also contributed to reductions in the amount of fuel
purchased. This represents an opportunity to reevaluate the concept of
anchoring transportation funding to a single commodity, rather than a
driver's actual use of the roadways. Moving forward, we must remain
open to a range of solutions in order to establish a user fee system
wherein everyone pays their fair share.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Nancy N. Young
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. As noted in A4A's March 26, 2019 Statement for the Record
submitted to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the testimony A4A presented at the February 26, 2019 hearing on the
intersection of infrastructure and climate change policy, A4A and our
members strongly support necessary investments in aviation
infrastructure and airports across the country. The facts clearly show
that airport development is blossoming--and it is doing so within a
multi-tool financing system that easily allows for investment without
adding additional taxes on passengers. Further, the historic five-year
FAA reauthorization bill that Congress approved last year provided
significant, consistent and stable funding for airports and broadly
supported an array of aviation infrastructure programs. That said,
there are significant opportunities in Congress' consideration of a
broad-based infrastructure bill and other legislation to home in on
making aviation investments more business-case-based and efficient. For
example, A4A supports the Chairman's proposal to shield FAA programs
and personnel from the effects of government shutdowns, which would
prevent the delays to infrastructure advancement we saw with the most
recent partial government shutdown. Further we urge additional
congressional support for smart implementation of NextGen projects
prioritizing existing equipage and renew our call for an end to the
practice of revenue diversion, which inappropriately siphons away from
aviation a significant portion of aviation infrastructure dollars.
A4A looks forward to continuing to constructively engage in these
important infrastructure discussions and we welcome such engagement
from an array of stakeholders across the country.
Question from Hon. Garret Graves for Nancy N. Young
Question 2: You noted that moving forward with NextGen and performance-
based navigation procedures will further enhance airlines' carbon-
efficiency and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.
Yet many people are objecting to such ``NextGen'' procedures at their
local airports because new flight procedures--even if they reduce
aviation emissions--may shift aircraft noise exposures to new
communities.
Based on this apparent conflict, how should the government and
industry address both climate change and noise?
Answer. The U.S. airlines have been simultaneously limiting both
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with climate change and
aircraft noise exposures, with a strong record of success. As detailed
below, A4A and our members are committed to further progress in both
areas, which is best supported by complementary government policies.
As noted in our February 26, 2019 testimony, between 1978 and year-
end 2017, the U.S. airlines improved their fuel efficiency by more than
125 percent, saving over 4.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2), equivalent to taking 25 million cars off the road each of those
years. And we carried 34 percent more passengers and cargo in 2017 than
we did in 2000, while emitting no more CO2. Over that same time period,
we reduced the number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise
by 94 percent, even as the number of people flying quadrupled. And even
though enplanements rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2017, significant
aircraft noise exposures were decreased by 48 percent.
The U.S. airlines and aviation industry achieved these records
through technology, operational and infrastructure advances that have
made aircraft and aircraft operation quieter and ever more fuel-
efficient, and additional improvements are on the way. For example,
with improved finances, U.S. airlines have invested billions of dollars
to upgrade their fleets with newer, quieter aircraft that produce less
noise and fewer emissions, purchasing more than 480 new aircraft in
2017, and more than 1,550 additional planes are expected in the coming
years. Additionally, airlines, airframe and engine manufacturers,
business aviation and the FAA continue to break new ground through the
public-private research and development programs highlighted in A4A's
February 26 testimony. Indeed, although we cited in our testimony the
energy efficiency and emissions reduction projects under FAA's
Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, FAA's
Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment
(ASCENT), and NASA's Aeronautics Research (ARMD) program, all of these
initiatives include noise projects and projects that address potential
interdependencies between aircraft noise and emissions.
Likewise, more efficient air traffic management, such as that
enabled by well-implemented NextGen procedures, can simultaneously
reduce both noise and emissions. For example, performance-based
navigation can enable Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs), which reduce
noise exposure on the ground by holding arriving aircraft at higher
altitudes for longer and reduce noise and emissions by supporting
reduced thrust as aircraft glide toward landing.
As noted in your question, even though more efficient and precise
flight paths can result in fewer people being exposed to aircraft
noise, these procedures can shift who is exposed or concentrate noise
exposures, raising community concerns. This potential is addressed by
the array of statutory and regulatory provisions for aircraft noise
assessment and management and community outreach and engagement
policies, which have been greatly enhanced in recent years to further
address ATC procedure changes.
Current law requires significant environmental review and outreach,
expressly including aircraft noise exposure assessment, when new or
revised ATC procedures are considered. Specifically, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires environmental assessment of
and community outreach regarding procedure changes. Further, Section
4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) require assessment of and
notice to the public regarding potential impacts on environmentally
sensitive resources, historic properties and communities and include
provisions to avoid excessive noise or other impacts to them. Moreover,
in response to congressional direction included in Public Law 114-328
and consistent with recommendations from the NextGen Advisory Committee
(NAC), FAA has updated and significantly augmented its community
outreach policies attendant to consideration of new and revised ATC
procedures.
In addition to and separate from the environmental review,
mitigation and community engagement provisions directly applying to
FAA's consideration and approval of new and revised ATC procedures, FAA
regulates aircraft noise and management of community noise exposures.
In 2017, FAA codified into U.S. law a new (``Stage 5'') aircraft noise
standard, which requires future aircraft to be seven decibels quieter
than the previous standard, equating to a 35 percent noise reduction at
the source. Further, under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
(ASNA), FAA has the obligation to establish science-based noise
exposure metrics and thresholds to assess community noise exposure and
received direction from Congress in last-year's FAA reauthorization
legislation on timing for the latest assessment. Moreover, ASNA and the
regulations thereunder provide for noise assessment and mitigation
funding to airports and surrounding communities, noise compatibility
planning, sound insulation and other noise abatement programs.
We are confident that the measures A4A and our members are taking
will continue to limit and reduce aviation's carbon footprint and limit
aircraft noise exposures, while allowing commercial aviation to
continue to provide an invaluable service and be a key contributor to
our nation's economy. Efficient implementation of NextGen procedures,
supported by the web of environmental assessment, community outreach
and aircraft noise management provisions, can reduce both noise and
emissions impacts while providing means for resolving local concerns.
Further, we urge continued congressional support for the public-private
CLEEN, ASCENT and NASA ARMD programs, which, as noted in A4A's February
26 testimony, are critical to further breakthroughs.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Kevin DeGood
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. I cannot speak to the possible future actions of U.S.
governors.
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Kevin DeGood
Question 2: In your written testimony, you stated, ``If federal, state,
and local officials and administrators are to succeed, they need access
to the most accurate--and to the greatest extent possible localized--
models for temperature, precipitation and peak storm flows, and sea
level rise.'' I could not agree more. If the models aren't correct,
then they offer little assistance in projecting future climate trends.
This is why I'm extremely concerned about the continued use of the
model predictions found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) for public policy. Dr.
John Christy, the head of climate research at the University of Alabama
in Huntsville, conducted research on the efficacy of these modeled
predictions and his findings were alarming. These models, on average,
over-predicted measured temperatures by more than a factor of three.
These significantly overheated projections were the basis of the
Climate Science Special Report released by the U.S. Global Change
Research Program in November 2017.
Given this disparity--modeled projections are warmer observations
by a factor of three, on average--do you believe these models produce
credible estimates of the impact increased atmospheric CO2
concentrations on future global average surface temperatures that are
valid for policy analysis?
Answer. My comments were directed at the need for the production of
localized climate impact models by the U.S. government.
Question 3: Is it possible that, over the years, the models have
been tuned to data not reflective of the observed state of the climate,
leading them to make projections based on a historical climate record
that never existed?
Answer. I cannot speak to the validity of the modeling methodology
of either the IPCC report nor the rebuttal by Dr. Christy.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for James M. Proctor
II
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the plan or
how governors might react to comment about how the proposal might
affect their ineteractions, but I can offer some thoughts about what an
infrastructure bill might include. In addition to the topics discussed
in my written testimony, legislation should:
1. Incentivize partnerships among water and wastewater systems and
the consolidation of failing water and wastewater systems.
a. Reduce the number of water systems that lack operational,
technical and financial capacity to meet federal and state water
quality standards. Many failing systems serve small to midsize
communities (less than 100,000 population) and lack the capacity to
maintain compliant and resilient water and wastewater systems.
Thousands of such systems are in significant non-compliance (SNC) and
unable to meet minimal performance and health-based standards. These
systems should be incentivized and, in cases where public health is
seriously compromised or in long-standing SNC status, compelled, to
partner with or seek a new owner/operator that can adequately provide
water services. Regionalization should also be encouraged by, among
other things, repurposing SRF and other grants for that purpose.
b. Provide more financial incentives and ``safe harbor''
protections for ``Good Neighbors''. To encourage financially sound and
well-managed water systems to partner with or take over distressed
systems, the government must reduce the significant financial and legal
liabilities posed to the acquirer or ``Good Neighbor''. Provide set
asides and expand SRF funding exclusively to fund consolidation. For
example, California currently provides up to $5M for systems that wish
to explore and implement consolidation.
2. Encourage more private sector participation and investment by
eliminating barriers.
a. Remove debt defeasance penalty. A simple way to accelerate
investment is the elimination of the need to ``defease'' public bonds
alongside an asset purchase. This can be achieved through a simple IRS
interpretation change, thereby allowing municipal system acquisitions
to improve net proceeds the municipalities receive when their systems
are purchased or consolidated at their option. The current rule
inadvertently deters beneficial agreements, as its requirements are
often cost-prohibitive, adding up to 15-20% of the total value of the
transaction. Treasury could make this change through a rule-making.
b. Remove tax-exempt water infrastructure private activity bonds
from state volume caps. In addition to federal dollars, another
effective option for the federal government to provide long-term,
capital-intensive infrastructure projects is the private activity bond
(PAB). These bonds are a form of tax-exempt financing for state and
municipal governments that want to collaborate with a private entity to
meet a public need. This partnership approach makes infrastructure
repair and construction more affordable for municipalities and
ultimately for users or customers. This well-established program would
provide significant benefit to water-sector investments were the state
volume cap to be lifted and defeasance penalty eliminated.
c. Provide all water systems with equal access to SRF loans. EPA
has long interpreted the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to
apply only to the publicly owned systems due to the statute applying to
``publicly owned treatment works'' (POTW). Although EPA has long held
that private water systems are eligible for Drinking Water SRF funds,
numerous states disallow such funds for private entities. This
disparity prevents the private sector from leveraging federal
investment to benefit the same communities (and rate payers) otherwise
eligible for federal funds.
3. Modernize and streamline the SRFs.
a. Streamline procedures. Eliminate federal/state redundancies
in cross-cutters and streamline the application process and paperwork
to make it easier for smaller systems to seek assistance.
Additional Considerations:
Although Congress should hold communities accountable for results,
they should encourage federal agencies to defer to local communities
and their engineers of record by the means employed. For too long
Washington has imposed unfunded, one-size-fits-all mandates that have
increased burdens and costs on local water systems without regard to
the diverse water and wastewater infrastructure needs of local
communities, who must evaluate numerous factors when considering the
proper design and materials for their community and water projects.
Encouraging and supporting local governance allows those closest to the
problem to determine the best solutions, including the use of green
infrastructure and water recovery and recycling solutions, which
stimulates innovation and saves money as local communities can hold
those in their community more accountable.
The recommendations described above focus on more immediate actions
that either Congress or the President could initiate to help improve
and rebuild the Nation's water infrastructure. These recommendations
are actions that can be taken in addition to supporting certain
existing programs and policies. For example, tax-exempt municipal bonds
are the principal finance tool that most utilities use to finance
large-scale projects. Congress and the Administration need to protect
these as tax reform moves forward. Other useful existing tools are in
the Rural Utility Services programs at the Department of Agriculture
and Community Development Block Grants.
Similarly, there is a type of secondary infrastructure that
supports the water sector: the network of research organizations that
support and execute research that guides the water sector toward
smarter, more efficient water infrastructure. Currently, federal
support is virtually absent for water infrastructure-related research.
In addition, while the bulk of infrastructure discussion focuses on
capital assets, the people who manage and operate water systems are the
sector's most valuable assets. The sector faces the aging workforce
issues that many other sectors of American society faces. While there
is already a strong cadre of technical training organizations in the
water sector, federal funding to facilitate ongoing sector-led training
would be beneficial. EPA, through its oversight capabilities, could be
a mechanism for facilitating greater coordination and consistency in
training across state borders to enable the water workforce to move
more easily from one state to another to meet workforce needs.
Lastly, in addition to legislative and administrative options, the
President should consider issuing a Presidential Policy Directive
outlining a vision for the development of integrated, efficient and
effective water infrastructure strategy to (1) elevate water
infrastructure modernization, improvement, and security as a national
priority; (2) establishing inter-agency coordination and oversight
mechanisms, resources, and staffing to align U.S. government agencies'
priorities, actions and budgets, and improve collaboration,
coordination, and efficiency across federal agencies; (3) encourage
local co-finance, full-cost and life-cycle accounting, and information
sharing for federal assistance; (5) promoting economic growth,
development, and exports of U.S. technologies, products and services;
and (6) advance national security and international cooperation over
water.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer for James M. Proctor II
Question 2: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
(ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
Answer. Although I am not an expert on power generation issues, I
do believe that nuclear power is an undervalued and underutilized
alternative for the production of carbon-free electricity.
Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Whitley Saumweber
Importance of Funding the Coast Guard
Question 1: You provided several recommendations in your written
statement regarding Arctic maritime infrastructure, most of which
highlighted responsibilities of the U.S. Coast Guard. In fact, as our
nation's sole military, maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast
Guard appears to be a pivotal element to ensure the Federal Government
can capably provide an active presence in an open and accessible Arctic
region.
Do our future efforts in the Arctic depend on having the Coast
Guard present and active in the region?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2: What are the security implications if the Coast Guard
is unable to maintain mission readiness and operational capability in
the Arctic?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3: Considering the importance of the Coast Guard, not only
in the Arctic but in the coterminous United States, should Congress
pass legislation such as H.R. 367, the Coast Guard Pay Parity Act, to
ensure that in any future lapse in appropriations that the Coast Guard
gets paid just like the other four military services?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Arctic Risk Assessment
Question 4: In your testimony, you recommended that Congress invest in
Coast Guard programs to support comprehensive risk assessments at major
U.S. ports to the primary climate risk factors found in the Committee
on the Marine Transportation System's Risk Matrix.
Should the Coast Guard itself conduct a comprehensive assessment of
how climate risk factors might affect all Coast Guard facilities and
the Service's operational readiness?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5: Are all of the risk factors in the CMTS Risk Matrix
applicable to the Coast Guard?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6: Should Congress pass H.R. 1322, to direct the Coast
Guard to undertake such an assessment and report to Congress?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Port Infrastructure Resiliency
Question 7: In the recently passed Fiscal Year 2109 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, the Congress appropriated $293 million for a new
Port Infrastructure Development Grant program. You recommended in your
written statement that resiliency standards should be developed for
port infrastructure that map to regional predictions of sea level
change under a variety of scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
To your knowledge, have port infrastructure resiliency standards
been developed, either in the U.S. or abroad?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8: What factors should be included in resiliency standards
for port infrastructure?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9: Regarding the new port infrastructure development grant
program, should we prioritize grant applications that design resiliency
into the project? Are there other types of incentives you might
recommend to encourage applicants to account for resiliency in their
grant proposals?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Whitley Saumweber
Question 10: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Lynn Scarlett
Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
require bipartisan support.
Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
Answer. A backlog of investment needed to upgrade, maintain and
make more resilient our nation's infrastructure is widely understood
and accepted. Congress has demonstrated bipartisan cooperation on
infrastructure related bills in the last couple of years as seen in
passage of the Water Resources Development Act and the Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization, among others. Thoughtfully drafted,
such bills address significant infrastructure needs facing our nation.
My testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
focused in large part on the need to consider natural infrastructure
when making our nation's infrastructure investments. Infrastructure
investments should include nature-based solutions to support robust
economic development, improve the quality of life in our communities
and sustain America's lands and waters for future generations. When
using the term ``natural infrastructure,'' we mean actions like
restoring floodplains along rivers to allow better absorption of
floodwaters and enlarging and using natural features for culverts to
allow for larger flows of water to pass through without blowing out the
culverts and the road structures along with them.
Natural infrastructure can be used alone or alongside gray
infrastructure (like seawalls, dams, levees and water and wastewater
systems) to provide cost-effective and sustainable solutions that bring
multiple benefits. In addition to helping reduce risk, natural
infrastructure can deliver clean water and air, sustain lands that grow
food and provide enhanced recreational opportunities and wildlife
habitat--all benefiting local economies.
During the past several years, Congress has included provisions in
bills such as the Water Resources Development bill just passed in 2018
that includes increased consideration of using natural infrastructure.
These provisions received bipartisan support, and the bill passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
Question from Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Lynn Scarlett
Question 2: You discussed runoff in your testimony. As you know, South
Florida has been trying to complete the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Project for the past 18 years.
What is the importance of this type of project to the future
resiliency of our community?
Answer. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is a
critical resiliency effort benefiting Floridians, U.S. residents and
beyond. In addition to the restoration of the Everglades, CERP will
help protect the domestic wellfields in south Florida, provide ongoing
aquifer recharge through its existence and maximize water management
flexibility to serve the areas of six million residents. The work of
the CERP also helps preserve a globally important ecosystem,
maintaining the important source of tourism for the region as well as
natural infrastructure that provides storm risk reduction benefits and
critical habitat to important plants and animals.