[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NEXT MILE:
TECHNOLOGY PATHWAYS TO
ACCELERATE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN
THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 18, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-663PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANCY
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
September 18, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Ms. Ann M. Schlenker, Director, Center for Transportation
Research, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy, Rivian
Automotive, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels
Business Council
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Claus Daniel, Director, Sustainable Transportation Program,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 54
Mr. Tim Cortes, Vice President, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Plug
Power, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 78
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Ann M. Schlenker, Director, Center for Transportation
Research, Argonne National Laboratory.......................... 98
Mr. James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy, Rivian
Automotive, LLC................................................ 105
Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels
Business Council............................................... 112
Dr. Claus Daniel, Director, Sustainable Transportation Program,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.................................. 118
Mr. Tim Cortes, Vice President, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Plug
Power, Inc..................................................... 125
THE NEXT MILE:
TECHNOLOGY PATHWAYS TO
ACCELERATE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN
THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any
time. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing, called ``The
Next Mile: Technology Pathways to Accelerate Sustainability
within the Transportation Sector.'' I want to thank all of our
witnesses for joining us here today. We're obviously discussing
a critical topic: How to decarbonize, and make more
sustainable, the cars we use every day--the trucks that handle
transportation of our manufacturing and other goods all across
the country, airplanes, trains, ships. It's clear that all of
this stuff is vital to everyday life, but we have to be smarter
about it.
In 2017, transportation overtook electricity as the sector
of our economy with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas
emissions, when it got up to 29 percent, and so finding
pathways to reduce these emissions is essential. It's also
crucial that we, as leaders, support jobs and industries at the
same time, and I think we can do that. The R&D (research and
development) that we're going to talk about here today will
drive the development of these technologies, improve our
economy, create new jobs, make us safer, improve national
security, all while improving the climate.
Our labs, universities, business, and research institutions
have all worked on these projects for decades. They've had
great success, but a lot of the transportation landscape has
not budged. Henry Ford first sold the Model T just over a
century ago, and a lot of the cars, trucks, and buses on our
roads, the vast majority of them still use a similar internal
combustion engine. Larger vehicles, airplanes, trains, and
ships, become even more complicated, so that's what we're
trying to figure out now, is how can we finally drive some
serious change in this area?
Scientists have been working hard at it. We've seen huge
development in growth of clean electric vehicles (EVs) that can
go hundreds of miles on a single charge. We've seen hydrogen
vehicles, we've seen hybrid electric, and the demand is
continuing to go up and up. In 2018, by our figures, more than
1.7 million plug-in and battery electric vehicles were sold
worldwide, which is a 40 percent increase in just 1 year. One
point seven million in 2018 alone, so this is a huge market.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is researching other
technologies in this sector as well. Bioenergy Technologies
Office is working to develop commercially viable biofuels that
are compatible with the infrastructure that we already have.
There's a variety of feedstocks being talked about waste
organic materials, crops grown specifically for this purpose.
Some of these fuels, known as drop in fuels, are nearly
identical, but they would burn much more cleanly than existing
fuels. This means we wouldn't need to make as many changes as
we would with a purely electric system, and we're going to go
full speed down both tracks.
The Fuel Cell Technology Office at DOE is also working to
develop hydrogen fuel cells, and I'll just put in a plug,
there's a lot of great work being done at a local university
for us in Western Pennsylvania, Carnegie-Mellon, and the Scott
Institute, on the future of hydrogen fuel cell technology. All
of these things combined will help make our transportation
sector more sustainable. Although it is incredibly complex, we
think that, with enough investment on our part, in partnership
with private sector and nonprofit university partners, we can
solve this riddle. And I think we have to, because someone will
solve it. There is enough demand at this point worldwide that
we know some of our closest competitor nations are doing
everything they can to dominate the future of electric vehicles
and similar technologies, and I want the United States to win
that race. So, very excited to hear from all of you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to all our witnesses joining
us here today to discuss a topic that is critical for our
nation: sustainable transportation. This includes the cars that
we use every day to drive to work, the trucks that help us
transport goods across the country, the planes that fly all
over the world, and the trains and ships that help us get
products and people to the places they need to be.
It's clear that transportation is vital to our everyday
lives. But we need to be smarter about our investments in
technologies that can help reduce emissions from this sector.
In 2017, transportation overtook electricity as the sector of
the U.S. economy with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas
emissions, accounting for 29% of emissions economy-wide.
Finding pathways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from this
sector is an essential part of solving our climate challenge.
At the same time, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we are
leaders in supporting the jobs and industries of the future.
The research and development of these innovative technologies
improve our economy, our national security, and our climate.
That's what we are here to talk about today.
While our labs, universities, businesses and research
institutions have worked on these problems for decades - even
centuries - much of the transportation landscape remains
unchanged. Ford first sold the Model T just over a century ago
(1908) and most cars, trucks, and buses on our roads still use
an internal combustion engine. And with larger vehicles - think
airplanes, trains, and ships - the problem becomes even more
complicated.
Scientists have been working hard to come up with solutions
that will help these technologies evolve for decades - and we
need to ensure they can continue doing so. We have seen the
development and growth of clean electric vehicles that can
travel hundreds of miles on a single charge, and hybrid
electric vehicles that can travel even further. Demand for
electric vehicles is projected to increase in the coming years,
both worldwide and in the United States and this is already
growing rapidly: in 2018, more than 1.7 million plug-in and
battery electric vehicles were sold worldwide - a nearly 40%
increase over 2017.
The Department of Energy is researching other technologies
in this sector as well. For example, the Bioenergy Technologies
Office is working to develop commercially viable biofuels that
are compatible with our modern transportation infrastructure.
These fuels can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including
waste organic materials or crops grown specifically for
creating energy. Some of these fuels, known as ``drop-in''
fuels, are nearly identical to the fuels they are designed to
replace, but burn much more cleanly than existing fuels. That
means we wouldn't need to make any changes to engines, fuel
pumps, and other vehicle technologies in order to use these
fuels, while still reaping the benefits.
The Fuel Cell Technologies Office at the DOE is working to
develop vehicles that run off of hydrogen fuel cells. These
fuel cells use hydrogen to produce electricity, which then
powers an electric motor, similar to how an electric vehicle
operates. Fuel cell vehicles emit zero carbon; in fact the only
by-product from these vehicles is water. While hydrogen-powered
cars are showing promise, hydrogen can be produced in a variety
of ways and scientists are working hard to identify a cost-
effective, commercial scale method of production that is also
clean, including through the use of renewables and nuclear
power.
Making our transportation sector more sustainable is an
enormously challenging and complex problem. It requires
significant investment on our part and coordination across
government, our labs and universities, and the private sector.
But it's a must-solve riddle, and I believe it is critical we
develop and manufacture the answer - these technologies - here
at home. Doing so is a clear win for our economy, national
security, and climate.
I am excited to hear from our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled here today on their ideas on how to tackle this
problem, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
across the aisle to advance legislation on this critical and
timely topic.
Chairman Lamb. And now I will recognize my friend and
colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a
little late. Appreciate you holding today's hearing. I'm
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about innovative
transportation technologies, and about DOE's research and
development activities in these areas. The United States
transportation sector is a critical part of the U.S. economy.
Annually in the United States, vehicles transport 11 billion,
with a B, tons of freight, equal to 35 billion, with a B,
dollars in goods every single day. My District 14 on the Gulf
Coast of Texas is the 13th largest exporting district in the
country, so the transport of goods for us is huge.
Last year, almost one-third of the United States' energy
consumption was used for the transportation of people and goods
across the country. Currently this massive energy is met with
petroleum products, which account for 92 percent of U.S.
transportation energy use. It's clear, and essential, I might
add, that we will rely on this incredible resource long into
the future, so we need to consider this reality as we seek to
reduce emissions, and grow other energy sources. As energy
demands increase, American researchers are exploring
sustainable technologies that will make fossil fuel consumption
cleaner and more efficient. They'll introduce new fuel pathways
while maintaining U.S. energy security.
Industry stakeholders are also prioritizing innovation,
commercializing electric vehicles, as the Chairman talked
about, biofuels, and advanced fuel cell technologies. And this
afternoon we'll hear from some of our friends in these
successful industries. But although industry is taking
advantage of incentives to reduce transportation sector
emissions, the Federal Government still has a significant role
to play in conducting fundamental research that will, in fact,
drive innovation in these technologies.
At the Department of Energy, DOE, sustainable
transportation R&D is funded through the Department's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, and carried
out through its Vehicle Bioenergy and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Offices. It bears repeating that the EERE is by
far the Department of Energy's largest applied research
program. At almost $2.4 billion in annual funding, EERE is
bigger today than all of the Department's applied R&D programs
combined. Let me repeat that. At $2.4 billion in annual
funding, EERE is bigger today than all of the Department's
applied R&D programs combined. That's huge. Currently the
sustainable transportation portfolio makes up about a third of
EERE's budget.
Today's hearing also provides an opportunity for us to
discuss potential vehicle technology legislation, H.R. 2170,
the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2019. This bill would authorize
modest growth in funding for DOE's vehicle research activities.
It would support a broad range of research efforts to reduce or
eliminate vehicle emissions and petroleum usage in the United
States. And while it should come as no surprise that I don't
agree with everything in this bill, I'm pleased to see that our
friends across the aisle are considering a more reasonable
approach to funding authorization levels. So I look forward to
the discussion on this bill moving forward, and I want to be
clear, I support DOE funding for innovative research in
transportation technologies.
I'm also supportive of American industry taking the lead,
and of the kind of basic research that benefits not just
transportation, but all energy technologies. As we all know,
the majority of the basic research is carried out in our
National Labs, so I'm pleased that we will hear from not one
but two Department of Energy labs today about how American
researchers are leveraging DOE's unique and unparalleled user
facilities to drive innovation and transportation technologies.
For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, researchers have
access to not only the National Transportation Research Center,
NTRC, the Nation's only transportation-focused user facility,
but also the lab's Spallation Neutron Source Center for
Nanophase Material Science and the Oak Ridge Leadership
Computing Facility, which currently houses the world's most
powerful supercomputer.
When it comes to vehicle technology research, we need to
look at the big picture, and take the long-term approach.
Industry simply cannot conduct the fundamental research needed
for the next technology breakthrough, but industry can get
these technologies out on the road. By prioritizing the basic
research capabilities and user facilities that have broad
applications, we can still enable the private sector to bring
innovative, new transportation technologies to the market,
while at the same time advancing science and innovation across
this American economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding today's subcommittee
hearing. I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses
about innovative transportation technologies, and about DOE's
research and development activities in these areas.
The U.S. transportation sector is a critical part of the
U.S. economy. Annually, in the United States, vehicles
transport 11 billion tons of freight, equal to $35 billion
dollars in goods each day. Last year, almost one third of U.S.
energy consumption was used for the transportation of people
and goods across the country.
Currently, this massive energy need is met with petroleum
products, which account for 92 percent of U.S. transportation
energy use. It's clear that we will rely on this incredible
resource long into the future - so we need to consider this
reality as we seek to reduce emissions and grow other energy
sources.
As energy demand increases, American researchers are
exploring sustainable technologies that will make fossil fuel
consumption cleaner and more efficient, introduce new fuel
pathways, and maintain U.S. energy security.
Industry stakeholders are also prioritizing innovation,
commercializing electric vehicles, biofuels, and advanced fuel
cell technologies. And this afternoon, we'll hear from our some
of our friends in these successful industries.
But although industry is taking advantage of incentives to
reduce transportation sector emissions, the federal government
still has a significant role to play in conducting fundamental
research that will drive innovation in these technologies.
At the Department of Energy (DOE), sustainable
transportation R&D is funded through the Department's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (or EERE) and carried
out through its Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Offices.
It bears repeating that EERE is by far DOE's largest
applied research program. At almost $2.4 billion in annual
funding, EERE is bigger today than the all of the Department's
applied R&D programs combined.
And currently, the sustainable transportation portfolio
makes up almost a third of EERE's budget.
Today's hearing also provides an opportunity for us to
discuss potential vehicle technology legislation: H.R. 2170,
the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2019. This bill would authorize
modest growth in funding for DOE's vehicle research activities,
supporting a broad range of research efforts to reduce or
eliminate vehicle emissions and petroleum usage in the U.S.
And while it should come as no surprise that I don't agree
with everything in this bill, I am pleased to see that my
friends across the aisle are considering a more reasonable
approach to funding authorization levels. So I look forward to
the discussion on this bill moving forward.
I want to be clear that I support DOE funding for
innovative research in transportation technologies. I'm also
supportive of American industry taking the lead, and of the
kind of basic research that benefits not just transportation,
but all energy technologies.
As we all know, the majority of that basic research is
carried out in our National Labs. So I'm pleased that we will
hear from two DOE labs today about how American researchers are
leveraging DOE's unique and unparalleled user facilities to
drive innovation in transportation technologies.
For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, researchers
have access to not only the National Transportation Research
Center (NTRC) the nation's only transportation focused user
facility, but also the lab's Spallation Neutron Source, Center
for Nanophase Materials Sciences, and the Oak Ridge Leadership
Computing Facility - which currently houses the world's most
powerful supercomputer.
When it comes to vehicle technology research, we need to
look at the big picture and take the long term approach.
Industry simply cannot conduct the fundamental research needed
for the next technology breakthrough. But industry can get
these technologies out on the road.
By prioritizing basic research capabilities and user
facilities that have broad applications, we can still enable
the private sector to bring innovative new transportation
technologies to the market, while advancing science and
innovation across the American economy.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Now recognize Chairwoman Johnson
for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good afternoon. Let me thank you for holding this timely
hearing on how we can best accelerate the sustainability of our
Nation's transportation sector. I'd also like to join you in
welcoming this distinguished panel of witnesses to the hearing
today.
This Committee recently held a hearing where we discussed
the need for a national surface transportation agenda. Today's
hearing expands upon our commitment to addressing the
environmental impacts of transportation in order to mitigate
its impacts on climate change and air pollution. While there
are many exciting developments in sustainable transportation
such as electric cars, alternative fuels, and new concepts of
mass transit systems, there are also many barriers to these
technologies that we as a country must work to overcome. That's
why this hearing is so important.
The transportation sector's carbon emissions are largely
attributable to petroleum-based fuels. A transition to a mix of
low-carbon fuels and electricity could reduce these emissions
by more than 80 percent, and eliminate petroleum use almost
entirely. According to the Department of Energy's Vehicle
Technologies Office, while researchers believe that this is
technically feasible with technologies that already exist
today, further R&D will be critical to reducing their cost, and
improving their reliability and scalability to meet our
economic, environmental, and mobility needs.
As I have stated before, my hometown of Dallas is a hub for
air travel and freight--two forms of transportation that are
particularly challenged to decarbonize. Those sources of
emissions are projected to grow in coming years, as the demand
for travel and goods steadily increases. For example, emissions
from aviation currently account for almost 3 percent of the
total global emissions. However, based on current aviation
trends, it could grow to be above 4 percent by 2040,
representing 14 percent of the transportation sector emissions.
That number may sound inconsequential, but it is significant
when you consider the amount of emissions we must reduce to put
us on a path to limit global warming in this century.
As I know we'll hear more about from today's panel, several
of our National Labs and private companies are dedicated to
providing solutions to these very challenges, but Congress must
also act and allocate low-carbon R&D funding to further drive
innovation within this sector. So I look forward to this
discussion, and to working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, as we consider ideas to better support the
Department of Energy's research and development activities in
this crucial area. I thank you, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding
this timely hearing on how we can best accelerate the
sustainability of our nation's transportation sector. I also
would like to join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of
witnesses to today's hearing.
This Committee recently held a hearing where we discussed
the need for a national surface transportation agenda. Today's
hearing expands upon our commitment to addressing the
environmental impacts of transportation in order to mitigate
its impacts on climate change and air pollution. While there
are many exciting developments in sustainable transportation,
such as electric cars, alternative fuels, and new concepts for
mass transit systems, there are also many barriers to these
technologies that we as a country must work to overcome. That's
why this hearing is so important.
The transportation sector's carbon emissions are largely
attributable to petroleum-based fuels. A transition to a mix of
low carbon fuels and electricity could reduce these emissions
by more than 80 percent and eliminate petroleum use almost
entirely, according to the Department of Energy's Vehicle
Technologies Office. While researchers believe that this is
technically feasible with technologies that already exist
today, further R&D will be critical to reducing their costs and
improving their reliability and scalability to meet our
economic, environmental, and mobility needs.
As I have stated before, my hometown of Dallas is a hub for
air travel and freight - two forms of transportation that are
particularly challenging to decarbonize. Those sources of
emissions are projected to grow in coming years as the demand
for travel and goods steadily increases. For example, emissions
from aviation currently account for almost 3% of total global
emissions. However, based on current aviation trends it could
grow to above 4% by 2040, representing 14% of the
transportation sector emissions. That number may sound
inconsequential; but it is significant when you consider the
amount of emissions we must reduce to put us on a path to limit
global warming this century.
As I know we'll hear more about from today's panel, several
of our National Labs and private companies are dedicated to
providing solutions to these very challenges. But Congress must
also act and allocate low-carbon R&D funding to further drive
innovation in this sector. So I look forward to this
discussion, and to working with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, as we consider ideas to better support the
Department of Energy's research and development activities in
this crucial area.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. First,
Ms. Ann Schlenker is the Director of the Center for
Transportation Research at Argonne National Lab. Her
responsibilities include evaluating the energy and
environmental impacts of advanced technology and new
transportation fuels. Ms. Schlenker's portfolio includes light-
and heavy-vehicle research, with an emphasis on low-carbon
solutions. She also helps to lead the DOE student vehicle
competitions for advanced powertrain technologies in connected
and automated vehicles. Before her position at Argonne, Ms.
Schlenker worked for Chrysler for more than 30 years.
We also have Mr. James Chen, the Vice President of Public
Policy at Rivian Automotive, where he oversees policy issues,
and is tasked with oversight of regulatory requirements
applicable to Rivian's products and facilities. Before his
position at Rivian, Mr. Chen worked at the EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency), and spent 6 years at Tesla, where he held
the position of Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Deputy
General Counsel.
Mr. Brooke Coleman is a co-founder and Executive Director
of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC), whose
membership includes companies in the advanced biofuels and
cellulosic ethanol sectors. The ABBC's mission is to support
the development and commercialization of the next generation of
biofuels and bio-based products.
Dr. Claus Daniel is the Director of Sustainable
Transportation Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak
Ridge's sustainable transportation researchers support the
development of a range of technologies to improve the energy
efficiency of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. Dr.
Daniel is a materials scientist by training, with over 20 years
of experience in the automotive technologies sector.
The Chair now welcomes Mr. Tonko to the Energy Subcommittee
for the day, and recognizes him to introduce our last witness,
Mr. Cortes. And although it is welcome for the day, sir, you
will always be welcome back, and we would even consider you for
full admission--based in part on your performance today.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Music to my ears. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. It is my honor to introduce Tim Cortes, the Vice
President of Hydrogen Energy Systems at Plug Power, a leader in
commercially viable fuel cell systems based in the Capital
Region of New York. With proven hydrogen and fuel cell
products, Plug Power replaces lead/acid batteries to power
electric industrial vehicles, such as the lift truck customers
use in their distribution centers. They're headquartered in the
20th congressional District in Latham, New York, and have
facilities in Spokane, Washington; Rochester, New York; Dayton,
Ohio; Romeoville, Illinois; and Montreal, Canada.
Tim Cortes joined Plug Power as Vice President of Hydrogen
Energy Systems in January 2015. In this role my friend, Mr.
Cortes, is responsible for overseeing the gen fuel business,
including interactions with customers, partners, and suppliers
critical to increasing Plug Power's growing market share within
the hydrogen fuel industry. Prior to joining Plug Power, Mr.
Cortes served as Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of
Engineering at Smith's Power. In these positions, he was
responsible for research and development, as well as solutions
for global applications. During his tenure at Smith's Power,
Mr. Cortes led product line expansion that resulted in a
doubling of revenue growth in less than 6 years.
Tim has worked in the development of critical power
infrastructures in both the data center and telecommunications
markets, including positions with AT&T Bell Labs, GNB/XI
Technologies, and Power Distribution, Incorporated. He received
his bachelor of science in electrical engineering from New
Mexico State University, and he holds several patents in power
system architecture. In 2016, Food Logistics named him the rock
star of the supply chain for his work making it possible for
smaller truck fleets to adopt hydrogen fuel cell technology.
And I'm proud that our Capital Region's own Plug Power
continues to build success as a leader in clean energy in New
York, and throughout the country, and thank Tim for his
leadership, and welcome him to the panel today. Thank you, Tim.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. And thank you. As our witnesses should know,
you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony. Your
written testimony will be included in full in the record of the
hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony, we'll
start with questions, and each Member will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. We will start now with Ms. Schlenker.
TESTIMONY OF ANN M. SCHLENKER,
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH,
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Ms. Schlenker. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
Chairman Lamb, Member Weber, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity today. It is my honor to talk to
you about how the U.S. Department of Energy National
Laboratories are helping realize the goal of sustainable
transportation. I'm Ann Schlenker, and I'm privileged to lead
the Argonne Center for Transportation Research just outside of
Chicago.
Multiple DOE offices, including the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, fund important research and
development at the component, the vehicle, and the
transportation system levels. DOE National Laboratories create
new knowledge; develop, enhance, and analyze automotive medium-
duty and heavy-duty truck technologies; and create new tools.
The research spans conventional internal combustion engines,
hybrid electric systems, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell
electric vehicles, and off highway applications.
At the level of vehicle components, the labs develop and
de-risk battery technologies. We test new batter materials,
develop scale-up processes for the most promising ones, and
ultimately hand that off to industry. Argonne's cell analysis
modeling and prototyping camp facility, as an example, has
worked with more than 4 dozen industrial partners, from
startups to Fortune 500 companies. Our research also
encompasses the entire battery lifespan. In February of this
year, DOE established a battery recycling center at Argonne
with many partners to develop, and reclaim, and recycle
critical materials and components from lithium-based battery
technology to recover the economic value.
Combustion engines still power the majority of our Nation's
vehicles. Laboratory research provides deep insights into our
combustion processes so we can achieve predictable and reliable
engine performance with the lowest possible environmental
footprint. Researchers use sophisticated tools, like the
advanced photon source at Argonne, to peer into fuel spray
streams to optimize the mixture delivery for cleaner ignition
processes. They apply high performance computing capabilities
and artificial intelligence techniques to in-house developed
computational fluid dynamic codes in order to better understand
the combustion variability from cycle to cycle, and then
transfer this knowledge to industry.
National Laboratory researchers investigate the complete
supply chain of biofuel production, from farm to wheels, to
assess the energy consumption and environmental impacts of
fuels used in ground transportation, aviation, and the marine
sector. This life cycle analysis uses Argonne's GREET
(Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Transportation) model, which enables this fuel comparisons.
Fuel cell and hydrogen technology investigations extend from
materials to components in vehicle, and seek to improve
performance, durability, and cost. New approaches to renewable
hydrogen production as an industrial fuel choice, paired with
fuel cell vehicle development, have the potential to create
market demand.
National Laboratories research at the vehicle level
includes technology to integrate electric vehicles with the
grid, and enable faster charging. At the Smart Energy Plaza at
Argonne, researchers work to verify the interoperability of
chargers in cars. Extreme fast charging and megawatt charging
will enable longer distance electric travel, making medium-duty
and heavy-duty vehicles more marketable.
Finally, National Laboratories are experts in the vital
study of vehicles within a system. The Labs collaborate, and I
co-chair, the DOE Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research
in Transportation, or the Smart Mobility Consortia, and we
focus on connecting automated vehicles, the built environment,
alternative fuel infrastructure, freight and goods delivery,
and decision science. We use models and field experiments to
study the effects of not only advanced vehicles with the
infrastructure technologies, but also the impacts of new
business models and modes of transportation. The result is a
greater understanding from the vehicle to the city level.
An example of a key insight from this work is really the
consumer appetite for e-commerce as a replacement to shopping
trips. One might guess that the frequent trips of an Amazon or
FedEx delivery truck to your house results in a net energy
penalty. However, system analysis shows the inverse is actually
true. Avoiding a personal shopping trip in the family car for
the average 8-mile trip, as compared to an efficient package
delivery system, saves overall vehicle miles traveled and
energy used. Combining the DOE National Laboratories
computational horsepower with our capabilities in artificial
intelligence, Big Data, computation, and predictive analytics
gives lab researchers and their partners a scenario-based
framework to analyze potential mobility futures.
The National Laboratories and their facilities are
America's powerhouses of science, technology, and engineering.
They are principle agents of execution in missions of national
importance. I am proud to be a member of the National
Laboratories sisterhood. Thank you for your time, and I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schlenker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Chen?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES CHEN,
VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY,
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC
Mr. Chen. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson,
Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, Members of the Committee
and the Subcommittee. My name is James Chen, and I'm the Vice
President of Public Policy for Rivian Automotive. I wish to
thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on
technology pathways to accelerate sustainability in the
transportation sector. I've submitted my written testimony, and
will summarize the points briefly in this verbal testimony.
Founded in 2009, Rivian is an independent U.S. company
dedicated to keeping the world adventurous through the
development, production, and distribution of all electric
pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, or SUVs. Scheduled to
commence production next year from our Midwest manufacturing
facility, the R-1T pickup truck, and the R-1S SUV, will have a
number of compelling features, including a range of up to 400
miles on a single charge; quad-motor all wheel drive; a 0 to 60
time of 3 seconds; 11,000 pound towing capability; and the
ability to forge through 3-feet of water safely due to the
sealed components. These are among many of the other features
we have built into the vehicle. Backed by strategic investors
that include Amazon, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and most
recently Cox Automotive, we employ over 750 people currently at
our various U.S. locations in Plymouth, Michigan; Normal,
Illinois; and several locations throughout California.
Rivian's products are being developed and released as part
of the technology revolution in transportation. In fact,
vehicle electrification is the platform that will enable the
development, optimization, and introduction of new
transportation technologies such as, and including,
connectivity and autonomy. The benefits of electrification are
numerous, and, the Chairman, you had mentioned quite a few of
these: Reducing dependence on foreign oil, promoting use of
domestically produced electricity, national security, energy
independence, a strong economy, and a cleaner environment.
Of these many benefits, three of the key benefits include
the following, that I would like to highlight. First,
leadership in technology. Lithium-ion battery technology was
invented by an American scientist, now a professor at the
University of Texas in Austin. Use of this technologies in cars
was pioneered and matured by American companies. The U.S.
cannot cede leadership and control of this technology to
foreign countries, who are spending billions, literally
billions of dollars, to foster and dominate this transportation
technology in their own countries.
Second, maintaining this leadership is good for the
economy. Using Rivian as an example, we purchased the formerly
shuttered Mitsubishi manufacturing plant in Normal, Illinois
back in 2017, less than a year after it shut down. We have
already spent tens of millions of dollars in equipment and
labor to rehabilitate that facility. When all is said and done,
we will have spent over $400 million to rehabilitate this
former facility. We will create over 1,000 manufacturing jobs,
and we'll be producing, with luck, several hundred thousand
vehicles out of this facility. Supporting EV technology
increases investment in the United States, creating economic
opportunity, and jobs in America.
Finally, electric vehicles are good for the environment.
Every electric pickup truck and SUV supplants its internal
combustion engine-equipped counterpart, lowering the emission
of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Minimizing
emissions have very real benefits to public health, by lowering
the causes of asthma, and other respiratory-related illnesses.
Introducing electric vehicles reduces greenhouse gases. With 7
of the last 10 years being the warmest on record globally, we
must do more to reduce greenhouse gases, and mitigate the
effects of climate change.
While some critics of electric vehicles complain that the
technology merely shifts the emissions from the vehicles to
power plants at a greater level, this is simply not true.
Several studies, including a BloombergNEF study from just last
year, shows that, on average, carbon dioxide from battery
electric vehicles are about 40 percent lower than their
internal combustion engine counterparts, even when including
the emissions from power plants providing the electricity for
these vehicles. And the vehicle emission profile only becomes
cleaner over time as power plants improve emission controls,
include a greater mix of generation of sources, including
renewables.
In conclusion, the U.S. is best served by robust investment
and support of transportation electrification technologies.
Congress has a strong role to play in promoting R&D in this
technology, and supporting the manufacture and market
introduction of this American innovation. Thank you again for
this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Coleman?
TESTIMONY OF BROOKE COLEMAN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ADVANCED BIOFUELS BUSINESS COUNCIL
Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamb,
Ranking Member Weber, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Brooke Coleman. I am the Executive Director of the Advanced
Biofuels Business Council. The Council represents worldwide
leaders developing and commercializing next-generation advanced
and cellulosic biofuels, ranging from cellulosic ethanol made
from agricultural residues to advanced biofuels made from
sustainable energy crops and municipal solid waste.
Let me start by thanking the Committee and staff for
looking at the question of how we are going to make the
transportation sector more sustainable. As you know, the
transportation sector now emits more carbon than any other in
the United States, and yet, take it from the biofuels industry,
it is not an easy sector to disrupt. One of the underlying
challenges we face on the fuel side is the unfortunate reality
that fuel markets are not free markets. They are highly
subsidized, vertically integrated, and consolidated. That makes
Federal agency engagement, from R&D, to loan guarantees, to
vehicle readiness, much more difficult. The corrective policies
driving demand for us, like the renewable fuel standard, must
move together with front-end technological development and
back-end market readiness related to vehicles, pumps, and fuels
to be optimized. If one piece falls out, commercial deployment
slows, sometimes to a grind.
This is where we find ourselves with many advanced biofuel
technologies. DOE, together with USDA (U.S. Department of
Agriculture), was instrumental in pushing cellulosic biofuels
forward. We are producing commercial volumes now, but we are
also grinding on the scaling side, largely because the demand
side part of the equation faltered. And I know this isn't an
RFS hearing, but EPA did stop enforcing the RFS for 3 years,
starting in 2013, then destroyed four billion gallons of
policy-driven demand thereafter with the oil refinery waivers
you're reading about in the news today. It's just hard to hit
milestones when the demand-side policy isn't enforced, and it's
hard to expect DOE to absorb 100 percent of that demand risk.
So the question is, where do we go from here? First and
foremost, and I'm not just saying this because I'm bookended by
them, we need robust support from the National Labs. This is,
to set the record straight, what is actually happening type of
work essential for emerging industries trying to break through
information warfare campaigns designed to impede important
change. I cannot tell you the number of times I have cited, and
my community has cited, vehicle emissions testing led by NREL
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), carbon modeling led by
Argon, and compatibility analysis led by Oak Ridge to set the
record straight against industry-funded misinformation
campaigns.
Second, programs designed to showcase, perhaps at smaller
scale, what can be done in the near term are invaluable. The
Co-Optima Program is one example. To my knowledge, ethanol is
the only cost-reductive technology available today in the
transportation sector to reduce GHG emissions. Optimizing its
use leverages a global competitive advantage that we have in
agriculture, and supports rural American economies struggling
under the weight of trade wars, more extreme weather, and
urbanization. We need to harvest ready-made solutions if we're
going to harness the full potential of biomass to displace or
compete with petroleum.
Demonstrations on the crop side are also valuable. When
implemented, the Biomass Research and Development Initiative
showcased the degree to which land management practices can
reduce carbon emissions, while improving bottom lines. New
initiatives could be patterned after the Novozymes Acre Study,
which demonstrated the viability of boosting feed, fuel, and
energy derived from one acre of corn, while avoiding 1.1 metric
tons of CO2 emissions.
Finally, there's the question of where best to engage, and
it's a difficult question, on the commercial deployment side.
For many of our companies it's all about deployment. There's a
big difference between testing a new enzyme at small scale and
throwing it into your main fermenter that you rely on every day
to pay the bills. There's a difference between turning a bale
of stover into cellulosic ethanol, which we've done many times,
and turning a conveyor belt of stover into cellulosic ethanol.
Many of our companies simply don't have the staff, time,
and resources to do the planning, engineering, and
implementation of plant-scale testing necessary to deploy new
technology. The expense of outsourcing stalls the deployment of
integrative biorefining technologies that we know to work.
That's the sweet spot for expenditure of applied deployment
dollars and agency time for us. Of course, excuse me, many
staff, including DOE staff, understand this because they ran
programs just like this for several years. An important
adjustment going forward would be to balance the desire to
focus on ultra new technologies, and overly constrained
categories like ``non-food'' with engagement with ready-made
solutions at existing plants that could produce transformative
results in the immediate term. There are just too many clear
benefits of using commercially available and abundant
agricultural feed stocks for renewable chemicals, biodegradable
plastic, and new fuels, while meeting demand for food and feed.
I will also close with a brief appeal. It's not always
about budget. We have American-made, deployment-ready, low-
carbon bioenergy solutions unnecessarily parked as we speak.
DOE has been very supportive of reviewing testing protocols to
determine how much corn fiber cellulosic ethanol conversion we
are getting out of our processes. This is a fuel with a 126
percent benefit over petroleum. From a greenhouse gas
perspective, a true carbon sink. We don't need technological
breakthrough there. We need EPA to cut these technologies
loose. And if DOE is qualified, and certainly they are, to
engage with us on the testing side, they are more than
qualified to engage with EPA, their counterparts, in getting
these fuels out the door. Thank you very much. We appreciate
the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coleman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Dr. Daniel?
TESTIMONY OF DR. CLAUS DANIEL,
DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM,
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Daniel. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I'm Claus Daniel, Sustainable Transportation
Program Director for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Today I
will address the important role that the scientific
capabilities and expertise of DOE's National Laboratories play
in accelerating innovations for an efficient, secure, and
sustainable transportation system.
Rapidly advancing technology and increased urbanization are
changing mobility in fundamental ways. Growing traffic
congestion, higher fatalities, and pollution concerns are some
of our greatest challenges. Oak Ridge has a rich portfolio of
materials, chemistry, computing, and biological scientists who
work closely with DOE's Sustainable Transportation Program to
improve energy efficiency and fuel economy for light-, medium-,
and heavy-duty vehicles and mobility systems.
Thanks to the Nation's investments, Oak Ridge is home to
several facilities that help accelerate our scientific
breakthroughs, and I want to thank Ranking Member Weber for
recognizing some of them. DOE's largest materials R&D program,
supporting scientific user facilities focused on understanding,
developing, and advancing materials, such as the Spallation
Neutron Source and the Center for Nanophase Material Science.
The Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, as you mentioned,
which hosts the world's most powerful supercomputer summit,
with growing capabilities in artificial intelligence and
machine learning. The National Transportation Research Center,
the Nation's only transportation-focused user facility, and the
Center for Bioenergy Innovation, one of four DOE centers
created to lay the scientific groundwork for a bio-based
economy. Today I'll cite two examples: One on materials and one
on mobility, in which we've leveraged these remarkable assets
in collaboration with industry, academia, and other National
Laboratories to solve problems in the transportation sector.
First, we worked with Fiat-Chrysler and Nemak to develop a
new alloy for use in more efficient engines that operate at
high temperatures. Using supercomputers, we accelerated the
development of the new alloy in only 4 years, versus what
normally takes decades. The new alloy is affordable, easy to
cast, and can withstand temperatures nearly 100+ C higher than
traditional aluminum alloys. Our cast engine has surpassed all
expectations.
Second, Chattanooga, Tennessee is one of the Nation's
busiest traffic corridors, with highly instrumented roadways.
Here we're working with collaborators to use our artificial
intelligence capabilities to discover ways to ease traffic
congestion and cut fuel consumption by at least 20 percent.
We're building a digital twin, a real-time living simulation of
all traffic.
Moving into the future, we will install Frontier, an
exascale computer, able to solve calculations up to 50 times
faster than today's top machines, exceeding one quintillion
calculations per second, and accommodating much more complex
simulations. We believe we can take what we learn in
Chattanooga and apply it to solve issues in larger regions, and
guide solutions on a national scale, and help hubs, such as
Chairwoman Johnson's home airport. Further, we can use
artificial intelligence to create simulations of materials and
fuels in real-world conditions, analyzing the behavior and
actions of millions of atoms under realistic duty cycles. We're
also working on a second target station at the Spallation
Neutron Source that will offer up to 1,000-times higher
performance, with a pulse brightness 25-times greater than
currently available. We can probe the structure and function of
new complex materials in devices like batteries, ultra-
efficient engines, and aircraft turbines at a faster pace.
Our nation has wisely invested resources in developing
these unparalleled capabilities to support basic science
breakthroughs that translate into real-world results. We look
forward to continuing our scientific pursuit in support of a
safer, more efficient, and sustainable transportation system
for the Nation's prosperity and security. Thank you for this
opportunity, and I welcome your questions on this important
topic.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And Mr. Cortes?
TESTIMONY OF TIM CORTES,
VICE PRESIDENT, HYDROGEN ENERGY SYSTEMS,
PLUG POWER, INC.
Mr. Cortes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson,
Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and the entire
Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify before you today
regarding sustainable transportation, and the work that is
going on in the U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. I am excited to discuss the role that
hydrogen fuel cell technology is playing in sustainable
transportation, and share my perspective on how Congress and
the Federal Government can enable even greater progress through
this pathway.
In our core technology platform, Plug Power replaces lead-
acid batteries with fuel cells to power electric industrial
vehicles, such as forklifts, that customers use in their
distribution centers and warehouses. We have unmatched field
experience, with over 28,000 fuel cells in the field, many in
your congressional districts. We have installed over 80
hydrogen fueling stations in more than 30 States across the
United States. Our CEO, Andy Marsh, is the Chairman of the Fuel
Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, and serves on the
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, which
provides technical and programmatic advice to the Energy
Secretary on DOE's hydrogen research, development, and
demonstration efforts.
Plug Power also participates on the Hydrogen Council, which
is a global initiative of 60 leading energy transport and
industry companies with the united vision and long-term
ambition for hydrogen to foster the energy transition. The
council estimates that by 2050, hydrogen can help cut global
CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent, with
substantial reductions coming from the transportation sector.
In September 2018, the council adopted a goal to completely
decarbonize the production process for hydrogen transportation
fuel by 2030. Plug Power looks forward to working with the
industry partners, and leveraging support for public sector, to
achieve these goals.
The United States has a long history in leadership role in
fuel cells. When the Apollo 11 mission put a man on the moon in
1969, the command module's primary source of electricity and
drinking water was from fuel cells. Since then, American
scientific and industrial ingenuity has ensured that our
country became the global leader in hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies. This could not have been accomplished without the
support and dedication of the U.S. Government, including from
this Committee.
Today's Federal support primarily comes from the Fuel Cell
Technologies Office housed within the Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The program
leverages the resources of our National Laboratories and
partnerships with private sector, including Plug Power, to
research, develop, and demonstrate innovative, efficient
solutions for advancing fuel cell systems and hydrogen energy.
The results speak for themselves, with the United States
leading the world in deployments of zero emissions hydrogen
fuel cell forklifts and light duty cars. Additionally, the
American hydrogen and fuel cell industry continues to push
forward with novel applications for these technologies, such as
heavy-duty trucking, maritime vessels, port vehicles, drones,
military equipment, and more.
Plug Power has been working with the DOE since the
company's inception to advance our innovative fuel cell
solutions. This started with basic research and development
projects, which led to proving the feasibility and utility of
powering material handling equipment with hydrogen fuel cells
and stationary systems for primary backup power. Once these
first-generation systems were ready for deployment, DOE's
Market Transformation activities accelerated cost reductions,
and promoted customer acceptance for this new alternative
energy technology. Thanks to these efforts, Plug Power was able
to establish initial relationships with customers, help the
company significantly expand, and create an entire new market
for hydrogen fuel cell systems.
Today Plug Power continues to work with the DOE to further
improve the efficiency of these systems, scale up the
production of hydrogen fuel, bring advanced manufacturing
processes for our technology from the laboratory to the
factory, and introduce hydrogen fuel cells to new markets and
applications. Plug Power is very appreciative of DOE's
Hydrogen-at-Scale concept, and this program explores the
potential for wide scale hydrogen production and utilization in
the United States by leveraging resources from the Department,
National Labs, and array of diverse domestic industries that
can produce and utilize hydrogen fuel. Unfortunately, Plug
Power is not currently participating in H2@Scale, but we are
hopeful DOE will embrace our priority, since we are the leading
user of liquid hydrogen in the United States.
With today's urgent focus to mitigate climate change,
industrial countries are recognizing the critical role that
hydrogen and fuel cells can play in decarbonization policies
across sectors. In just the past few years, other countries,
including China, and other developed nations, have put forth
and implemented funds and plans worth billions of dollars to
accelerate deployment of these technologies, especially in the
transportation sector. To ensure the United States does not
fall behind in the global leadership in hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, Congress and the Executive Branch must ensure
policies and incentives are available to American industry to
accelerate further deployment.
America's approach to sustainable mobility needs to
incorporate hydrogen fuel and fuel cell systems into our energy
strategy. In our written testimony, you can find detailed
recommendations supporting the creation of these policies that
will allow for scale of infrastructure necessary to facilitate
the widespread adoption of fuel cells. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in this hearing, and giving Plug
Power the opportunity to talk about sustainability,
transportation, fuel cells, and hydrogen technologies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cortes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. We'll now begin with our
questions, and I'll take the first round for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chen, I wanted to ask you a little bit about kind of
how we got to where your company is today, and the role of
government in all that. You know, one of the things we're
trying to figure out here is exactly how to spend the research
dollars that we have, in addition to how much we have to spend,
and you quoted, I think, the figure of what China has spent
just on electric vehicles alone, something like $60 billion. So
it shows you the overall amount is really important, I think.
But are there connections between some of the Federal research
and how your company was founded? Was the founder, at MIT, ever
supported by Federal research, or can you give us any examples
of that?
Mr. Chen. Yes. So R.J. Scaringe, our founder, as you
mentioned, is a Ph.D. mechanical engineer out of MIT. He was a
member of the Sloan Automotive Laboratories, so to the extent
that there was any government involvement, I am not aware of
any direct government involvement, but the investment that is
made into DOE to look into these types of technologies
certainly is something that raises the entire industry, and
awareness of electric and battery technology.
Chairman Lamb. Andit may be as simple as the fact that one
of DOE's big investments was in Tesla, which obviously advanced
the whole field of battery technology forward, and I'm sure was
in some way a side benefit to you all.
On the topic of the lithium-ion battery technology, you
rightly raised the fact that China is leading in that area, and
I saw some figures from Bloomberg that suggested they could
have 3/4 of the world market by 2021, which is not what we
want, and we're not feeling optimistic on this side about how
we would grow our own market in that. So do you have any ideas
or thoughts about what we would do to level that playing field,
or create an insurance policy for ourselves against China
dominating that area?
Mr. Chen. Well, I think there are a number of programs that
could certainly help in that area. I think H.R. 2170 is a good
start. As I reviewed the provisions of that bill, it talked not
only about research and development into lithium-ion battery
technology, but support of creating manufacturing jobs, or
industries that were creating manufacturing jobs in the United
States. You mentioned earlier the Tesla loan from the DOE ATVM
(Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing) Program. Certainly
that was a huge catalyst for Tesla to make a leap forward.
As you noted earlier in my bio, that I was with Tesla at
that time, and folks will remember in 2008 the credit markets
were completely locked up. There was no place to get money due
to the Great Recession, so the DOE loan to Tesla really was the
financial impetus that allowed that company to move forward
with the Model S, which was the very first ground-up all
electric vehicle developed and manufactured in the United
States. That led to the Model X, and later to the Model 3, all
while driving down the costs of the battery.
So I think there is a number of different areas where
government could play in. Incentivizing manufacturing, the DOE
ATVM Loan Program, which I understand is still in existence,
that can certainly support it, R&D, and then, of course,
incentives such as the IRC 30(d) tax credit (Plug-In Electric
Drive Vehicle Credit), which I understand is also being
considered for expansion. These are all the types of programs
that I think can help both drive R&D, manufacturing, and demand
and acceptability of these technologies.
Chairman Lamb. Absolutely. Thank you. And, Mr. Coleman, you
kind of closed with a point about how it's not all about
budget. I think it is largely about that. It's the creation of
the market, and the creation of demand, that seems to be the
biggest factor for a lot of these things at the end of the day.
But could you just kind of use my remaining minute to expand on
that point a little bit, involving the struggles with the EPA,
and sort of what we could do outside the budget process to help
strengthen that demand or market?
Mr. Coleman. Yes. I appreciate the question, thank you. So
we're at that point, in our industry, where we've been around a
little while. We've moved through the R, and then the D, and
we're probably on the last D, on the deployment side. And what
happens to us often is we get to that point, and people say
it's the Valley of Death or whatever. It's the market
deployment side of things. And because energy markets are
regulated, it's like driving, you've got to show up with a
license plate, you've got to have a registration, and you've
got to have an inspection sticker. And if you don't have one of
those things, and you try to drive around, you're in trouble.
And what happens to us is we often have to navigate the
inter-agency process, and one of those things will hang us up.
And so what's happening to us right now on this ultra low-
carbon fuel is we have a pathway for corn fiber. And for those
of you who don't spend all day on biofuels, corn fiber's just
the hard, viscous part of the outside of the corn kernel.
That's a cellulose feed stock. It's already at the grain door,
and we can produce this stuff commercially. It's hundreds of
millions of gallons of ultra low-carbon fuel, and we can't get
essentially a registration from EPA to put this out and create
a value-added integrated biorefining reality.
DOE is remarkably trained. They look at our stuff all the
time, and sometimes it's just a matter of DOE engaging, going
over there and saying, hey, we're in charge of energy security,
we can literally change this equation overnight, why is this
taking so long? And it's a very political process over there,
and that's really what I meant.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And, with that, I yield to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Dr. Daniel and Ms. Schlenker, in your
prepared testimonies, you highlight the importance of
sophisticated materials science, enabling those tools like
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source, APS, and Oak Ridge's
Spallation Neutron Source, SNS, as well as the importance of
providing updates, so sometimes the budget does count for a
little bit, Mr. Coleman.
So as you know, this Committee has a long, established
history of providing strong bipartisan support for these key
user facilities. So how critical, and we'll start with you Ms.
Schlenker, in your opinion, are these resources to enabling
innovative R&D in sustainable transportation?
Ms. Schlenker. So I think that user facilities are a real
gem of the National Laboratories, to allow access to scientists
globally to come in to the facilities, and certainly for the
U.S. researchers, and industry, to have access to the experts
for those particular user facilities. In transportation, just
as an example, for the Advanced Photon Source, we're looking at
additive manufacturing as a new technique in transportation for
component development.
Mr. Weber. To make it lighter?
Ms. Schlenker. To make it lighter----
Mr. Weber. Stronger, lighter.
Ms. Schlenker [continuing]. But it's really, trialing and
putting layer after layer down in deposition, and to understand
where the voids, and the fatigue, or the failure modes, might
really be. So we've had a longstanding program with various
OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to use that particular
facility. We look at fuel spray research from injectors out of
an engine to try and reduce the emissions, and to have
predictability within that.
So just an example beyond the high-performance computing
that we use all the time, and I want to give Claus some time on
this, but those are just two big examples that I think of user
facilities in transportation that are used on a daily basis.
Mr. Weber. OK. And, Claus, she's kind of throwing the ball
over to you.
Dr. Daniel. Yes. Thank you, Ann, for that. Thank you,
Ranking Member Weber, for the question. I think this is very,
very important. The scientific user facilities at the National
Labs are really the scientific backbone of our research
community, and of the DOE system on there. You made it very
clear, you said the APS, and the SNS, right? There's not two of
them----
Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
Dr. Daniel [continuing]. Right? These are large tools. They
require quite some investment to make them the way they are,
and you don't repeat those investments as easily.
Mr. Weber. And to sustain them, to use that
sustainability----
Dr. Daniel. Sustain them is also very expensive, yes. So
what we do is we have trained experts who are world-renowned
scientists, doing nothing but operating these facilities so
they are ready to answer the scientific questions we have, and
advance the technology. One example, for example, is here, when
we come with an applied problem, where an automotive supplier--
this happened in Oak Ridge about 6 years ago, where we had a
supplier to Ford come in with--it was a body-supplier, and
they----
Mr. Weber. What kind of supplier?
Dr. Daniel. A body-supplier. It's a supplier who provides
the body shell of the car.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Daniel. And there was a cracking problem at that body--
and the automotive company said, we cannot accept these any
further. We need to shut down manufacturing lines, and we
probably need to have some layoffs if we can't resolve that.
Facilities like the user facilities are equipped to go all the
way down to the atomic level and understand what is the
problem. And we were able, in just 3 days' time, to resolve the
issue, understand where it's coming from, and the company was
able to then find a solution, and keep their workforce in
business.
Mr. Weber. And that was for Ford?
Dr. Daniel. This was for a supplier to Ford.
Mr. Weber. A supplier to Ford? OK. Well, good, that's a
great story. Thank you. And a short amount of time left, this
is actually for all witnesses, here on the Energy Subcommittee
we like to talk about next-generation science and technology
discoveries. What are some of the recent technology
breakthroughs that could be considered next-generation
discoveries in vehicle technologies? And then we'll jump over
to hydrogen fuel research after that. But let's start with you,
Mr. Cortes. What are some of the recent technology
breakthroughs that you would consider next-generation
discoveries?
Mr. Cortes. So on the fuel cell side, on a stack level
within the fuel cell, advances are being made with regard to
the size, and the density, and the power performance of the
actual stack, so that's allowing us to make the stacks, and the
fuel cells themselves, much smaller, much lighter, and be able
to generate more power. So that technology is really going to
be crucial in order to improve and go, you know, help with the
transportation, in terms of getting the additional power for
the distances that you need to travel.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, and I'm actually out of time,
but let me jump to you real quick, Mr. Coleman. What do you
say?
Mr. Coleman. For the record, I am pro-budget. I'm very
supportive----
Mr. Weber. For the record? OK.
Mr. Coleman. Very important, yes.
Mr. Weber. I gave you a chance to redeem yourself.
Mr. Coleman. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate----
Mr. Weber. All right.
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. That.
Mr. Weber. I didn't want that to fuel any controversy.
Mr. Coleman. I hear you.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. On our side, we've been focusing on enzyme
efficiency, so from a biorefining perspective, when you improve
the enzymes, you're producing fuel and feed, you can squeeze
more and more of each product out of every bushel of corn, or
every whatever----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. Right? And so that's where we've
made a heck of a lot of progress.
Mr. Weber. Perfect. And I'm out of time, but offline I want
to talk to you about why you all can't get--you said--the EPA
to give you--was it a permit or designation?
Mr. Coleman. A registration.
Mr. Weber. Registration? Thank you.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Recognize Mr. McNerney for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses. An excellent subject, good, interesting information
that you're providing.
Mr. Chen, in your testimony you mentioned that Rivian has
several battery powered train and advanced technology research
and development centers in California. What role do you believe
that California's regulations have played in fostering
innovation in that State? My State.
Mr. Chen. I think they played a large role in fostering
that, not only from the emission standards, but programs such
as the ZEV Mandate, which really encouraged industry to start
looking at alternatives like battery electric vehicles. In
addition, on a less direct method, by being able to monetize
credits from generation and production, and introducing to
commerce zero emission vehicles, those types of programs have
allowed manufacturers like Tesla, and soon Rivian, to be able
to sell those emission credits to traditional manufacturers to
help further fund the efforts by those startup manufacturing
companies.
Mr. McNerney. OK. What effect, do you think, rolling back
the clean air rules for California is going to have on
incentives for innovation in California, and in the United
States in general?
Mr. Chen. Frankly speaking, I think it sends absolutely the
wrong signal. I think it's a step backward toward our movement
toward greater fuel efficiency. Not just alternatives such as
battery electric vehicles, but traditional technologies,
basically internal combustion-equipped vehicles.
Mr. McNerney. I see it the same way. Ms. Schlenker, you
note in your testimony that the application of hydrogen as a
fuel choice for U.S. industrial processes could be synergistic
with fuel cell development. Could you expand on that a little
bit?
Ms. Schlenker. I think that some of the very energy-
intensive manufacturing processes that we have in the U.S.,
that could be iron, or----
Mr. McNerney. Is you microphone on?
Ms. Schlenker. Thank you. That could be iron, or it could
be steel manufacturing, as an example, very energy intensive.
And to be able to use hydrogen as a fuel source, expanding
beyond natural gas, or other choices in today's market, we
think that has some viability to help create that demand for
the hydrogen infrastructure. As an example, we have renewable
solar and wind today feeding back into the grid. At times, it's
actually in surplus to what the grid can take. It goes into
secondary battery storage for the grid. It has another use,
where it actually could be combined with CO2 and
converted with electrolysis into hydrogen, or other fuel
choices. So that's really what we're thinking through, is how
to use hydrogen within industrial processes as well to help
increase that demand, if you will, for the fuel cell vehicle
technologies.
Mr. McNerney. Excellent. Mr. Chen, I've read that rare
earth materials will be a significant limitation to large-scale
adoption of EV technology. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Chen. Yes. Interestingly enough, and ironically, rare
earth minerals are probably misnamed, because they aren't that
rare. Where we really see a problem is supply constraint. Right
now roughly 90 percent of all rare earth minerals are produced
in a single country, China, and this has given them a near
monopoly over the supply chain. There are certainly methods, or
policies, that can be put into place to encourage the
development of the extraction of these types of resources from
places outside of China, including in the United States. To
date, I'm aware of only a single operating facility that mines
rare earth minerals in the United States. Certainly there is
room for policies to encourage greater development here
domestically.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Whoever wants to answer, how does
fuel cell technology compare to simple burning of hydrogen for
efficiency?
Mr. Cortes. On the actual fuel cell side, in terms of
utilizing hydrogen to generate electricity, the fuel cells are
about 50 percent, roughly, efficient, so we can actually create
quite a bit of energy from a kilogram of hydrogen. With respect
to others, I guess I would leave to somebody else, maybe, on
the Committee that might be able to answer that, comparatively
speaking.
Mr. McNerney. Burning is going to be less than 35 percent,
I can tell you. Thank you. Mr. Daniel, what about AI,
artificial intelligence, for easing traffic, and other
applications? Has this been proven, or is it still speculation?
Dr. Daniel. Amongst the National Laboratories, we're
working on utilizing artificial intelligence to solve these
problems. Traffic problems are inherently complex problems, in
which decisions are made by individual players as a small part
of a large system. And in that regard, they're very difficult
to control, and they're inherently hard to understand. We're
using our supercomputing capabilities across the National Labs
system to better understand what are the consequences of
certain decisions, and how do they play together? We're working
on some systems where we can do what we call faster than real-
time simulation, where we can do true predictions of a future
traffic scenario based on knowledge of a system we have right
now, and by doing so, then understand what control mechanisms
are needed to really improve traffic, and reduce the chances of
accidents happening.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamb. Recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of you
panelists for being here today. Mr. Chen, when you consider
regulations, do you consider that there are regulations that
are disincentivizing private industry investment in sustainable
transportation R&D?
Mr. Chen. I'm not aware of any regulation, per se. Do you
have a particular example of----
Mr. Biggs. I'm asking you to see, I mean, you're going to
be more familiar than I am. So it's pristine, is what you're
indicating?
Mr. Chen. Well, there certainly are programs out there that
encourage the adoption of alternative transportation
technologies. And as I mentioned to the other Congressman, with
respect to things like rolling back CAFE (Corporate Average
Fuel Economy) and the greenhouse gas regulation, those are
exactly the wrong signals. Government has always had a role to
lead on innovation in areas of technology improvement, whether
it be through emissions or safety----
Mr. Biggs. But what I'm trying to get at is--and if I'm
understanding--I'm trying to find out if there's any kind of
government regulations that's actually impeding private sector
development. And you said no, I think, is what you told me.
Mr. Chen. Not exactly. There are certain areas of
regulation that do have us locked into existing technologies,
versus allowing us to foster other developments.
Mr. Biggs. And that's what I would like to know more about.
And before we run out of time, I'd ask if maybe, if that's the
case, if you can either get together with me and my staff, or
shoot me a memo, or something like that, whatever, in the areas
that you think have locked us in.
Mr. Chen. Yes, absolutely. I can do that.
Mr. Biggs. OK. I appreciate that. So sustainability within
the transportation sector is a reasonable goal, but this issue
ought to be, in my opinion, championed by private sector, not
the Federal Government, which is why I'm concerned with the
legislation we're exploring today.
The Vehicle Innovation Act authorizes appropriations of
more than $1.6 billion over 5 years for research, development,
engineering, demonstration, and commercial application of
vehicles, and related technologies in the United States, which,
interestingly enough, is roughly the amount of private equity
investment in Rivian company, as reported in Mr. Chen's written
statement. This sounds like an exciting opportunity for the
transportation industry, but we have to be cognizant of the
Federal budget constraints facing our country.
And so I just want to cover two quick points before I leave
here today. The question that I always ask myself is it
appropriate for the government to transfer dollars taken by
compulsion--which is what we do. When we tax, we are taking
dollars by compulsion. There's nobody here that volunteers to
do it. Every time we try to have a volunteer taxation program,
it fails miserably, so we have to compel it. Should we take
that compulsorily gained taxation and provide it to private
companies and entrepreneurs to conduct research and
development, even if it might provide an overall good? Now,
some economists would argue that such transfers from government
to private sector researchers incentivizes inefficiencies,
suppresses private equity investment, and creates a path-
dependent, or increasing return regime that locks research
development industry onto a sub-optimal path that inhibits
movement to the most optimal paths of research and development.
Several of you have mentioned today China, and I think we
should always respect China has literally spent billions and
tens of billions of dollars researching into these areas. But
we must also understand, and make no mistake, China is a
centralized authoritarian nation. They control the money, they
control the economy. The leader of that nation, or if you
decide that you think there's oligarchs running that nation,
those leaders can seize and divest capital from market-driven
priorities into government-sponsored priorities. We are
competing with that. I recognize we're competing with that. But
we have always believed, in this Nation, that a system of
freedom of markets will produce innovation, and that will be a
more nimble and quick approach and response, and actually be
better in the long run.
So, for me, I look at it, and I say, this is an interesting
dilemma that we're always in. Do we take this money away from
private individuals and transfer it to researchers and
engineers who are on the cutting edge? There's no doubt you're
on the cutting edge of technology. That is what I wonder about.
I think about that often, and I think you can surmise where I
come out. And, with that, my time is expired. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens [presiding]. The Chair will now recognize Dr.
Lipinski for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, as we play musical chairs here. I
want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony today. I've
long been interested, and done a lot of work on autonomous
vehicles. I know that's not what we're here to talk about, but
I wanted to start out in talking about autonomous vehicles a
little bit, because they do have an impact here on
sustainability.
First thing, though, in the FAST Act (Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act) reauthorization, I worked to
include a provision to establish an inter-agency working group
under DOT (Department of Transportation) to promote autonomous
and connected vehicles. Do you believe that there is a need? Is
this something that'd be helpful, when we're talking about
sustainability, to have a similar inter-agency working group,
or is there anything in particular you think--the idea is to
have more coordination. Is more coordination needed on the
issues of sustainability, or would that be a non-worthwhile--
just add another layer of bureaucracy? So does anyone have any
thoughts on that? Ms. Schlenker?
Ms. Schlenker. So I really welcome the question, thank you,
because I think we can strengthen the relationship and the
collaboration between the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Energy. Typically Department of Energy will do
early TRL (technology readiness levels) advanced research and
development. DOT, in this space of smart mobility, smart
communities, has been funding demonstration and deployment.
DOE's doing a little bit of that, but DOT largely plays in that
area. So to have a seamless integration and coordination
between the two agencies to further the research, everything
from data exchanges, data management, what are the ultimate
questions we're trying to answer in a cohesive project across
the agencies, I think would further all of us, and it would
then allow transfer of that knowledge to other areas for best
practice learnings. So I would certainly be all in favor of
having some sort of formalized strengthened relationship
between the two agencies.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Cortes. Yes. So if you look at the Department of
Energy's Hydrogen-at-Scale program, you really look at all the
elements that are associated with that, the transportation
portion is a key element of that entire ecosystem that's
developed there. So having better coordination to help drive
some of the projects and programs to be able to push that, and
to have the scale that we're looking for, from a hydrogen
generation standpoint, I think would really be key.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Chen?
Mr. Chen. Yes, and I would say that there's certainly a
need for coordination, including on the vehicle level. The
example that I like to point to is that, under DOT NITSA
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) regulations,
Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 111, you have to actually have
rearview mirrors, outside mirrors, and the provisions in the
regulation actually use the word mirrors, to be able to provide
that rearward view. We have shown in the past, both at Tesla
and now Rivian, that, by getting rid of those mirrors, and
using streamlined cameras, we can improve the aerodynamic
efficiency of that vehicle by as much as 3 percent. However,
that is locked into a DOT regulation. Having coordination
between DOE and DOT to look at the benefits of modifying that
regulation certainly would be helpful at the vehicle level.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Coleman?
Mr. Coleman. I want to be mindful of your 5 minutes, but
coordination is huge for us because it's not uncommon for our
companies to be engaged across multi-agencies, and I think that
there's a lot of efficiency to be gained from that as part of
the mission for the group.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. And, in my last minute here, I
want to ask, Ms. Schlenker, at Argonne, has anyone done mild
impacts of autonomous vehicles on congestion and emission?
Ms. Schlenker. So across the National Laboratories we have
a big program on smart mobility, and Argonne co-chairs that. I
mentioned that Oak Ridge is a part of it as well, an important
player. As we look at automating connected vehicles, we have
sophisticated modeling tools, and we can do transportation
modeling work to look at potential futures, traffic flow,
looking at these new business models like Uber and Lyft coming
in, e-bikes, e-scooters, transit, first mile, last mile
challenges that we have. So all of that is included into our
sophisticated transportation models. Beyond that, we do
physical experiments on connected and automated vehicles, and
understand what happens with active cruise control, or
cooperative active cruise control, what the benefits really are
on traffic flow, and congestion, and speed, as an example. So
that is very active research for the Vehicle Technologies
Office at large, and across the National Labs system.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time's expired, I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Dr.
Baird for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
witnesses, for being here. Not sure I'll get to ask each one of
you a question, but some of my questions relate to almost every
one of you, I think. My ag background stimulates this question.
I guess, Dr. Daniel, you may be a part of this, and, Ms.
Schlenker, you may also want to respond. But I think the DOE
Office of Science funds about four bioenergy research centers,
if I'm not mistaken, and they conduct coordinated and
geographically diverse research in support of developing a
viable and sustainable domestic biofuel and bioproducts
industry from dedicated bioenergy crops.
In the biofuels research that is conducted at your labs
through the Bioenergy Technologies Office, how often do you
feel like you collaborate with or leverage the expertise of the
Office of Science, and these bioenergy research centers, and
what do you feel that collaboration is like? So how often do
you collaborate, and how do you feel that works?
Dr. Daniel. Thank you for the question. Yes, the Office of
Science investments are very, very important for the success of
our sustainable transportation program, and our innovations in
vehicles and mobility systems. We regularly have interactions
with those bioenergy centers. We regularly consult with the
scientists in there. We even have scientists who are partially
funded through those activities, and partially funded through
our applied research facilities. That interaction, from the
Office of Science to the Applied Research Program, and handing
it off to the private sector, I think is really what makes us
so strong, and what is really important for the National Labs
system.
Ms. Schlenker. A similar response, relative to the Office
of Science and our biofuels research that we do at Argonne. In
particular we're looking at feedstocks. We're looking at the
opportunity, with membrane separations, and agricultural land
use, as an example, and those conversion processes, and how you
scale that, then, over into industrial and commercial
processes, and even into the demonstration phase. So the
linkage back to the Office of Science is really important to
us, and their expertise in some of these fields is transferred
directly over into the applied program.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Coleman, would you care to
elaborate on some of the biofuels, bioenergy crops, that you're
looking into, and where that stands?
Mr. Coleman. So our industry, as you know, started with
corn, because the corn--and by that specifically it's the
inside of the kernel, right, because that's what is already
fermentable, so the corn does the work of making a corn mash
that's already fermentable. What's happening now is the
industry is self-interested in feedstock diversity. Obviously
they want to be able to not just be tethered to corn prices,
but other feed stocks.
Where it's gone in phase two is waste. So 70 percent or so
of what's in an urban landfill is wood, paper, and cardboard,
and so you have a tremendous amount of cellulosic material
there, and then agricultural residues is corn fiber, corn
stover, wheat straw, things like that. So the honest answer is,
we're working through the waste-side because of the low
feedstock costs, and we're at essentially to demonstration
phase on the energy crop side. And a lot of that is really
applying efficiencies to existing agricultural commodities to
squeeze more product out of those products, efficiencies, and
obviously better bottom line. Novazymes, for example, is very
interested in alternative crops. Some of the miscanthus and the
more exciting stuff you hear about on the side.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Chen, we've got about 48 seconds
for two more--any thoughts on that?
Mr. Chen. No, Congressman, not on those particular
thoughts. Rivian's focused on electric vehicles. We're agnostic
as to where the electricity comes from.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I didn't think so, but I thought I'd
give you a chance. Mr. Cortes, do you have any thoughts, since
it's in your DOE----
Mr. Cortes. No, as far as, you know, the electricity from a
hydrogen standpoint, that's really more the area that we're
most interested, in terms of the generation, and green
hydrogen, and having the supply where we need it to be to drive
the demand.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. My time's up, and I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. And at this time the Chair would like to
recognize Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses. Let's see, one of the many hats I wear here is co-
chair of the National Laboratories Caucus. I'd just like to say
that we've been having CODELs (Congressional Delegations) to
all of the DOE National Labs, and the reaction that we get from
Members when they realize the tremendous amount of intellectual
horsepower and technical horsepower there is really, I have to
say, gratifying. And we're going to be coming soon to Argonne
National Laboratory, and we will, I'm sure, be seeing some of
what we're going to be talking about here.
And one of the valuable things National Labs can do, as
well as industry, is to look at the costs and the crossover
points for different technologies. You know, for example, if
you look at batteries, as they descend in cost, they become
first viable maybe for automobiles, then later for long-haul
trucks, later for--or maybe earlier for things like rail, that
may be less weight sensitive, and eventually airplanes, when it
all goes well. And so, you know, how much is known about what
those crossover points are? You know, at what point are
batteries cheap enough that really you sort of give up on the
internal combustion engine? And we can try my hometown
laboratory, Ms. Schlenker.
Ms. Schlenker. So maybe I'll try and bail you out from
answering on battery costs. So on electric vehicles, if we just
reflect back maybe a decade, and for a 250-mile all-electric-
range electric vehicle, maybe that battery pack, and these,
again, are estimates, was about $45,000. In a decade, we're
down to about $17,000 for that battery pack. Where do we think
we need to get for this cost parity crossover question, right?
We think that range is really about the $7,000, at a pack
level, which then informs DOE's goals on their battery research
for their targets as they establish the dollar per kilowatt
hour targets.
With that said, though, we have to also remember that it's
not just simply a one-component focus. You have to pay
attention to that entire vehicle, right? So everything from the
cost of gasoline, as compared to electricity, to insurance and
repair, and manufacturing costs. All of those other things that
play into the total cost of ownership. So we----
Mr. Foster. Yes. And Argonne and others have been doing
cost estimates for decades on the crossover, and so what we're
now able to actually understand is, as you've ramped up
electric vehicle production, there have been these cost
estimates for how the economies of scale would kick in. And
maybe Mr. Chen would be a better person to speak on this, you
know, have things gone pretty much as expected? Have there been
pleasant or unpleasant surprises for not the battery, but the
everything else associated with electric vehicles?
Mr. Chen. Yes, actually, there has been a substantial
amount of progress in that regard. I think if you look back 10
years ago, 2008 is when Tesla introduced the Roadster, and that
was a two-seat sports car that had a battery pack that could
run roughly 250 miles on a single charge, and that vehicle cost
about $130,000. If you go to where we are today, Rivian will be
coming out with its R-1T pickup truck, and it starts at a cost
of $70,000 for a 105-kilowatt battery pack, so substantially
more energy, roughly about the same amount of range as the
Roadster back in 2008, but now you've got a vehicle that is
substantially larger.
So it's not just the battery cost, as you mentioned,
Congressman, but it's also the efficiencies in the motor, it's
lightweighting the materials, it's looking at the aerodynamics,
and it's the energy density of that battery pack. And, through
the entire course of the last 10 years, there has been
substantial progress in all of those areas.
Mr. Foster. So no disappointments in terms of--has anyone
taken the time to look backward at the cost projections that
were made a decade ago or two to see if your--because, you
know, there's a danger here looking at the proponents' cost
estimates, particularly for scaling and quantity.
Mr. Chen. Yes. Absolutely. I'd say the biggest
disappointment is we're not getting there fast enough. And,
actually, this hearing is very timely because getting there
fast enough is about reducing cost, and is about increasing
energy density, and looking at new technologies.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And, Mr. Cortes, how do fuel cells fit
into this landscape of, you know, cost and performance?
Mr. Cortes. Yes, it's really more about performance. So if
you look at--and we think about things as not as an either/or,
it's an and. There are very good places where--and applications
where batteries work really well. When you talk about long
haul, or range and distance, at some point, when you have a
battery, in order to increase the distance, you have to add
more batteries. When you add more batteries, you're adding more
weight. And at some point it becomes difficult.
And, for us, there's a crossover point from a performance
standpoint, where fuel cells provides that additional range
without that additional burden of the weight. It's more of can
you add a larger tank to house the additional hydrogen needed
to be able to do that? So there's applications that are really
well-suited for batteries, and then there's applications that
are really well-suited for long haul, and delivery vans and
things like that where now the payload becomes a critical
aspect.
Mr. Foster. All right. Thank you, and I guess my time is up
at this point.
Ms. Stevens. And now, also from the great State of
Illinois, the Chair would like to recognize Mr. Casten for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. Technically it's the greatest State,
especially with so many folks from Illinois here. So thank you
very much. Thank you all for coming. A couple questions, and
the first is a question that just always puzzled me a little
bit. My first car was an 1984 Honda Civic, super nice car. It
had an AM/FM radio. I think it had a tape deck. I know it had a
rear defroster, and it had headlights. I'm not sure what other
electric loads were on that car. And, you know, to buy a new
car today you've got, you know, GPS, you know, XM satellite
radio, heated front and rear seats, maybe a heads up display on
the dashboard, all the new stuff that's coming out. Drive by
wire auto parking, you know, automatic driving. Can you just
help me understand, Dr. Daniel, I'm curious, number one, you
know, I know we've gone from 12-volt batteries to 24-volt
batteries, and--alternators. What is happening to the onboard
electric loads in the vehicle, and is there any reason to
believe that that trend is saturating, or is that just
continuing in perpetuity?
Dr. Daniel. Yes, thank you for that question. I think
that's a very timely question. When we look at the changes
happening in the mobility segment there, I believe that current
vehicles, vehicles that have an operator, and where a driver is
doing most of the work, those auxiliary loads are not quite as
critical, unless it is in an area like an electric vehicle,
where every electron counts, right? That's something we really
have to look for, and the Department of Energy is looking
particularly at research--how can I reduce those loads? But
where it really changes the game is when we look at connecting
automated vehicles, vehicles that drive themselves,
potentially, vehicles that need to make decisions based on
perception around them. We believe that the auxiliary loads at
that point will go through the roof. And that's something where
we have no technical solutions right now for, and we need to
dramatically reduce the energy consumed by sensors and
processing units for those vehicles.
Mr. Casten. So without asking you to guess on a time, is it
reasonable to conclude that at some point just the features
that consumers want on a car is going to make electrification
substantially inevitable?
Dr. Daniel. I don't know if I can draw that conclusion
inherently, but energy efficiency of those components becomes
very, very critical. We're seeing very high demands. Some
people estimate that in a connected automated vehicle we're
having, like, 3 kilowatts of usage for sensors and computing.
Mr. Casten. Um-hum.
Dr. Daniel. Some people put that number as high as 5 or 7
kilowatts.
Mr. Casten. OK. Can I at least conclude that getting to
some level of plug-in electrification is going to be
inevitable, just given the voltage and the efforts that we made
on cars?
Dr. Daniel. I believe some electrification will certainly
be helping there, but I think there are other reasons why we
would want to electrify, not necessarily just the----
Mr. Casten. Sure.
Dr. Daniel [continuing]. The autonomous----
Mr. Casten. Yes, of course.
Dr. Daniel [continuing]. Side of it.
Mr. Casten. Of course.
Dr. Daniel. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Casten. So then I get the question, and this is for,
you know, I guess for Mr. Chen in the first instance, there was
this political article, I think last week, about the oil
companies working very hard behind the scenes to slow--
essentially deployment of charging infrastructure. What are you
seeing, and what are the specific concerns you have that we
should be watching for? Because if, in fact, for all the
reasons, whether consumer driven or environmental driven, you
know, the reasons you mentioned, if we know we're going to need
that charging infrastructure, what are the barriers that you
see that we should be thinking about, even beyond the scope of
this Committee, to make sure that we get that charging
infrastructure out there, given that the oil companies seem to
be working hard to prevent it from happening?
Mr. Chen. Yes. I did read that article, and, to be honest,
I was a little bit annoyed by that article, because they
continued to cite a study, I believe it may have been out of
the UK, but that study has been long debunked. It basically was
the conclusion that electric vehicles were less efficient than
gasoline-powered vehicles. And, again, that study has been
thoroughly debunked by scientists.
In answer to your question, I think what the Committee
should be looking out for is the accuracy of this type of
information, and the interests of those who oppose the
deployment of electric vehicles in fostering American
innovation. What are the goals behind that? Why are they really
coming at this angle? As we look toward how we invest American
taxpayer dollars into technology, this Committee needs to make
sure that those dollars are invested wisely, and based on solid
information, and sound science.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I'm out of time, but if you have any
information specifically about the charging infrastructure, of
where we should be looking, I'd very much appreciate it.
Mr. Chen. Absolutely.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Tonko. I get to go ahead of the sitting Chair. Thank
you. Thank you. Wow, I like it here, you know? So thank you,
Madam Chair, and thank you to the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for the expert
testimony that you provide so we can discuss sustainable
transportation. I hope the Federal Government can play a
positive role in moving the research and the field forward.
As I mentioned earlier, I am so proud to represent the
Capital Region of New York, which is home to many innovative
companies, including Plug Power. Plug Power continues to be a
leader in the innovation economy. Last month, indeed, I had the
opportunity to join them in celebrating the partnership amongst
Plug Power, the United States Department of Energy, FedEx, and
Charlotte, and Albany Airport to power highly efficient fuel
cell-powered ground support equipment through a DOE-funded
program, a great feat. So, Tim, congratulations again on that
success.
In your written testimony, you talk about the DOE market
transformation being a key to your success. Can you tell us a
little more about how it was successful, and how it is leading
to additional sustainable transportation technology
developments with project partners?
Mr. Cortes. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, in 2008
we were awarded the program that allowed us to deliver several
hundred fuel cells to customers. At the time it was really good
timing for the program to come to us, because it was at the
point where we were just about to introduce that product to the
marketplace. And what it really did was--it allowed Plug to
seed several units with customers to get them to be able to
have an understanding of the technology, understand how to use
it, understand the value that it brought to them, and their
organization, and their operations, and the ability to actually
take advantage of that in the application to make sure they
understand all of the performance aspects, any safety concerns
that they had, and it really was, you know, a program that
allowed them to do trials, if you will, without having to spend
significant amount of money for infrastructure, and to, you
know, to make a huge commitment on theirs. So it really
provided them the avenue to test the technology, and prove it
in within their own operations.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for that. And what do you think the
DOE could do to better strengthen the partnership with the
industry? How do we make sure that the U.S. keeps our
leadership in hydrogen and fuel cells in the global
marketplace?
Mr. Cortes. That's a really good question. I think the DOE
does a really good job when it comes to the pure R&D, and the
funding for the labs, and the great work that they're doing. I
think some of the areas that could really help with bringing
some of these technologies to market, and driving the growth
with regard to these technologies, both for fuel cells and
hydrogen, is ensuring that there's an appropriate amount of
funding and programs for some advanced demonstrations.
I mean, at some point you have to take the hard work, and
all the findings from the lab that was done, and determine how
do you scale, how do you take it to practice to then be able to
implement it on a commercial standpoint? So there's a chasm
there that exists that would really be good if there was a
certain percentage of the DOE dollars not just for the hard
research and the R&D, but also to be able to bridge those gaps.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Can you speak to the current supply
and demand for hydrogen, and how it affects hydrogen fuel cell
integration into the commercial market?
Mr. Cortes. Yes. So supply of hydrogen, as it relates to
the hydrogen that can be used by fuel cells, has been very flat
over several years, and the demand that we've seen, both from
our marketplace, as well as light-duty retail vehicles, has
really started to go up. So the concern that we have is at some
point that demand is going to, if things aren't done
differently, outstrip some of the supply. And what that does is
it creates a scenario for the application and the market to be
very concerned about, if I'm going to go and invest in these
technologies, and I'm going to spend money, what's going to
happen if I don't have that supply of hydrogen to be able to
continue to use my products?
It's like--when you and I go buy a car, we don't worry
about, you know, where the gasoline's going to come from. It's
ubiquitous, it's everywhere, and so it's not a care for us. But
if you're worried about supply, and it's not readily available,
it makes you think twice, and then the adoption rate then
becomes a difficult factor.
Mr. Tonko. And you state in your testimony that Plug Power
participates on the Hydrogen Council, a global hydrogen fuel
initiative, which estimates that hydrogen could help cute
global CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent by
2050. Can you just explain quickly how hydrogen fuel technology
adaptation could help achieve this goal?
Mr. Cortes. Yes, absolutely. So, you know, a byproduct of
fuel cells is basically electricity, but there's also a small
amount of heat and water. There's no emissions, so it's not
like a combustion engine that's putting out emissions. And if
you couple that with fuel from hydrogen that could be generated
from hydroelectric, wind, solar, then you've got, you know, a
clean source of hydrogen going into the unit, and you've got a
generation of electricity powering equipment with no emissions
and no byproducts.
Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, you
have been generous. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. And the Chair would now like to recognize
herself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Chen, in your testimony, you specifically mention rare
earth minerals. My colleague, Mr. McNerney, also talked about
this in his questioning to you as an area where battery
technology developers in the United States are sort of at the
mercy of China, and an example of how foreign dominance is an
impediment to the development of electric vehicle technology.
In addition to the availability of rare earth minerals, and
potentially dovetailing from some of the line of questioning
that my colleague, Mr. Tonko, was asking of Mr. Cortes, what
are some of the other long-term impediments you see to electric
vehicle adoption in the U.S. market?
Mr. Chen. Thank you for the question. That's actually a
pretty broad question, and I would have a long laundry list of
things that could certainly hamper deployment of electric
vehicles. I think I have to go back and look at the demand side
of this, and say that there are still concerns amongst
consumers about understanding electric vehicles. The cost, the
charging infrastructure, the maintenance requirements. I really
think a lot of the impediment is education to the public and
the infrastructure.
Ms. Stevens. So why does a company like yours exist?
Mr. Chen. Well, without trying to sound glib, I mean, it's
simply the right thing to do. A company like Rivian exists
because our founder, and every member of our company, believes
in this technology, in the fact that, you know, our mission is
to or allow the world to continue to be adventurous. It does
not make sense to go out into these pristine areas of the world
and do so in a vehicle that is spewing criteria pollutants and
creating greenhouse gas emissions. So, quite simply, we believe
humanity should be out there and enjoying the world, and
everything it has to offer, but minimizing that footprint as
much as possible.
Ms. Stevens. Well, and certainly others agree with you,
given the continued investments being made from outside
investors in your company. I am so delighted that you're
located in Plymouth, in the old Boroughs plant, and it is
certainly an exciting and vibrant atmosphere that I think is
speaking to the demand that exists not only here in the United
States, but around the world.
And, I was wondering, could you shed any light in terms of
some of the global competitiveness that you see that we have
here in the United States, as compared to countries who maybe
are making some more prominent and pronounced investments in
electric vehicle technology, and where does that leave our
consumer base, versus what we're seeing internationally?
Mr. Chen. Sure. So, as you mentioned accurately, there is a
high demand for our products. We've had several events where
we've had folks come out and see the vehicles, and generate a
lot of excitement and a lot of buzz. That all said, I think the
United States has a long way to go still on electric vehicle
technology investment. What was mentioned earlier in my
testimony, and through a line of questionings, about other
countries, China in particular was mentioned as investing $60
billion a year into electric vehicles not just to seed the
market, but for manufacturing and technology. So I certainly
think there is a role for the U.S. Government to play in
investment, and certainly looking at how to foster this
technology.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And, with that, I'd love for our labs to
chime in here as well, and maybe talk a little bit more, in
addition to what was so pronounced in your testimony, but how
you see yourself interacting with companies like Rivian, and
the technology demand today, and in the future, and what would
be required of us to continue to support you and your lab
efforts? Ms. Schlenker, if you would like to start, we'd love
to hear from you.
Ms. Schlenker. So as we think about electric vehicles, and
of course, the infrastructure has to come along with it, but
it's really a dance, where you have to have good utilization of
that infrastructure at the same time the market is there for
the consumer pull of the vehicle. And lots of different models
available now in electric vehicles. It's wonderful to satisfy
that market, but really addressing some of those infrastructure
challenges still. Everything from faster charging, as I talked
about, medium duty, heavy duty at a megawatt. We are seeing
successes with mass transit buses now, when you stop to think
about the big 40 passenger bus, and they're being electrified.
Chicago, New York, many other cities as well. That's a real
win, where all of a sudden that technology is cost competitive
to what previously was a natural gas or other biofuel vehicle.
Dr. Daniel. Yes, thank you for the question on that. I'm
actually really excited to hear about some of the anxieties
about the rare earth materials because I believe we can provide
technical solutions on there, that maybe those might not be
needed as much as they currently are in the future anymore.
So, as an example, we have developed motor technology in
the National Labs system at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with
ferrite magnets in them. They don't need rare earth materials
in them. Those are potential solutions. In order to solve some
of the problems of rare earth supply, some of those issues in
the United States is that waste processing is a big problem. So
if you mine neodymium, for example, 90 percent of what comes
out of that mine is cerium. We have developed a use for cerium
in a new alloy which can be utilized, and, therefore, with the
potential application of that waste product, the cost of
providing neodymium has the opportunity to drop.
And my last comment on that is we're working with two other
National Laboratories together in an electric drive
technologies consortium, where we have the goal by 2025 to
reduce the combined size of the power electronics and electric
machinery component for an electric vehicle, to reduce that by
a factor of eight compared to what's currently in vehicles in
there. All of those technology developments will have a
dramatic positive impact.
Ms. Stevens. And, with that, I yield back the remainder of
my time, and would maybe like to pass this over to our--OK.
Well, we'll say this, that this hearing is absolutely
essential, and we thank our partners from the labs who have
joined as members of the audience today, and we also thank our
industry partners, as well as our consortium partners in a
topic that is most assuredly going to continue to evolve and
capture the imagination of our country.
And in regions like where I represent, I think the big
question around the moon shot for the next 50 years is couched
within our ability to get to electric vehicles, and get to zero
emissions, and how we do that, and why we do that, continues to
drive us forward. So know that the history of today's hearing,
the great leadership that we have from Chairman Lamb, and the
incredible colleagues that I have the privilege of serving on
this Committee with will continue to carry the ball forward,
and develop legislation that will advance the work of our labs,
and assist the charge to bring electric vehicles, and the
infrastructure, to proliferate them into the marketplace as
part of our legislative portfolio. So thank you all so much for
being here.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members, or for any additional questions that
Committee Members may have of the witnesses. At this time the
witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]