[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: CLEANING UP
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, PROTECTING COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 16, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-682 WASHINGTON : 2019
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Ranking
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Member
JULIA BROWNLEY, California MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
----------
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisishouse.gov
C O N T E N T S
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement.............................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement.............................................. 4
WITNESSES
Angelo Logan, Campaign Director, Moving Forward Network
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All
Oral Statement................................................ 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Ryan Popple, President, Proterra, Inc.
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Tony Satterthwaite, President-Distribution Business, Cummins,
Inc.
Oral Statement................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
CALSTART Policy Initiative Paper, submitted for the record by
Hon. Garret Graves............................................. 31
Report, Leveraging the DOE Loan Program, submitted for the record
by Hon. Sean Casten............................................ 49
Article from E&E News, ``CO2 Emissions Reached an All-Time High
in 2018,'' submitted for the record by Hon. Jared Huffman...... 50
Report, Final US Emissions Estimates for 2018, submitted for the
record by Hon. Jared Huffman................................... 50
Graph from US Energy Information Administration, ``Annual changes
in U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (2010-2019),''
submitted for the record by Hon. Garret Graves................. 55
Article from E&E News, ``2019 Power-Sector Trends Point to a
Continued Rise in U.S. Emissions,'' submitted for the record by
Hon. Jared Huffman............................................. 55
APPENDIX
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Angelo Logan.. 59
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Angelo Logan. 60
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Michelle
Romero......................................................... 62
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Michelle
Romero......................................................... 65
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Ryan Popple... 67
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Ryan Popple.. 69
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Tony
Satterthwaite.................................................. 70
Question for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Tony
Satterthwaite.................................................. 71
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: CLEANING UP HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, PROTECTING
COMMUNITIES
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Lujan, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, McEachin, Levin, Casten, Neguse, Graves, Griffith,
Palmer, Carter, Miller, and Armstrong.
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to the ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up
Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities'' hearing of the
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
Before we begin, I wanted to first say that we all share in
a sense of relief for Ranking Member Graves in the aftermath of
Hurricane Barry. We were just talking that thank goodness it
wasn't quite the rain event that they had predicted, and we are
grateful for that--grateful that there wasn't more storm damage
or flooding in New Orleans or Louisiana, because I think they
have had their fair share of disasters.
And as sea levels rise and as communities deal with heavier
rainfall during storms, we are going to have to partner with
our local communities to ensure that they can adapt. We are all
in this together. This Congress and this committee will always
step up to help people who are hurt by disasters. We want to
help communities become more resilient in the face of the
climate crisis.
For example, I visited Rep. McEachin's district last week
in Virginia, and we were very impressed by the work being done
there in the Hampton Roads to Richmond area on resiliency. They
are planning ahead for climate impacts and flooding, and they
had many recommendations for their Federal partners as we adapt
all across the country.
Over the past weeks, our committee has been examining ways
to cut carbon pollution. We focused on the electric power
sector first. And, fortunately, there is progress in the power
sector--so much progress that it is the transportation sector
that is now our largest source of carbon pollution. And in
recent years, it has been growing. More than 90 percent of the
energy used in transportation still comes from fossil fuels.
In the power sector, the ways to cut pollution at power
plants and bring new clean-energy sources onto the grid are
relatively straightforward, but vehicles and industrial
transport are different. Cars, trains, planes, trucks, buses,
and ships all use different technology to move people and
goods.
Today, we are focusing on heavy-duty trucks and buses in
particular. There are two big reasons that we want to start
here.
First, low-income communities and communities of color are
hit hard by air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. That is
because of the ongoing repercussions of historic racial
discriminatory practices like redlining. The neighborhoods
surrounding polluting facilities, including ports and busy
highways, they aren't rich. They are home to working people and
people of color. And air pollution from these facilities causes
asthma, lung cancer, and other ailments. And it is a big reason
why the ZIP Code you were born in has such a powerful effect on
your health.
Moving heavy-duty transportation to cleaner technologies
can help address these ongoing inequities and can improve
people's health and help us tackle the climate crisis.
Second, Congress can play a very important role in
deploying cleaner trucks and buses. Congress can fund State and
local initiatives to secure clean technology, and we can create
new tax incentives for innovative technologies. Federal
research and development can also bring new engine technology
from the lab to the marketplace.
California is currently leading the charge to reduce carbon
pollution at its many ports and along highways. Three of our
witnesses here today are from California, and they will be able
to describe this policy leadership in detail.
For instance, when ships make it to the largest ports in
California, they have to tap into shore-side power instead of
running their engines. I saw some of this in action when I
visited Congresswoman Brownley's district. We went to Port
Hueneme a couple months ago. They call themselves the greenest
port, and we were impressed. And we have to replicate this now
across the country. The aim is to save money on shipping as
well as cutting dangerous air pollution.
Ports are also the testbed for heavy-duty truck technology,
so the State is funding demonstration projects for zero-
emission trucks that move goods from ships, and they are
committed to transitioning public transit buses to zero
emissions by 2040.
Additionally, we know that children are particularly
susceptible to air pollution. In fact, students are exposed to
more diesel exhaust inside a school bus than drivers in the
cars behind those buses. So California is funding zero-emission
school buses, which is something I think we should all be
interested in, given the importance of protecting children's
health.
Finally, we are not the only country working on this
technology. We are in a race with India, with China, with
Europe. But with American ingenuity, we can grow our economy,
protect our health, and fight the climate crisis. I think this
is a very exciting topic because we know that America can lead
the world with well-paying jobs as we transition to clean
energy.
At this time, I am happy to recognize Ranking Member Graves
for an opening statement.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
__________
Opening Statement (As Prepared for Delivery)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Chair
U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
Protecting Communities
July 16, 2019
Good morning and thank you for joining us. Before we begin, I'd
like to say that we all share the sense of relief for Ranking Member
Graves and his Louisiana community that the tropical storm did not
cause more flooding or serious damage. New Orleans and Louisiana have
had more than their fair share. As sea levels rise and as communities
deal with heavier rainfall during storms, we must partner with local
communities to ensure they can adapt.
We are all in this together. This Congress and this committee will
always step up to help people who are hurt by disasters. We want to
help communities become more resilient in the face of the climate
crisis. For example, I visited Rep. McEachin's district last week in
Virginia. We were impressed by the work being done at the local level
to plan ahead for climate impacts and flooding, and they had many
recommendations for us as they adapt.
Over the past several weeks, our committee has been examining ways
to cut carbon pollution from the electric power sector. Fortunately,
there is progress in the power generation sector, so much progress that
the transportation sector is now our largest source of carbon
pollution. And in recent years, it has been growing. More than 90% of
the energy used in transportation still comes from fossil fuels. In the
power sector, the ways to cut pollution at power plants and bring new
clean energy sources onto the grid are relatively straightforward. But
vehicles and industrial transport are different--cars, trains, planes,
trucks, buses and ships all use different technology to move people and
goods.
Today, we're focusing on heavy-duty trucks and buses in particular.
There are two big reasons we want to start here.
First, low-income communities and communities of color are hit hard
by air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. That's because of the
ongoing repercussions of the historical, racially discriminatory
practice of redlining. The neighborhoods surrounding polluting
facilities, including ports and busy highways, aren't rich. They're
home to working people and people of color. Air pollution from these
facilities causes asthma, lung cancer and other ailments. And it's a
big reason that the zip code you were born in has such a powerful
effect on your health.
Moving heavy-duty transportation to cleaner technologies can help
address these ongoing inequities, improve people's health, and tackle
the climate crisis.
Second, Congress can play an important role in deploying cleaner
trucks and buses. Congress can fund state and local initiatives to
secure clean technology and we can create new tax incentives for
innovative technologies. Federal research and development can also
bring new engine technology from the lab to the marketplace.
California is currently leading the charge to reduce pollution at
its many ports and along highways. Three of our witnesses are based in
California and will be able to describe this policy leadership in
detail. For instance, when ships make it to the largest ports in
California, they have to tap into shoreside power instead of running
their engines. I saw some of this in action at Port Hueneme in
Congresswoman Brownley's district a couple months ago.
The aim is to save money on shipping as well as to cut dangerous
air pollution. Ports are also a test bed for heavy-duty truck
technology, so the state is funding demonstration projects for zero-
emission trucks that move goods from ships. And they're committed to
transitioning public transit buses to zero emissions by 2040.
Additionally, we know that children are especially susceptible to
air pollution. In fact, students are exposed to more diesel exhaust
inside a school bus than the drivers in the cars behind the buses. So
California is funding zero-emission school buses, which is something I
think we should all be interested in given the importance of protecting
children's health.
Finally, we're not on the only country working on this technology.
We're in a race with India, China and Europe. But with American
ingenuity, we can grow our economy, protect our health and fight the
climate crisis. It's an exciting topic because you just know that
American can lead the world with well-paying jobs as we transition to
clean energy.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate you
holding this hearing.
And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
I am looking forward to the opportunity today to talk a bit
about opportunities before us--opportunities to reduce energy
costs for American citizens, opportunities to diversify energy
opportunities for Americans, opportunities to help ensure that
we have a clean environment to pass on to our children and
generations to come, just better understanding of what
opportunities are before us, understanding the state of
technology, understanding where we are from a technological
capacity perspective to be able to transition into some of
these opportunities that perhaps are there for us to produce
these cleaner-fuel vehicles, to produce vehicles that perform
better, to produce vehicles that reduce energy costs for
consumers.
What are the obstacles? What are the obstacles to
technology? The chair and I had a meeting recently where we
discussed the fact that current conventional fuels, in some
cases, have 30 times the energy density as other renewable
technologies or battery storage technologies.
So understanding how do we bridge that gap, what are the
technological hurdles, and how can we better ensure that our
Climate Change Technology Program that is run through the
Department of Energy, including various Federal agencies, is
focused on the right problems to ensure that we can address the
solutions.
What are the consequences to our actions as we transition?
As I have mentioned several times, my home State of Louisiana,
we have the lowest electricity cost in the United States,
nearly 9 cents a kilowatt hour in Louisiana, the lowest cost.
How do we continue to transition to this broader portfolio
without adversely affecting those that would be impacted the
most, the poor in our community?
In that same meeting where we discussed the density of some
conventional fuels, some of the experts that we met with
indicated that we perhaps are decades away--decades away from
having the battery storage capacity for heavy-duty and long-
haul trucks and boats and things along those lines. So I am
interested in hearing your perspective on where we are with
battery storage technology.
I know, Mr. Popple, you all have made tremendous progress
in the range of some of the buses that you have produced in
recent years, and it really is impressive. But how do we
continue building upon those types of successes and wins and,
as the chair noted, ensuring that we do this in a manner where
America wins?
We had hearings in the Transportation Committee, where I
also serve, where BYD, a Chinese bus manufacturer, was coming
in--and it appears to be a state-owned enterprise--coming in
and knocking out domestic bus manufacturers and being
subsidized by the Chinese Government, coming in and assembling
buses in California, in some of our own communities, only to
undercut price, knock out domestic production of those same
types of vehicles, therefore giving China an advantage. And
ensuring that American companies, that American laborers have
an opportunity to continue to work in this space.
Clearly, there are opportunities before us. I am looking
forward to hearing from each of you where those opportunities
are for win-win-wins, where we can have an opportunity to lower
costs for Americans, where we have an opportunity to provide
more opportunities for energy sources for Americans, and, of
course, opportunities to ensure that we have a clean
environment for generations to come.
So thanks again to all of you for being here. I am looking
forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Without objection, members have 5 legislative days, 5
business days, to enter an opening statement into the record.
Ms. Castor. And now I would like to turn to introductions
of our terrific panel today.
Angelo Logan is campaign director for the Moving Forward
Network. Mr. Logan is the co-founder of East Yard Communities
for Environmental Justice and serves on several organizations
working to protect community health, including the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Environmental Justice Advisory
Group, the I-710 Corridor Advisory Committees, and the Southern
California Association of Governments' Goods Movement Task
Force, among others.
Michelle Romero is the national director of Green For All,
which seeks to build an inclusive green economy strong enough
to lift people out of poverty. Prior to joining Green For All,
Ms. Romero worked with the University of California president,
Janet Napolitano, who she advised on issues at the intersection
of politics, policy, and communications. She also spent 5 years
leading the Claiming Our Democracy Program at The Greenlining
Institute.
Ryan Popple is the president and CEO of Proterra, which
manufactures zero-emission battery-electric buses. Prior to
Proterra, Mr. Popple was a partner at Kleiner Perkins. He also
served as a senior director of finance at Tesla, focusing on
strategic planning and technology cost reduction.
And Tony Satterthwaite is a vice president at Cummins,
Inc., and president of Cummins Distribution Business. Prior to
his current role, Mr. Satterthwaite led Cummins Power
Generation from 2008 to 2015. He has worked at Cummins since
1988.
Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
be made part of the record.
With that, Mr. Logan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ANGELO LOGAN, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, MOVING FORWARD
NETWORK; MICHELLE ROMERO, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, GREEN FOR ALL;
RYAN POPPLE, PRESIDENT, PROTERRA, INC.; AND TONY SATTERTHWAITE,
PRESIDENT, DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS, CUMMINS, INC.
STATEMENT OF ANGELO LOGAN
Mr. Logan. Good morning, Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
here today to testify before you.
My name is Angelo Logan, and I am with the Moving Forward
Network, a network of 50 organizations across the country that
coalesce to fight for environmental justice and climate justice
in and around freight communities, such as ports, rail yards,
logistics centers, from Seattle to Savannah, from Mobile to
Detroit.
The freight transportation system, otherwise known as goods
movement, is a system which moves our products from point of
manufacturing to point of consumption. It is the trucks, the
trains, the ships, the cargo handling equipment that moves our
goods from places like Southeast Asia to the Home Depots across
the country.
This system--again, the trucks, trains, ships, cargo
handling equipment--predominantly is moved by diesel power.
Diesel power or diesel-powered engines produce diesel exhaust.
Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen and a climate pollutant.
The freight system itself contributes approximately 3
billion tons of CO2 worldwide annually. Also, the freight
transportation sector accounts for roughly 9 percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and, again, is a major climate
pollutant.
To top that off, the freight sector is predominantly in
communities of color, working-class, working-poor communities
of color. To give you an example of how that impacts folks,
African Americans are at risk about three times their
proportion of the U.S. population, and Latinos, about two times
their proportion.
As an example, the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the
communities that I live in, are the number-one source of air
pollution in the region that is arguably the most polluted
region in the country.
With that said, the communities have come together along
with the local jurisdictions to really advance a cleaner action
plan and actually get the mayors of Long Beach and Los Angeles
to commit to a 100-percent zero-emission port complex by 2035.
They have seen, with the local community and local
jurisdictions, that resolving this issue of both the
environmental justice and climate crisis can be a win-win both
in manufacturing, both in moving goods, both in reducing
climate impacts and resolving environmental injustice.
With that said, I would like to urge you all to include in
your report the following actions:
First, protect the Clean Air Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act throughout all legislative actions.
Oppose all provisions to any infrastructure bill or surface
transportation reauthorization bill. Weakening the Clean Air
Act and NEPA would hinder our ability to address climate
change.
Second, develop and adopt policy principles for climate
legislation that advance climate justice, environmental
justice, community self-determination, and local solutions.
Develop a process and policy principles for climate legislation
in conjunction with environmental justice groups, similar to
that of the House Committee on Natural Resources spearheaded by
Chairman Grijalva and Representative McEachin.
Also, provide EPA with the tools and resources needed to
meet its mission and play a role in resolving the climate
crisis. Appropriation funds can be made to Environmental
Justice grants to frontline communities so that they have the
resources to promote local solutions and address the climate
crisis as they become more resilient. Also add in more
resources to the DERA program, focusing predominantly on zero-
emission technologies.
Also with that, you should hold EPA accountable in meeting
their mission and their legal requirements under the Clean Air
Act by holding hearings and holding them to task, specifically
for advancing national standards for heavy-duty trucks, ocean-
going vessels, and national standards for locomotives.
And with that, I wanted to just say that the Moving Forward
Network looks forward to engaging with you all in the future,
and we are here to serve you. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Logan follows:]
----------
Testimony of Angelo Logan
Moving Forward Network
Before the United States House
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
Protecting Communities''
July 16, 2019
Good morning Chair Castor and members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Angelo Logan
and I am with the Moving Forward Network. The Moving Forward Network is
a national coalition of over 50 member organizations including
community-based groups, national environmental organizations, and
academic institutions, in over 20 major U.S. cities, representing over
2 million members, committed to resolving the public health harms
created by our country's freight transportation system and achieving
environmental justice and climate justice. Importantly, Network members
include individuals who live in and work directly with frontline
communities.
Freight transportation otherwise referred to as goods movement is a
complex system that weaves seaports, freight corridors, rail yards,
intermodal facilities, inland ports and logistic centers. Ultimately
goods movement is a transportation system that brings materials and
goods from the places of origin to the places of consumption, from
factories in Southeast Asia to Home Depots across the US. It is the
trucks, trains, ships and cargo-handling equipment that transport the
things we buy that are produced across the globe.
The freight system relies predominately on diesel-powered
equipment, which produces diesel exhaust made up of toxins and climate
pollutants. Diesel exhaust creates CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Freight
transport worldwide contributes approximately 3 billion tons of CO2.
Black carbon is also a result of diesel exhaust. Black carbon is a fine
particulate matter and short-lived climate pollutant that has very high
global warming potential--some estimate over 600 times higher than CO2.
The freight transportation sector accounts for roughly 9% of US
greenhouse gas emissions and in the next couple of decades, it is
expected that ocean going vessels alone will account for about 17% of
all man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
I'd like to give you a sense of who is hit first and worst when we
talk about the climate crisis and freight transport. For example, 13
million people live near major marine ports and rail yards, these
communities are disproportionately low-income communities of color and
have increased health risks from climate change impacts and the toxic
air pollution this industry is responsible for. Epidemiologic studies
have consistently demonstrated that children and adults living in close
proximity to freight transportation sources have poorer health
outcomes, including but not limited to: asthma, poor lung development,
and other respiratory diseases; cardiovascular disease; lung cancer;
pre-term births and infants with low birth weight; and premature death.
Affected by freight transportation, African Americans are a high-risk
population that is 3 times their proportion of the U.S. population and
Latinos made up two times their proportion. All this to say, freight
transport poses a huge climate crisis for the planet and for the local
environmental justice communities that have been dealing with the
impacts of the air pollution that is causing the climate crisis.
To that end I would like to urge you to take the following actions:
protect the clean air act and the national environmental policy act
throughout all legislative actions
Oppose all provisions to any Infrastructure Bill or Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Bill that would endanger public health
by weakening the Clean Air Act and/or the National Environmental Policy
Act hindering the ability to address climate change. As you intend to
invest in the public's best interest, do not allow those investments to
fund projects that will feed the climate crisis. Invest in projects
that will be part of the solution to the climate crisis and require the
advancement of a true zero emission future. Specifically, providing
exemptions of the CAA or the NEPA process to major infrastructure
projects, including proposed federal highway projects, channel
deepening projects, bridge raising projects, and terminal expansion
projects will exempt the opportunities for mitigation, and transparency
in these processes, especially where such projects will adversely
affect communities already disproportionately impacted by freight and
other industrial sources. When NEPA is included in all infrastructure
and transportation projects we can ensure that air pollution and
climate change impacts are accurately identified, and alternative
solutions can be developed and deployed.
develop and adopt policy principles for climate legislation that
advance climate justice, environmental justice, communities' self-
determination and local solutions
To truly address the climate crisis, we must reduce and eliminate
air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at their source, locally in
communities that have been disproportionally burdened with toxic
exposure for decades and are now the most vulnerable to climate
impacts. Frontline communities have the real expertise and true
solutions that will solve the climate crisis. Therefore, the process
for developing any solution or strategy is paramount. The Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis must develop a process and policy
principles for climate legislation similar to the House Committee on
Natural Resources.
On June 26th, Chairman Grijalva and Rep. McEachin hosted a
Congressional Convening on Environmental Justice where they presented
the committee's draft statement of policy principles for environmental
justice legislation. These principles are a result of a several month
process that the committee facilitated an Environmental Justice Working
Group.
provide epa with the tools and resources needed to meet its mission and
play a role in solving the climate crisis.
Congress can enact statutes authorizing federal agencies to award
grants and impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of federal
assistance funds. EPA must have the resources it needs to protect
families and communities from the threat of air pollution and the
climate crisis. Congress must appropriate a substantial increase of
funds to the EPA, both DERA and the Environmental Justice grants
program.
The Environmental Justice Grants Programs support communities
working on solutions to environmental and public health issues. The
programs are designed to help communities address exposure to multiple
environmental harms and risks. When appropriating funds Congress can
impose conditions and uses of those funds. It is without a doubt that
frontline communities across the country, both in freight impacted
areas and otherwise need more resources to promote local solutions to
address the climate crisis as well as becoming more resilient in the
face of climate change impacts that they will face first and worst.
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) authorizes grants to
eligible entities for projects that reduce emissions from existing
diesel engines. The statute authorizes up to $100 million annually and
allows for new funding mechanisms, including rebates. This amount of
funds is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the number of heavy-duty
vehicles that need to transition to zero emission in the near term.
Incentive funding strategies targeting the freight sector need to be
developed. While EPA has granted subsidies under DERA to reduce freight
emissions, EPA must develop a more targeted strategy for awarding these
funds. Funds for demonstration projects should target zero-emission
technologies. Technologies that rely on combustion of fossil fuels
should not benefit from these funds because they are already capable of
achieving much lower standards and will not achieve the
transformational change that is required at our freight facilities.
Furthermore, funding should be targeted to applicants that meet strict
criteria, including, for example, ports with facility-specific
emissions inventories that meet meaningful health risk and emission
reduction goals.
To the extent funding is meant to accelerate the deployment of
technologies that have already been demonstrated, these funding
programs should be coupled with regulatory requirements to incentivize
early compliance. This combination of regulatory requirements with
incentives for early compliance will help the commercialization of
technology by providing clear market signals to manufacturers. Without
the regulatory component, funding will be inadequate to spur the
investment required to take technologies beyond the demonstration
phase.
hold epa accountable to meeting its mission and legal requirements
under the clean air act. epa must adopt regulations to reduce and
eliminate emissions from the freight sector
Require to the full extent of your authority that EPA take action
to address freight pollution. The committee should require timelines,
progress reporting and hold regular hearings on the progress of EPA in
meeting its legal requirements under the Clean Air Act. It is critical
that Congress do everything in their power to hold EPA accountable.
Specifically, Congress should require EPA to adopt regulations to
reduce and eliminate emissions from the freight sector.
The devastating impacts of freight operations require elevation
within EPA. In 2009, EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) provided 41 recommendations for EPA action. To date,
however, EPA has failed to adopt a targeted strategy for reducing
emissions from the freight sector to the degree necessary to protect
public health and climate change. As a result, the health crises in
these communities persist and threaten to get worse with increasing
freight activity.
EPA must identify reducing freight-related air pollution as a top
priority for the Agency. Tackling such pollution will further the
Agency's air quality, climate and environmental justice goals. EPA must
adopt new national standards for freight-related sources and provide
more guidance to states with freight-related activities in areas that
violate national air quality standards and/or produce localized health
risks.
EPA must prioritize promulgation of the next generation of national
emission standards for freight-related sources. The following national
rules should be prioritized within EPA:
National Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks. EPA's
should advance the proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards
for heavy-duty trucks encouraging the adoption of incentives
for advanced zero-emission technologies and addressing
particulate emissions from auxiliary power units.
New Standards for Ocean Going Vessels. EPA should
pursue a next generation of NOx and particulate matter
standards. Foreseeable technologies and more general engine
efficiency improvements hold the potential to reduce NOx
emissions by another 90 percent below current standards.
National Standards for Locomotive Engines. EPA
should also adopt Tier 5 standards for new locomotive engines.
Technologies can achieve significantly lower NOx and PM limits.
Moreover, technologies now exist to enable zero-emission track
miles. The next generation of standards should reflect the
feasibility of these technologies and incentivize development
and deployment of advanced zero-emission technologies.
This list of proposed actions is not absolute or complete. As
mentioned above the community engagement process of developing
solutions and strategies is paramount. To that end, we encourage the
committee's continued engagement with the Moving Forward Network.
Sincerely,
Angelo Logan,
Moving Forward Network.
moving forward network members
1. Air Alliance Houston
2. Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities-SL
3. California Cleaner Freight Coalition
4. Charleston Community Research to Action Board (CCRAB)
5. Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
6. Central California Environmental Justice Network
7. Central Valley Air Quality Coalition
8. Citizens for a Sustainable Future, Inc.
9. Clean Air Council
10. Clean Water Action, Clean Water Fund
11. Coalition for Healthy Ports (NYNJ)
12. Coalition for a Safe Environment
13. Coalition for Clean Air
14. Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
15. Diesel Health Project, Inc.
16. Earthjustice
17. East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
18. End Oil, Inc.
19. Environmental Health Coalition
20. Environmental Integrity Project
21. Global Community Monitor
22. Georgia Research Environmental Economic Network (GREEN) Inc.
23. Harambee House, Inc.
24. Ironbound Community Corporation
25. Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma
26. Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of
Public Health
27. National Nurses United
28. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
29. New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
30. Puget Sound Sage
31. Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP)
32. Respiratory Health Association
33. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
34. Rutgers University School of Management & Labor
35. Southwest Detroit Community Benefits Coalition/Southwest
Detroit Environmental Vision
36. Steps Coalition
37. Sunflower Alliance
38. Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS)
39. The Center for the Urban Environment, Thomas Edison College
40. THE NEW SCHOOL
41. Union of Concerned Scientists
42. University of Southern California
43. University of Texas Medical Branch / Sealy Center for
Environmental Health and Medicine
44. West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Logan.
Ms. Romero, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE ROMERO
Ms. Romero. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to present solutions today.
My name is Michelle Romero, and I am the national director
of Green For All, a nonprofit program that was founded by Van
Jones more than a decade ago to build an inclusive green
economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We are
known for our advocacy on behalf of green jobs and policy
solutions that put people to work building a more sustainable
future.
Earlier this year, Green For All, in partnership with Clean
Energy Works, the Chispa League of Conservation Voters, and
Mothers Out Front, launched a campaign called Fuel Change to
tackle the transportation-sector emissions that are in our
communities and accelerate the transition to a zero-emission
future together. We are mobilizing people and resources around
the country to bring clean cars, trucks, and buses to the
communities who need it most--low-income communities and
communities of color overburdened by pollution.
And, this year, we are focusing our attention on school
buses. Twenty-five million children in the U.S. ride a bus on
their way to get an education. More than two-thirds of our
Nation's bus fleets are actually school buses, and 90 percent
of those are run on diesel.
We know all of the research, right? Diesel- and gasoline-
powered vehicles lead to asthma, cancer, decreased lung
function, even cognitive issues like problems focusing. It is
hard to learn if you can't breathe. Childhood asthma affects
millions of children nationwide, predominantly kids of color,
and is a top reason for missed school days. But when asthma
strikes, it isn't just the children who are missing school.
Caregivers and families spend hundreds of dollars in healthcare
costs and have to miss work as well.
And this is completely preventable. New technology exists
that does not cause these problems. We ask the committee to put
our kids on buses going forward to a clean-energy future. The
future is electric, and we should be the leader in electric
vehicle manufacturing. Let's give people jobs making smart
batteries and smart buses.
Electric buses have zero tailpipe emissions and are cheaper
to fuel and maintain. Today's electric school buses can travel
up to 155 miles on a single charge.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, electric
buses also have fewer carbon emissions than diesel, natural
gas, and diesel hybrid buses no matter where in the country
they are powered from the electrical grid. That means even the
cleanest of these alternative buses, the diesel hybrid,
generates more than twice as many carbon emissions as an
electric bus, making electric buses the clear winner here.
Electric buses can also provide additional benefits through
grid-connected storage, and with so many positive benefits,
several school districts are already beginning to make this
transition. Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento,
California, where I live, has the largest electric school bus
fleet in the country, with 25 buses. And they are joined by
school districts in Chicago, Massachusetts, New York, and
Minnesota, each of which has electric school buses.
States like Colorado, Nevada, and Maryland have also
advanced policies this year to invest in electric school buses.
And I am here to say, these school districts, to actually
accelerate this for all communities across the country, are
going to need help. Buying an electric bus is still at least
double or can be triple the price of a comparable diesel bus.
And that is why Green For All supports the Clean School Bus
Act, which was introduced by U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and
colleagues, and would encourage the U.S. House of
Representatives to introduce similar legislation. The Clean
School Bus Act invests $1 billion over 5 years for a Clean
School Bus Grant Program that would provide grants of up to $2
million to help school districts replace dirty diesel buses
with clean, electric, zero-emission buses.
And, most importantly, it gives priority to applications
that serve low-income students, helping us replace the most
polluting buses and leveraging other funding to further
decrease pollution.
A Federal program like this would be a huge help. And by
prioritizing public and private investments to electrify the
neighborhoods who need it most, we can ensure a just transition
that gives every child a clean and safe ride to school.
In addition to public funding, we can look at inclusive
financing programs that are helping low-income energy customers
afford the upfront cost of things like building energy
efficiency upgrades and apply a similar model to transportation
through utility-inclusive financing. With public funding and
private financing, we can accelerate this transition.
The only way forward for our country, our children, and our
economy is to have a swift and just transition towards a zero-
emission future.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Romero follows:]
__________
Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All, Oakland, California
Testimony Before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Good morning, and thank you Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves and
members of the Committee for this hearing to discuss Solving the
Climate Crisis: Cleaning up Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting
Communities.
My name is Michelle Romero. I am the National Director of Green For
All, a program of the Dream Corps, where we work to build an inclusive
green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.
We are here today because bold leaders like you are looking for
solutions that can accelerate our path toward a pollution-free, zero-
emission future.
We need to start building this future, and we need to do so
immediately.
In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a
report \1\ indicating that we now have less than eleven years to
significantly reduce our emissions to avoid catastrophic global
consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need solutions that tackle our biggest threats to climate change
and pollution.
Transportation is now the number one source of carbon emissions in
the United States. Fossil-fueled passenger vehicles, heavy duty trucks,
and buses are some of the major sources of this pollution \2\ with an
estimated 150 million Americans living in neighborhoods that don't meet
federal air quality standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-
duty-truck-fuel-efficiency.
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics#air-
pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure we've all, at some point in our lives, driven behind a
truck or bus as it belches out huge clouds of black smoke. These
vehicles represent the oldest, dirtiest, and most harmful buses still
on our roads today. These puffs painted a vivid picture of
transportation pollution, but whether we now see black puffs or not, we
know that tailpipe emissions pump particulate matter, or PM2.5, into
the air we breathe. Particulate matter is a toxic substance so small we
can't see it, but so tiny it easily travels into our bodies as we
breathe and gets deeply embedded into our lungs. It can never be
removed. It simply accumulates until it's so much it affects our lung
function and respiratory system. It is known to cause premature death,
heart disease and lung damage,\4\ with children and the elderly being
the most vulnerable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-
change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I share this to emphasize that tailpipe emissions are both a
climate problem and a public health problem. According to the EPA,
``Air pollution emitted from transportation contributes to smog and
poor air quality, which has negative impacts on the health and welfare
of U.S. citizens.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-
change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing evidence links emissions from diesel and gasoline-powered
vehicles to low birth weight, asthma, cardiovascular illness, and even
cognitive issues like autism and Alzheimer's. In fact, there are now
more premature deaths from traffic-related pollution than traffic-
related accidents.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://ktla.com/2019/04/08/air-pollution-linked-to-more-than-
107000-premature-deaths-in-u-s-in-2011-study/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we don't change our patterns of pollution, our world will
continue to change in front of our eyes--from the wildlife we see to
the air we breathe, our children will be unable to experience a
healthy, safe, or livable environment. And frankly, many children today
already do not have a healthy, safe environment.
While pollution impacts all populations, low-income communities and
people of color are at the highest risk for transportation-related
health conditions.\7\ After decades of unfair housing, lending, highway
planning, and facility siting practices, these communities find
themselves living near busy highways, diesel truck and bus routes,
ports and distribution centers--all major sources of transportation
pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/
2016/4/spotlight/
poor_communities_exposed_to_elevated_air_pollution_levels.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research tells us that African-Americans in the United States are
3-4 times likelier to be hospitalized and die from asthma compared to
Whites.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.reimaginerpe.org/node/306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Latinos are twice as likely to be hospitalized from
asthma.
One mother we met with in Las Vegas, Nevada, Ivon Meneses, shared
with us about her sleepless nights wondering whether this will be the
night her 14-year-old son Jacob will be taken from her, every time she
hears him struggling to breathe. They've already been through multiple
hospitalizations and at least one near-death experience before when
doctors told her he might not make it after having a severe asthma
attack.
Earlier this year, Green For All put out a call to aspiring artists
around the country, to submit lyrics about how transportation pollution
is affecting them or their community. We selected four young people to
feature in our #FuelChange song and music video.
One of the selected artists is Nehemiah Vaughn. Nehemiah is an 18-
year-old African American male who grew up in West Oakland, CA, where
diesel trucks idle through neighborhoods on their way to the port and
is surrounded on all sides by busy freeways and highways to the point
where the neighborhood reeks of the stench of gasoline all day long. In
school, Nehemiah was the captain of his highschool basketball team but
he ended up having to limit his sports activity because of his asthma.
His only other dream was to rap, something he's natural gifted in. Yet,
even the breath control needed to rap is a constant challenge and
something you can actually hear as he raps:
Let me tell you about my story
about how I used to have my dream
but for some reason, I can't speak
and I can't even breathe.
Like Nehemiah, students across the United States face a similar
struggle. Childhood asthma is a serious issue that affects millions \9\
of children nationwide and is the top reason for missed school days. In
2013, about 13.8 million missed school days were reported due to
asthma.\10\ And when an asthma attack strikes, it is not just students
who are affected; caregivers miss work \11\ and families may spend
hundreds of dollars in health care costs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.aafa.org/asthma-facts/.
\10\ https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/missing_days.htm.
\11\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453370.
\12\ https://www.aafa.org/cost-of-asthma-on-society/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must tackle each of these--cars, trucks, and buses--to build a
more sustainable future. This includes major investments including in
transit-oriented development, improving public transportation, and
creating bikeable, walkable communities. However, today I will focus my
remarks and recommendations primarily on school buses.
school buses
More than two-thirds of the nation's bus fleet are school buses.
There are close to half a million school buses in operation \13\ in the
United States, and 90% of those are run on diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2512/
Transportation-School-Busing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With over 55% of K-12 students riding school buses everyday,\14\
children are especially vulnerable to tailpipe pollution--that's over
25 million kids gaining exposure to known toxins and carcinogens that
increase their risk of not only asthma, but cancer and other serious
disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.atu.org/work/school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirty diesel school buses are basically refineries on wheels. As
kids line up alongside the buses waiting to board, the buses spew out
soot and particulate matter, seeping into both the air and our
children's bodies. As soon as our children are on board, the tiny
particles continue to invade their lungs through the windows,
potentially harming the immediate and long-term health of our students.
Kids should not have to grow up this way. Pollution is completely
preventable. New technology exists that does not cause these problems.
That's why Green For All, with its partners Clean Energy Works, the
Chispa League of Conservation Voters, and Mothers Out Front, launched
the #FuelChange campaign, an effort to accelerate the transition to a
clean, zero-emission transportation future, starting in underserved and
pollution-burdened communities.
Let's put our kids on zero-emissions, electric buses that don't rob
them of educational opportunities and the chance to live a healthy,
whole life. Electric buses have zero tailpipe emissions and are cheaper
to fuel and maintain, so school districts would save money by leaving
their diesel buses behind. And the technology has come so far that
today's electric buses can travel a good distance on a single charge.
Blue Bird offers electric school buses that get up to 120 miles, and
Lion has school buses that get up to 155 miles on a single charge.
According to a Union of Concerned Scientists' analysis, electric
buses have fewer carbon emissions than diesel, natural gas, and diesel
hybrid buses no matter where in the country the bus charges from the
electricity grid.\15\ They found that each of these alternative buses
(diesel, natural gas and hybrid diesel) generates more than twice as
many carbon emissions as an electric bus making an all electric zero-
emission bus preferable for addressing both the climate crisis and the
health impacts tailpipe emissions are having on our children and
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/electric-vs-diesel-vs-
natural-gas-which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Electric school buses can also provide additional benefits through
grid-connected storage. School buses are parked and unused most of the
day and during peak months like Summer, when they can offer a solution
to the problem utilities face now of generating more renewable power
than the grid can capture and store for later use.
With so many positive impacts, several school districts are already
implementing this cutting-edge solution.
Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento, California was
the first school district to buy an electric bus, and now has the
largest electric school bus fleet in the country with 25 electric
buses.\16\ The District's own website lists the benefits of these buses
as being:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://www.twinriversusd.org/Students--Families/
Transportation-Services/Electric-Vehicles-/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthier--Clean air for our children, teachers,
parents and neighbors.
Safe--Built and tested with high back seats and
seat-belts.
Cleaner--Zero engine emissions.
Great Performance--Proven in all types of terrain
and weather.
Cost Savings--Electric buses can reduce fueling
costs of a vehicle by over 40%.
Quieter--Electric school buses are much quieter,
allowing drivers better communication with and oversight of
students.
Twin Rivers USD has seen a cost savings of between $8,000 and
$15,000 on energy and maintenance costs.\17\ In these difficult times
for underfunded schools around the country, that is money that can be
put toward the education of our children and retaining high quality
teachers. According to their transportation director Tim Shannon, Twin
Rivers USD has set a goal to transition at least 30% of their fleet in
the next 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/04/electric-school-
bus-fleet-leaving-green-footprint-on-twin-rivers-school-district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Rivers is joined by school districts in Chicago,
Massachusetts, New York, and Minnesota all with electric buses. In
2017, Lakeville, Minnesota became the first Midwest school district to
have an electric bus. Community members say that the bus makes its
rounds so quietly that it plays music when it travels under 15mph so
that children can hear it, one of many state-of-the-art safety features
on the new fleets.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.betterenergy.org/blog/first-electric-school-bus-
comes-minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need school districts across the United States to adopt this
mission and we need your help to make that happen.
For most school districts, the biggest challenge to implementation
is cost. While many schools and transit agencies have the will and the
desire to transition their fleets, the upfront cost is a major
impediment to the transition.
Buying electric is still at least double or triple the price of a
comparable diesel bus, approximately $120,000 more. If we can help
schools overcome the upfront cost, we can accelerate the transition and
reap immediate benefits.
An electric bus is cheaper to fuel and maintain with operating
costs for an electric bus at approximately 19 cents per gallon compared
to 82 cents per gallon for a diesel bus.\19\ Furthermore, as battery
technology improves and the market grows to scale, we'll see much more
competitive pricing in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Government Technology ``Electric Buses Are Not Only Clean but
Less Costly to Run'' https://www.govtech.com/workforce/Electric-Buses-
Are-Not-Only-Clean-but-Less-Costly-to-Run.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to reach the scale our planet needs, and as quickly as we need it, we
will need a combination of funding and financing.
That's why Green For All supports The Clean School Bus Act,
introduced by U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, along with Senators Dianne
Feinstein (CA), Jeff Merkley (OR); Cory Booker (NJ); Tina Smith, (MN);
Bernie Sanders (VT); and Catherine Cortez Masto (NV).
This legislation would help schools serving low-income
neighborhoods make the down payment to go from dirty diesel to zero-
emission electric buses and give kids a clean, safe ride to school.
If passed, The Clean School Bus Act would:
Provide grants of up to $2 million to replace diesel
school buses with electric school buses, invest in charging
infrastructure, and support workforce development
Give priority to applications that serve low-income
students, replace the most polluting buses, and leverage the funding to
further decrease pollution and emission including through partnerships
with local utilities
Authorize $1 billion over five years at the Department of
Energy to fund a Clean School Bus Grant Program to spur increased
adoption of this clean technology.
we encourage the house to introduce similar legislation to the clean
school bus act and support an even larger funding commitment.
A federal program like the one proposed by the Clean School Bus Act
would be a huge help. And by prioritizing public and private funds to
electrify the neighborhoods most in need, we can ensure a just
transition that gives every child has a clean, safe ride to school.
By Clean Energy Works estimates, it would take at least $6 billion
to cover the upfront cost barrier to electrify just 10% of the nation's
school bus fleet over the next 5 years. That's where additional funds
and financing are needed.
We have seen successful green financing programs before. In more
than half a dozen states, inclusive financing programs help low-income
energy customers afford the upfront cost of building energy efficiency
upgrades. If we apply a similar model to public school transportation,
utility investments could help school districts electrify their fleets
more quickly.
In Lakeville, Minnesota, for example, the cost of their electric
bus was provided through a financing partnership between Green River
Energy and Dakota Electric Association--a model we can replicate in
other cities and school districts.
It is time to prioritize the health of our communities and the
health of our planet. School bus electrification will allow for cleaner
air to breathe, and a cleaner world to live in.
The only way forward for our country, and for our children, is a
speedy transition toward a zero-emission future. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Ms. Romero.
Mr. Popple, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN POPPLE
Mr. Popple. Thank you.
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished
members of the select committee, on behalf of Proterra, thank
you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I
applaud your leadership in focusing today on the climate crisis
and on the role that heavy-duty vehicles can play in helping to
solve that crisis.
My name is Ryan Popple, and I am the CEO of Proterra, a
leader in the design and manufacture of zero-emission, heavy-
duty, electric transit buses. We also provide technology
solutions to power other heavy-duty electric applications such
as school buses and over-the-road motorcoaches.
Our vision, one that I am passionate about, is to provide
clean and quiet transportation for all. Our buses are deployed
throughout the United States, heavily in California but
throughout the rest of the 50 States as well. And just as
importantly, those buses are designed, engineered, and
manufactured in the United States.
I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the
urgency of reducing emissions caused by heavy-duty
transportation. I would like to summarize my written testimony
by making the following few points.
First, transportation is a leading contributor to U.S.
carbon emissions. According to the EPA, greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation account for approximately 29
percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It is therefore
critical that we begin to reduce this dangerous level of
transportation pollution.
Second, communities across the United States struggle to
address the harmful effects of air pollution. What makes this
situation worse and troubling is that there are areas,
particularly disadvantaged communities, that bear a
disproportionate share of the air-pollution burden. Exposure to
particulate matter is linked to a range of severe health
issues, including heart, lung, asthma, and upper respiratory
problems.
Third, Proterra electric transit buses that are currently
serving our communities, airports, and universities are already
making a significant difference in addressing these and other
issues. Every time a Proterra electric bus with zero tailpipe
emissions replaces a diesel bus, greenhouse gas emissions are
reduced by approximately 230,000 pounds and noise pollution is
significantly lessened. Our buses have displaced more than 50
million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, and we have helped
transit customers save money on fuel and spare parts.
I applaud this committee's focus on solving the climate
crisis, a topic that we take seriously at Proterra. In order to
improve public health, it is critical that we prioritize
electrifying heavy-duty vehicles in the United States and we
make zero-emission battery-electric technology available to all
U.S. communities.
Electrifying transportation, however, does more than just
clean up the environment and improve public health; it helps
boost the economy by creating good-paying jobs. We employ more
than 500 employees in California and South Carolina, and we
have also helped create jobs indirectly through our supply
base, like our composite suppliers in Iowa who help build the
body of our bus.
We have come a long way in a short period of time. We can
do more with your help. I have detailed several policy
suggestions in my written comments, but I would like to
specifically mention the following three.
Number one, reauthorize the Low-No program and increase
funding. The Federal Transit Administration's Low or No
Emission Program has been responsible for accelerating hundreds
of electric buses, but the funding has been limited. If we are
serious about delivering cleaner mobility solutions to all
communities, we should significantly increase appropriations
for this program in particular and make this a national
priority. We would like to see the FAST Act reauthorized and
the Low-No program reauthorized at higher funding levels.
Number two, we would like to see transit agencies
incentivized to transition to the most efficient forms of bus
technology. Under current funding levels, the Federal
Government will pay up to 85 percent of the cost of a new bus,
which includes buses that run on fossil fuels. We suggest that
Congress prioritize that funding for transit technologies that
are the cleanest and the most efficient to operate.
And, finally, like my colleague, we would encourage you to
implement grant programs for other heavy-duty vehicle sectors.
Senator Kamala Harris and colleagues recently introduced the
Clean School Bus Act to accelerate the electrification of
school bus fleets. This bill authorizes grants of up to $2
million to replace diesel school buses with electric school
buses. We support it and urge Congress to pass it and
appropriate funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I look forward to answering any questions that you have.
[The statement of Mr. Popple follows:]
__________
Ryan Popple, CEO, Proterra
Written Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
Protecting Communities''
July 16, 2019
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Select
Committee, on behalf of Proterra, thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing focused on ``Solving the Climate Crisis:
Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities.''
I am Ryan Popple, CEO of Proterra, a leader in the design and
manufacture of zero-emission, heavy-duty electric transit buses and
technology solutions to power other heavy-duty, electric applications
such as school buses and coach buses. Our vision, one that I am
passionate about, is to provide clean, quiet transportation for all.
Today, Proterra has received more than 700 awards of buses from
communities in 36 states, District of Columbia, and 2 Canadian
provinces, and we have delivered more than 300 Proterra electric buses.
Our buses are deployed in traditional red states and blue states, urban
areas and suburbs, big cities and small communities, and even rural
areas. Proterra products are proudly designed, engineered and
manufactured in the United States and we currently employ more than 500
employees in our three offices in Silicon Valley, Greenville, South
Carolina and Los Angeles.
I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the urgency of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by heavy-duty transportation.
In order to properly address the world's climate crisis and improve
public health it is critical that we prioritize electrifying heavy-duty
vehicles in the United States and make zero-emission, battery-electric
technology available to all U.S. communities. We have begun to achieve
these goals today with American-made, zero-emission heavy-duty public
transit buses and can make significant strides by expanding electric
powertrains into adjacent sectors, such as school buses and over-the-
road motor coaches.
Transportation is widely considered the number one contributor to
U.S. carbon emissions. According to the EPA,\1\ greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation account for approximately 29 percent of
total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor
of U.S. GHG emissions. According to the same report, between 1990 and
2017, GHG emissions in the transportation sector increased, in absolute
terms, more than any other sector. It is critical that we begin to
reduce this dangerous level of transportation pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' United States
Environmental Protection Agency, last updated on 29 April 2019,
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
emissions#transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communities across the United States struggle to address the
harmful effects of air pollution. Exposure to particulate matter is
linked to a range of severe health issues, including premature death
for those suffering from heart or lung disease, heart attacks,
irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms (EPA \2\). According to the American
Lung Association, more than four in 10 people in the United States live
in counties that have unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution,
which is around 141.1 million Americans.\3\ Children and teenagers are
among the most vulnerable populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
(PM).'' United States Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 20
June 2018, www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-
particulate-matter-pm.
\3\ ``State of the Air 2019.'' American Lung Association, 2019,
https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/
sota-2019-full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that there are areas that bear a disproportionate share of
the air pollution burden. Some communities are often exposed to higher
levels of air pollution because they are located near freight centers
and heavily traveled roadways and residents often lack the resources to
relocate. According to a recent Union of Concerned Scientists report
that analyzed air pollution from vehicles in California, on average,
African American, Latino, and Asian Californians are exposed to more
particulate matter pollution from cars, trucks and buses than white
Californians. Further, the lowest-income households in the state live
where particulate matter pollution is 10 percent higher than the state
average, while those with the highest incomes live where particulate
matter pollution is 13 percent below the state average. Not
surprisingly, households earning less than $20,000 a year and people
who don't own cars suffer vehicle pollution levels about 20 percent
higher than the state average.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in
California.'' Union of concerned Scientists, February 2019, https://
www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/CA-air-quality-equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond air pollution, Americans are also suffering from noise
pollution. Constant traffic noise can lead to greater stress, anxiety,
high blood pressure, heart disease, depression and compromised sleep
quantity and quality.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:
Developing an Effective Public Health Response.'' Monica S. Hammer,
Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, 2014. Environmental Health
Perspectives 122:2 CID: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric transit buses serving our communities, airports and
universities are making a significant difference in addressing all of
these issues. Every time a Proterra electric bus with zero tailpipe
emissions replaces a diesel bus, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced
by approximately 230,000 pounds and noise pollution is lessened. To
date, Proterra vehicles in revenue service have displaced more than 49
million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, transit
customers save money on fuel and maintenance.
Vehicle powertrain technology is undergoing a transformational
shift away from the internal combustion engines of the past to battery-
electric technology. In just a few short years we have seen the growth
of electric transit buses globally. In 2017, around 13 percent of the
total global municipal bus fleet was electric.\6\ The United States is
poised to be a global leader in this emerging market, bringing the next
wave of transit innovation directly to communities across the U.S. But
this movement is not just about protecting the environment. It is about
creating good-paying jobs and boosting the clean energy economy.
Electric vehicle technology is creating the manufacturing and
engineering jobs of today and tomorrow, such as electricians, advanced
manufacturing factory workers, EV service and maintenance workers, and
battery technicians. Further innovation by EV companies positively
impacts adjacent industries. For example, Proterra partners with TPI
Composites to manufacture our pioneering composite body for Proterra
transit buses. TPI recently opened a factory in Newton, IA and added
headcount to support the growing demand of electric buses.
Additionally, by investing in battery-electric technology, America will
lessen its dependence on foreign oil and leverage its innovative spirit
to develop clean, green technology that outperforms traditional diesel
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
Lower CO2.'' Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 29 March 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can tell, I am an EV and public transit enthusiast. It is
why I took this job more than 4 years ago. It is critical that we
reduce harmful emissions that are intensifying the world's climate
crisis. We have a viable, market-driven solution that can help drive
change right now and, when deployed at scale, will positively impact
our environment and our public health.
But we could use additional help.
In my opinion, the single biggest accelerant in this space has been
the Federal Transit Administration's Low or No Emission Vehicle Program
(LowNo), which has been responsible for funding hundreds of electric
transit buses. But the funding has been limited. LowNo was funded at
$55M per year in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill,
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. We are grateful
that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have provided
supplemental funding for this program over the last two fiscal years.
If we are serious about delivering cleaner mobility solutions to all
communities, we should significantly increase appropriations for this
program in particular and make this a national priority. Let's ensure
that there is increased funding to enable all Americans to ride in an
emission-free and quiet electric vehicle.
In addition to the above, we respectfully request that this
Committee consider other actions to help all communities transition to
a cleaner mobility future:
I. Surface Transportation Bill Reauthorization. The Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year
2020. We urge Congress to reauthorize the surface transportation bill
and, specifically, reauthorize the LowNo Program at higher amounts due
to increasing demand, thus ensuring that the grant awards are
sufficient for meaningful EV deployments and distributed in diverse
regions throughout the country. This might be the perfect vehicle to
fold in the Green Bus Act, which would require all new buses purchased
with FTA funds be zero-emission beginning on October 1, 2029 and give
preference under the LowNo Program to transit agencies that have
completed full fleet transition plans to zero emission vehicles. Thank
you for your leadership on this initiative Congresswoman Brownley.
II. Comprehensive Infrastructure Bill. We're pleased that both the
Administration and Congress have indicated that infrastructure is a
priority. We call on Congress to put forth a comprehensive
infrastructure bill that includes funding for heavy-duty electric
vehicle fleets and the accompanying EV infrastructure.
III. Incentivize Transit Agencies to Transition to Zero-Emission Buses.
Under current funding levels, the federal government will pay up to 85%
of the cost of a new bus, which include buses that run on fossil fuels.
We suggest that Congress keep the existing federal share for zero-
emission transit buses, but reduce it for diesel (40%), CNG (50%) or
diesel-hybrid buses (60%).
IV. Grant Programs For Other Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Senator Kamala Harris
and colleagues recently introduced the Clean School Bus Act to
accelerate electrification of school bus fleets. The bill authorizes
grants of up to $2 million to replace diesel school buses with electric
school buses, invest in charging infrastructure and support workforce
development. The bill would also give priority to applications that
serve lower-income students, replacing the most polluting buses. We
support it and urge Congress to pass it and appropriate funding.
V. Expansion of the ATVM Loan Program. The Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program is administered by the Department of Energy.
One of its goals is to improve the use of advanced technologies in cars
and components manufactured in the United States. But manufacturers of
heavy-duty vehicles--such as electric public transit buses--are
ineligible to apply for the low-interest loans. My understanding is
that there is approximately $16B remaining in this Program, having
successfully helped companies such as Tesla, Nissan and Ford. Congress
should amend this Program to allow companies like Proterra to be able
to apply for loans that will help them invest in R&D and product
development.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Satterthwaite, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY SATTERTHWAITE
Mr. Satterthwaite. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, members of the select committee, thank you for inviting
me here today and for your interest in clean technologies for
heavy-duty vehicles. My name is Tony Satterthwaite, and I am
the president of the distribution business at Cummins.
Like you, we know climate change is a significant threat to
our world and to our business, and Cummins has always been
committed to improving technology in our industry. Today, I
would like to tell you a bit about that journey as well as what
we think may be possible in the future.
First, let me tell you about Cummins. We are a 100-year-old
company founded and headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. And in
those 100 years, we have become the largest independent
producer of both diesel engines and diverse power solutions in
the world. In the United States, we have approximately 27,000
employees, and we have manufacturing facilities in 9 States.
Because I have the opportunity to work with our customers
every day, I see firsthand the challenges they face. Most of
our customers buy heavy-duty vehicles for commercial return. A
truck owner needs to be able to purchase a vehicle that is
capable of doing the job required, has low operating costs, and
can be purchased for a price that allows the truck owner to
still make a profit at whatever work he or she is doing.
Cummins doesn't make vehicles, but our engines and
components are in many of the trucks you see on the road in a
wide range of applications, including trucks and buses of all
sizes. This is also another thing that makes the commercial
vehicle sector unique: It is not one market. It is lots of
markets with customers who need vehicles to do a wide variety
of jobs. What is right for one customer won't necessarily be
right for the next customer.
Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Cummins has
been on a journey to reduce emissions from diesel engines. More
than 30 years ago, we developed solutions that enable us to
meet standards that reduce particulate emissions in the diesel
engine by 90 percent and NOx by 95 percent while improving fuel
efficiency. In fact, it would take 60 of today's clean diesel
trucks to equal the emissions from a single truck sold in 1988.
But even with that progress, we don't believe we are done.
Cummins and other truck and engine manufacturers are currently
working with EPA and the California Air Resources Board about
how much farther we can go to further reduce NOx and
particulate matter.
With respect to climate change, in 2009 Cummins began
working with regulators to determine the best way to establish
fuel efficiency standards for commercial vehicles, because
improving fuel economy is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions
from vehicles. We have always supported those standards, and
truck and engine manufacturers like Cummins and other
stakeholders are hard at work to develop products that meet
these new standards. Department of Energy programs like
SuperTruck are critical to develop the technologies to make
that happen.
Which brings me to where we are today. As we look to the
future of the heavy-duty transportation sector, we don't
believe there will be one technological solution that will meet
all needs. While diesel technology has captured most of the
commercial vehicle market in the past, we see a future where
diesel, natural gas, battery electric, and even fuel cell and
sustainable fuels power our products. How and where they are
applied depends on a variety of factors, including technology
capability, cost, and infrastructure availability. And,
frankly, we don't know which ones will win.
We think clean diesel will remain an important technology
for many of our customers for a long time. This is especially
true for applications that require a lot of power and
reliability. Of the alternatives to diesel, natural gas is the
most mature, reliable solution available today that can reduce
greenhouse gases, NOx, and particulate matter.
Our latest natural gas engine is certified to California
Air Resources Board's Optional Low NOx emissions standard,
which is 90 percent lower than current EPA and CARB 50 State
standards. However, limited fueling infrastructure remains an
important barrier to increased usage in many heavy-duty
applications for natural gas.
Cummins is also invested heavily in our electrified power.
We have committed to investing $500 million and have launched
our first battery-electric powertrain this year in city and
school bus applications.
There are challenges to the adoption of battery
technologies for the heavy-duty transportation sector.
Improvements are needed in energy density, charging time and
infrastructure, and cost. Continued investment by the
Department of Energy can help us solve these issues faster.
In addition to these technologies available today, Cummins
is also investing in a variety of other fuels and technologies,
including fuel cells powered by hydrogen and natural gas and
engines that can run on a variety of sustainable fuels.
Cummins is committed to investing in an energy-diverse
future where our customers have a broad portfolio of power
options so they can choose what works best for them.
Thank you for the great honor and privilege to speak to you
today.
[The statement of Mr. Satterthwaite follows:]
__________
Written Statement of Tony Satterthwaite, Vice President, President--
Distribution Business, Cummins Inc.
Hearing on Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up the Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Protecting Communities
U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Select
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today and for your interest
in clean technologies for heavy-duty vehicles. My name is Tony
Satterthwaite and I am President of the Distribution Business at
Cummins. We have been committed to improving technology in our
industry. We embraced regulations more than 20 years ago and developed
solutions that enabled us to meet standards that reduced particulate
emissions in the diesel engine by 90 percent, and NO/x/ by 95 percent
while improving fuel-efficiency. Today, I'd like to tell you a bit
about that journey, as well as what we think may be possible in the
future.
cummins inc.
Cummins Inc. is a 100-year-old company founded and headquartered in
Columbus, Indiana. Since 1919, we've become the largest independent
producer of both diesel engines and diverse power solutions in the
world, and we've done this through constant technological innovation
and by bringing our customers the right power solution at the right
time for each unique application.
We also manufacture and supply highly complex components to the
transportation and power solutions industries such as turbochargers,
fuel systems, filters and aftertreatment systems - all of which has
enabled us to build high-performing and efficient products meeting
global emission standards.
Cummins products are in a wide range of applications including
small passenger trucks, tractor-trailers that move goods across the
country, pick-up and delivery trucks, as well as transit and school
buses. You will also find our products in refuse trucks, mining
equipment, oil-and gas operations, passenger trains and tug boats. Our
products also generate electricity in applications from mobile power
systems that support our military to critical backup power systems that
keep data centers and hospitals up and running 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. National Landmarks that many Americans see every day, like
Wrigley Field and the Statue of Liberty, also rely on Cummins for their
backup power needs.
Simply put, our products need to be dependable and reliable to help
our customers do the work they need to do, whether that is hauling
critical goods across the country, or delivering our most precious
cargo: our children to school. They also need to work hard, capable of
carrying very heavy loads and performing in extreme conditions.
We have more than 62,000 employees globally and operate in over 190
countries throughout the world. In the United States, we have
manufacturing facilities in Indiana, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and Oregon.
In addition to our manufacturing operations in the United States, we
also own all our distributor branches with locations in almost every
state.
innovation and the environment
The hearing today is well-timed as we are at the forefront of
change in the heavy-duty vehicle industry. We are providing a wider
variety of products for our customers that are cleaner, more efficient
and cost-effective than ever before.
Cummins has long acknowledged that our company is only as strong as
the health of our communities. Nearly four decades ago, Cummins made
the decision to embrace tough environmental standards and to use our
technological expertise and innovation to drive our business and
improve communities, in contrast to the industry approach at the time.
In 2006, we set our first facility energy and greenhouse gas goal and
joined the U.S. EPA Climate Leaders program--firmly stating our
commitment to address climate change. In 2009, Cummins technical and
policy leaders wrote a white paper for the National Academy of Sciences
addressing the regulation of greenhouse gases in commercial vehicles
that served as an important reference for regulators. Recently, in
November 2018, EPA announced the Cleaner Trucks Initiative (CTI), which
will include a future rulemaking to establish updated standards to
address NO/x/ emissions from highway heavy-duty trucks and engines. We
strongly support this initiative. This year we are releasing our next
companywide sustainability plan including science-based climate goals.
Our commitment to addressing the environmental impact of our products
and facilities is ingrained in our mission, vision, values and culture.
energy diversity
As we look to the future of the heavy-duty transportation sector,
we see a sector that is highly complex and one in which we don't
believe there will be one technological solution that will meet all
needs. Our customers buy heavy duty vehicles for commercial return;
they are part of their livelihoods and must be capable of doing the job
required at a price that is reasonable. We think clean diesel will
remain an important technology for many of our customers for a long
time. We will continue to work with regulators to make diesel even
cleaner and more efficient than it is today. At the same time, in some
applications natural gas or electrified power will make the most sense
based on the job to be done or the location where the vehicle is
operating.
While diesel technology has captured most of the market in the
past, we see a future where diesel, natural gas, battery electric, and
even fuel cell and sustainable fuels power our products. The three
primary fuels and technologies for heavy-duty vehicles are diesel,
natural gas and electric. How and where they are applied depends on a
variety of factors. Below is a chart which demonstrates some of the
core attributes most important to our customers including technology
capability, cost and infrastructure availability.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Diesel--Cummins continues to be a leader in clean diesel technology
and understands that for many markets, diesel engines will be the best
solution for decades to come. Clean diesel is the combination of
today's ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, advanced engines and effective
emission controls. Together, these elements result in a highly
efficient engine, which can achieve extremely low emissions and reduce
greenhouse gases (GHGs). Clean diesel benefits from low upfront costs
and an existing and mature infrastructure. Combining clean diesel and
hybrid technology provides additional fuel efficiency; further
improving air quality and reducing carbon footprints, and even enabling
a zero emissions operating mode within city limits.
This decade, the 4.9 million new-technology diesel trucks on
America's roads have removed more than 26 million metric tons of NOx
and 59 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air. Currently,
across the United States, more than 36% of all Classes 3-8 registered
commercial trucks are of the newest, near-zero generation diesels, and
that number grows each year.
We are not done innovating to make diesel engines cleaner and more
efficient. Truck and engine manufacturers like Cummins and other
stakeholders are hard at work to develop products that meet EPA and
NHTSA's Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Standards for commercial vehicles. When
fully implemented those standards will lower CO2 emissions by
approximately 1.1 billion metric tons; save vehicle owners fuel costs
of about $170 billion; and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion
barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Our
ability to meet these goals is supported by cooperative research
programs like the SuperTruck program at the Department of Energy. As
mentioned above, we are also actively working with EPA, CARB and other
stakeholder to take near-zero emissions diesel engines closer to zero
through a new engine standard for NOx.
Natural Gas--Where infrastructure exists or can be expanded,
natural gas is a mature, reliable solution available today that can
reduce GHG, NOx, and PM. Renewable natural gas expands on these
benefits. While the initial purchase price of a natural gas vehicle is
higher than a diesel vehicle, its operating costs are comparable or
less than conventional diesel technology.
Cummins Westport has been the leader in providing low emission and
efficient natural gas engines to some of this country's largest private
and municipal transit and refuse fleets, and on-highway truck and
school bus properties reaching global sales of over 60,000 natural gas
engines in 2015. Since 2002, Cummins Westport has offered emission
leading natural gas engines, meeting or exceeding the most stringent
North American engine emission limits set by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
However, natural gas use is not a viable choice for many heavy-duty
applications due to limited infrastructure. Vehicles that return to
base daily, like refuse trucks, port vehicles or city buses are ideal
applications for natural gas. Given that natural gas vehicles can cost
and weigh more than conventional diesel vehicles, policies like the
federal excise tax and weight limits can also reduce consumer adoption
of these vehicles.
Battery Electric--Electrified Power is the newest of Cummins'
business segments bringing together all the company's electrification
resources with a view to supporting all the segments where Cummins
traditionally operates today. Cummins can use a range of cell
chemistries suitable for pure electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid
applications.
The adoption of electric vehicle systems for heavy duty
transportation is dependent on the availability of charging
infrastructure capable of meeting the energy demands of heavy-duty
applications. Emissions requirements, government incentives and cost
also play a part. A city bus is a great example of an application where
electrification technology works today. The duty cycle, with frequent
stops and starts, is ideally suited for electrified powertrains and
makes this technology viable for reducing emissions in traffic
congested areas. Material handling applications are being electrified,
reducing emissions in ports, distribution hubs and warehouses. And
while the energy density of batteries continues to improve, it is not
yet viable for all applications. Currently, the weight of batteries
negatively impacts payload capacity, making electric trucks impractical
for many applications. Creating hybrid technologies that combine diesel
and electric can be part of the solution to help meet regulatory
requirements for some applications.
From an economic standpoint, customers will need an electric
vehicle system that offers an acceptable return on investment; battery
prices must progress to a reasonable level that allows for payback,
without the use of incentives. Improvements to charging infrastructure,
advances in cell chemistry that allow for increased energy density in
combination with fast charging, and greater modularity of battery packs
will all help accelerate the adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles.
Continued investment in these areas by the Department of Energy can
accelerate this development.
In addition to these technologies available today, Cummins is also
investing in a variety of other fuels and technologies:
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell--Globally, we see increased focus on
hydrogen- based technologies and infrastructure. Advancements in fuel
cells have made the technology more suitable for commercial use.
Improving proton-exchange membrane (PEM) and Solid Oxide (SOFC) fuel
cell technology performance characteristics, life, efficiency and cold
weather capabilities could make fuel cells a credible alternative for
commercial and industrial applications. The application of PEM fuel
cells to commercial vehicle applications is exciting, particularly
those applications with productivity or longer daily range needs that
cannot be accomplished by batteries. Joining the Hydrogen Council
Executive Committee has provided a great platform for Cummins to
collaborate with experts and companies with a similar vision of the
future. Cummins is participating in the Costa Rica hydrogen ecosystem
project by sponsoring a hydrogen fuel cell bus. Phase 1 of the project
demonstrated technical feasibility and Phase 2 aims to demonstrate
financial viability. Phase 2 will feature a Cummins electric powertrain
and a fuel cell electric powertrain in two buses.
Other Alternative Fuels--Cummins is investing in enabling its
engines and generator sets to use fuel sources that would otherwise be
considered waste products, delivering robust power even with fuels like
landfill and digester gases. Capturing landfill gas or biogas for
processing into fuel suitable for vehicles or gensets has significant
benefits. Biomethane - obtained by purifying biogas - that is used as
fuel in place of fossil fuels effectively produces less GHG than the
fuel it replaced. Biogas can provide a clean, easily controlled source
of renewable energy from organic waste materials, replacing fossil
fuels with a sustainable carbon neutral fuel option, while can reducing
external fossil fuel dependence and promoting energy security.
policy levers
Public policy plays an important role in facilitating this energy
diverse future for the heavy duty sector. We think the best policies
are ones that don't pick winners and losers but focus on desired
outcomes. The best technology to solve for a problem today may not be
the best in six months or two years - that's why technology neutral
policy, free of technology-forcing mandates, is important to ensure
communities and customers can continue to make the best choices to meet
their performance, commercial and environmental needs and let the
technologies compete to determine market solutions.
Federal investment and tax policy also play an important role in
spurring innovation. Robust and consistent investment in research and
development and investment through grants and public-private
partnerships is essential to provide market certainty for consumers,
fleets, dealers, manufacturers and suppliers participating in the
transition to cleaner technologies.
Encouraging adoption of low-emissions technologies infrastructure
investment is critical. Congress should invest in battery electric
vehicle charging as well as hydrogen and natural gas fueling
infrastructure to help accelerate adoption of these technologies.
Finally, Congress, communities and customers should support low or
no-carbon, sustainable fuel choices. The rise of multiple fuels means a
poly-fuel future, but each fleet has unique needs. It is important for
suppliers to continually produce more sustainable, low or no-carbon
fuels, vehicle technologies, and infrastructure that measurably improve
well-to-wheels climate impacts and address other relevant
sustainability impacts and benefits.
conclusion
The heavy duty vehicle industry is facing significant change and
more is needed to meet our global energy and environmental challenges.
Cummins is committed to investing in an energy diverse future where our
customers have a broad portfolio of power options--including clean
diesel, natural gas, electrified power and even fuel cell technology--
so they can choose what works best for them. Enacting policies that
promote the power of choice for every market will help ensure that this
country and every community within it has the proven technology
necessary to meet air quality and climate goals and serve the economy.
Thank you again, for the great honor and privilege to speak to you
all today. If I can provide any information to you on behalf of Cummins
Inc. I would be honored to discuss this issue or any other issue with
you or your staff.
appendix
Policy Recommendations
As the Committee prepares policy recommendations to address the
Heavy-Duty industry, energy diversity can be addressed and encouraged
in the following ways:
1. Funding
Cummins supports robust funding for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to
ensure dedicated funds for maintaining and improving highway, bridge
and transit infrastructure. The following recommendations will ensure
energy diversity and parity across all vehicles with a commitment to
reliable and consistent funding of the HTF and modernizing the truck
fleet with the cleanest, safest available vehicles.
Policy Recommendations
Repeal the 100-year-old 12% federal excise tax on
Heavy Duty trucks to incentivize new truck purchases which
modernize truck fleets.
Support a mechanism for equal contribution to the HTF
by drivers of all vehicles regardless of power source such as a
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) tax.
Encourage greater public-private partnerships by
implementing investment tax credits, raising the cap on private
activity bonds and increasing flexibility for the TIFIA program
for surface transportation projects so public project sponsors
and private investors have the fullest possible range of
financing options available.
Congress should authorize Qualified Tax
Credit Bonds for surface transportation projects under
Section 54A of the tax code.
Extend tax credits that promote energy efficiency and
diversity: the fuel cell vehicle tax credit, alternative fuels
tax credit, the alternative fuel refueling infrastructure tax
credit, and the energy production tax credit (Secs. 6426, 30B,
30C, 45 and 48).
Ensure favorable treatment of R&D expenditures in the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC), including a robust R&D Tax Credit
and a fair and efficient system of cost recovery for R&D
expenses.
2. Innovation
Leadership in innovation is one of the most important factors for
future of US manufacturing. Innovation makes the country and its
businesses more productive, dynamic and competitive. At Cummins,
innovation is ingrained in our culture, mission, vision and values. Our
commitment to innovation dates back a century, to when Clessie Cummins
first applied inventive ideas to improvements that advanced the diesel
engine. These recommendations seek to increase support for foundational
R&D and position America to compete and thrive globally in the
innovation race, and pursue innovation inclusively.
Policy Recommendations
Funding for ARPA-E, EERE, and specifically the DOE
Vehicle Technology program is valuable and should be increased
and set to grow at 4 percent per year adjusted for inflation,
reversing nearly a decade of decline.
Support the Fueling America's Security and
Transportation (FAST) with Electricity Act to provide a 30%
federal tax credit for electric transportation options beyond
passenger cars; provide a 30% federal tax credit for recharging
and refueling stations and provide loan guarantees to support
capital investments in associated domestic manufacturing
capacity.
3. Transit and Passenger Rail
Investing in US transportation infrastructure can greatly improve
the efficacy and use of public transit and passenger rail. This
investment can encourage ridership, promote ease of access and make
regional mass transit more sustainable for communities and the
environment. Increasing public funding for bus, commuter and passenger
rail systems will release private investments to expand capacity,
reduce highway congestion, link rural and suburban communities safely
and mitigate the impacts to our environment.
Policy Recommendations:
Provide predictable, dedicated and sustainable
funding for capital investment in bus, commuter and passenger
rail systems.
Include a Phase II of the Alternative Fuel
Corridors (AFC) program which supports infrastructure
for alternatives to gasoline like natural gas and
hydrogen powered vehicles.
Include Diesel Exhaust Fluid as a component
of AFCs at rail yards to increase adoption of EPA Tier
4 clean locomotives.
Provide matching funds to states for
installation of clean re-fueling infrastructure along
10 major AFC's annually through 2030.
Reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
(DERA).
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Now we are going to move to members' questions. I am going
to hold off until probably closer towards the end, so I would
like to recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Castor and Ranking
Member Graves.
And thank you to our witnesses.
This is a good conversation we are having today. We know
that the transportation sector is a large contributor of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that the
hazardous air pollutants, particularly from diesel engines,
disproportionately affect our vulnerable communities.
In my home State of Oregon, they have recognized the public
health risks of diesel trucks. The legislature just recently
passed a bill to phase out older diesel engines with newer
models by 2025 in the Portland metro area. And earlier this
year, Daimler Trucks North America announced that it is going
to begin manufacturing electric Freightliner trucks in
Portland. They will be on the road by 2030. And these are
important first steps to help mitigate the pollution from
heavy-duty vehicles.
In northwest Oregon, the district I am honored to
represent, our mass transit agency, TriMet, recently launched
their first all-electric buses, powered by 100-percent wind
energy. TriMet estimates that the bus will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by 100 to 140 tons per year compared to their
diesel fleet. The renewable-powered buses ease congestion and
reduce air pollution as they smoothly cruise through the
Northwest. It is very exciting. The transition, of course,
benefits the environment but also the health and well-being of
the communities.
And I really encourage colleagues here today--you know, we
heard about the costs, especially with things like buses. We
need to consider, as well, the cost savings in terms of
healthcare, job loss from people who are suffering from health
conditions. So let's keep that in mind as we are crafting ideas
and policies.
Mr. Popple, you made several suggestions in your testimony
about policy. What would be the best thing that Congress could
do to incentivize the rapid deployment of zero-emission trucks
and buses? And where do we need more research and development,
investments in research and development, as well, to support
our transition away from diesel to clean technologies?
Mr. Popple. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate
the question.
I think the most important thing that we can do is continue
with the programs that already exist. So I would say the
number-one priority, from my perspective, would be to make sure
that we have a long-term transportation bill, so a renewal of
the FAST Act and continue the Low-No program.
The reason that is so important is because there are
applications that are relatively easy to electrify, like city
buses and school buses. And what we typically see in bus and
truck is the technology starts in depot-based vehicles like
buses, it is perfected, and then it is transferred to trucking.
So we saw that with natural gas and with propane. I think we
are going to see the same thing in electric.
So if we want momentum towards zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicles, I think it is important to keep the momentum we
already have on the applications where it makes sense today.
Ms. Bonamici. And do we need more research and development
in any particular areas?
Mr. Popple. Absolutely. I think one of the new frontiers
that we are eager to explore is this intersection between
transportation and the grid. And the Department of Energy and
the Department of Transportation should be seeking ways to
create joint programs specifically around vehicle-to-grid
technology.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Popple. These are big batteries, and they enable the
grid to be more resilient. For example, after a storm or an
earthquake or a fire, electric school buses or city buses could
be putting power back on to a down grid. That technology still
needs research and development.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you.
Mr. Logan, I co-chair the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus,
and I really appreciate your testimony mentioning that by 2050
ocean-going vessels alone will account for about 17 percent of
emissions worldwide without significant efforts to decarbonize.
And the electrification of the maritime industry is
happening gradually. We know it is happening in Europe. Norway
is leading the way. But in the United States, we are falling
behind our international allies.
I represent a district that is bordered by the Columbia
River and the Pacific Ocean. I invite you all to visit. It is
beautiful. But I am very concerned, obviously, about the
effects of emissions from diesel-powered engines on our
waterways and ecosystems.
So what are the current barriers to electrifying the global
shipping fleet? And how can we incentivize meaningful emissions
reductions for the maritime industry?
Mr. Logan. So I think the biggest obstacle is the fact that
this is a sector that is regulated internationally. And so
really having Congress urge our representatives that sit in
those bodies to really step up and push the international
community to advance technologies in ocean-going vessels, that,
along with incentives, I think can move us light-years ahead of
where we are today.
Ms. Bonamici. And I mentioned Norway. Are there other
places that are really out in front in this transition?
Mr. Logan. I would have to get back to you on that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller, good morning. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Castor and Ranking Member
Graves.
And thank all of you all for being here today.
The transportation industry in West Virginia is critical to
ensure that our goods can make it across the Nation and around
the world. West Virginia has the sixth-largest highway system
in our country. My hometown of Huntington has one of the
largest inland water ports in the Nation. That along with our
trucks and our rail help ensure that West Virginia natural
resources are able to power the world.
Mr. Satterthwaite, can you talk about what Cummins has done
under the EPA Phase 1 greenhouse gas rule and what you plan on
doing under Phase 2?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the
question.
Cummins has worked collaboratively with the EPA over many
years. Starting in 2009, as I said, we were engaged with the
development of the first round of Phase 1 greenhouse gas. We
have now come to an agreement, the industry and EPA, on Phase 2
greenhouse gas, which will further lower greenhouse gas
emissions of heavy-duty vehicles through 2027.
These reductions are significant. Today's diesel engines
are cleaner than ever. And through the latest generation of
cleanest trucks on the road, we have reduced--59 million tons
of CO2 has been eliminated since 2011 on the basis
of improvements in diesel-engine greenhouse gas emissions.
Mrs. Miller. Can you discuss how Cummins has helped
innovate in the heavy-duty transportation sector to increase
energy diversity and help protect the environment?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Cummins, as I mentioned in my testimony,
has been investing in many technologies.
We believe the best way to make short-term improvement in
air pollution and greenhouse gas is to implement quickly
improvements in diesel technology that have already been
brought to market through programs like DERA and other programs
that actually encourage customers to invest in newer vehicles
and retire older vehicles.
We have also made investments in battery-electric and fuel-
cell technologies that we believe are a part of the future. And
we continue to make those investments and believe there are
parts of the commercial vehicle market where they are very
appropriate and even economic at the current time.
Mrs. Miller. So, basically, you don't rely on just one type
of technology.
Mr. Satterthwaite. That is correct, ma'am.
Mrs. Miller. Okay.
How would a technology-forcing mandate hinder innovation in
the heavy-duty sector?
Mr. Satterthwaite. A technology-forcing mandate would
require customers to use a technology that might not be
appropriate for their specific application.
And this is what we believe--the commercial vehicle market,
the heavy-duty transportation sector has a wide variety of
customer needs, from long-haul, over-the-road trucking, to
short-term pickup and delivery, to the rail system. And we
believe each of those applications in the future may benefit
from a different technology, all with the intention of driving
towards a cleaner and better future, but not all from a single
technology.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Does cost play a major role in businesses' decisions to
utilize specific technology?
Mr. Satterthwaite. I believe so. I believe cost plays a
major role. And I think all businesses consider cost, both
OPEX, as we say, operating cost, and CAPEX, capital cost. And
some of the tradeoffs we are talking about is the tradeoff
between capital cost and operating cost for every business.
Mrs. Miller. So what other major factors do businesses rely
upon when deciding which type of power is best to utilize?
Mr. Satterthwaite. In the customers that I work with, one
of the first things that they worry about is reliability and
support. Does the technology work, and when it doesn't, can I
get it fixed quickly and easily and effectively?
That is essentially what my part of the business at Cummins
does. We repair products in the field. And it is a common
conversation with customers and a concern they have. Again,
they have business to do, they have work to do every day. And
new technologies are interesting for them; what they really
want to do is reliably run their business.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely.
What technology do you see the industry mainly relying upon
in 10 years from now?
Mr. Satterthwaite. One of the things I like about the
future is it is hard to predict. And at Cummins, we don't know.
And so our approach has been to invest in a portfolio of
technologies and to understand how each of those technologies--
their relative benefits, their relatives costs, and understand
how the industry might evolve.
We do not believe there will be a single technology winner
in the future. Our view of the future of the heavy-duty
transportation sector is it will be a multi-technology, multi-
fuel industry in the future. And so we are trying to become a
major player across that portfolio.
Mrs. Miller. All of the above. Thank you so much.
I will give back my 5 whole seconds.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And before I begin, I wanted to ask unanimous consent that
a copy of CALSTART's Federal policy which has just come out and
their recommendations on medium and heavy-duty vehicles and
calling for a national clean truck and corridor initiative be
added to the record.
Ms. Castor. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
__________
Submission for the Record
Representative Julia Brownley
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
CALSTART
National Clean Truck and Corridor Initiative
federal investment to drive clean trucks and corridors--the time is now
While essential to the nation's goods movement industry, trucks are
also one of the nation's largest single sources of air pollution,
greenhouse-gas emissions, and users of diesel fuel. Given the scope of
the trucking industry, the resulting impacts are felt in every region
and impact every resident. Fortunately, technology can provide
solutions that address these issues, while making the trucking sector
even stronger. A new national effort focused on expanding clean truck
highway corridors and incentivizing the deployment of clean trucks will
not only contribute to compliance with clean air standards, it would
also expand domestic vehicle and component manufacturing and highway
corridor construction jobs while providing U.S. based vehicle
manufacturers a competitive global advantage. Transforming the trucking
industry will require a three-pronged approach including vehicle
acquisition incentives, Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)
and new (alternative fueling/charging) highway infrastructure. CALSTART
and its 200 plus member companies are calling for a national Clean
Truck and Corridor Initiative that would promote U.S. energy
independence, climate security, domestic advanced manufacturing, job
creation and healthier lives.
The timing is right for a National Clean Truck and Corridor
(infrastructure) Initiative. Over the past decade the costs of electric
propulsion systems, including batteries, have come down dramatically.
The performance of fuel cell technologies has improved significantly
and engines using low carbon fuels have now achieved ultra-low NOx
emission levels. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to further strengthen
pollution standards for trucks and buses. Concurrently, global
companies are making major investments and are beginning to deploy zero
emission commercial vehicles around the world. China currently has the
lead with more than 300,000 electric trucks and buses operating in
major cities today. This industry is still nascent, and the United
States, its manufacturers and suppliers, can be leaders, producing
thousands of jobs while enabling the entire country to meet the federal
air quality standards established in the late 1970's.
For the United States to lead in this sector, the Clean Truck and
Corridor Initiative could provide investments in three critical areas.
First, there is a need to bring existing zero, and near-zero emission
products to the market which can be accomplished through purchase
incentives, using a model proven to be successful in several states.
Second, there is a need to assist U.S. manufacturers and suppliers in
developing the next generation of technology so that zero and near-zero
emission trucks and buses can be available in a larger number of
segments and applications. Third, there is a need to expand corridors
with zero emission refueling and recharging stations. Together, these
three program elements would transform trucking and position U.S.
companies to grow and compete globally. Further detail on these three
categories is provide below.
helping fleets transition today--providing a national purchase
incentive
The zero- and near-zero emission truck market is rapidly growing,
offering several technology options for fleets. While having a higher
upfront purchase price, zero to near-zero emission trucks are proving
to have a lower total cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle.
Similar to the zero-emission passenger car market, incentives are
needed to jump-start the zero- to near-zero emission truck market to
encourage fleets to purchase these advanced and cleaner vehicles. A
federal incentive program could transform this industry in the next 5-
10 years, build a stronger domestic industry that provides high quality
manufacturing jobs, while dramatically improving air quality along
congested freight corridors. An investment of $20 billion over six
years could replace more than 400,000 diesel fueled trucks with near-
and-zero emission trucks by 2025.
A voucher incentive program (VIP)\1\ to incentivize clean truck
purchases has proven effective in large regional markets because of its
streamlined `point of sale' discount approach. In Illinois, New York,
and California voucher incentives have led to the purchase of more than
6,000 battery-electric, fuel cell, hybrid, and ultra-low NOx natural
gas vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Voucher Incentive Program (VIP) is a streamlined process
that applies the vehicle incentive at the point of purchase. Under a
VIP program, the manufacturer pre-qualifies its vehicles with the
entity managing the program and vendors are approved to submit voucher
requests on behalf of purchasers. A voucher is redeemed to the vendor
once all paper work is submitted and the vehicle is delivered to the
purchaser. Fleets greatly prefer this process over the costly and
lengthy process that includes 9-12 months of proposal development and
review, award selection, and contract negotiations. Fleets also prefer
the VIP process over tax credits as their true monetary value usually
gets lost in corporate accounting and does not impact the budgets of
most fleet directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero- to near-zero emission trucks that are currently available or
are soon to become commercially available include:
Hybrid-Electric cargo vans, delivery trucks, and
utility ``bucket'' trucks;
Low NOx Natural Gas refuge, drayage, and long-haul
trucks;
Battery-Electric delivery, regional and yard trucks;
Class 7-8 Battery Electric Drayage trucks; and
Hydrogen fuel cell long haul tractor-trailers.
Federal incentives in these targeted areas--where early market
success is most likely--would help build volumes and lower costs over
the next 5-7 years. Once greater economies of scale are achieved,
Federal incentives would not be needed and could be scaled back and
eventually eliminated.
Recommendation: Create a grant program within the CMAQ program to
establish a Voucher Incentive Program. Require States to
administer the grant program using current programs as models.
research, development & demonstration--making tomorrow's trucks better
To transform the goods movement industry in the next 10 years,
federal funding is required to support the research, development and
demonstration (RD&D) of advanced technologies to make high-efficiency,
zero-emissions, and longer-range technologies more affordable and
viable. RD&D investments would help U.S. companies develop a diversity
of high-quality products and be in a better position to compete in the
global truck and bus market which exceeds $1 trillion in annual
revenue. Based on analysis done for state agencies, CALSTART projects a
need for federal RD&D investment of about $250 million/year from 2020
to 2025. Approximately 30-40% of the funds should be allocated to
technology development and demonstrations, and the remaining 60-70%
would be allocated to major pilot deployment projects where both
fleets, suppliers, and manufacturers can test and improve the product.
Most of the funds should be focused on the larger trucks that consume
the bulk of the fuel in the market.
While we recommend that these RD&D funds be predominately spent on
RD&D to advance the truck industry, Congress should include language so
that some of the funds could be used for two related purposes. Zero
emission transit buses are rapidly gaining market share in the United
States. Additional RD&D investments in zero emission buses would help
address key issues such as performance in cold weather and
infrastructure resilience. In addition, the technology development of
the Maritime Administration should be boosted to $10 million year to
leverage the technology being deployed in near- and zero emission buses
and apply it to the nearshore marine vessel sector.
Recommendation: Provide $250 million in additional annual funding for
FHWA, FTA and MARAD research, development and demonstration
programs to support technology development for clean trucks,
buses and nearshore marine vessels.
expanding clean corridors--alternative fuel infrastructure to enable
clean trucking
Expanding our national alternative fuel corridors is critical to
enabling clean vehicle adoption. Through the Federal Highway
Administration's Alternative Fuel Corridor Designation Program, 46
states including the District of Columbia have submitted nominations
for corridors for 100 interstates, 76 US highways and state roads, of
135,000 miles across all fuels (electric, hydrogen, natural gas and
propane as selected by the local jurisdiction). While this designation
allows for highway signage, significant gaps in charging and refueling
infrastructure exist. Less than one percent of the truck stops in the
country have zero-emission fueling stations.
Trucks stop operators, utilities, and third-party providers are
eager to build the truck power infrastructure of the future, and
federal investment would play a vital and catalytic role. Federal
funding would significantly leverage and encourage additional
investments from the utility and private sectors. A key outcome of this
investment would be a new or revamped network of truck stops providing
100 percent domestic clean fuels and energy for our nation's trucks.
Unlike today, the truckers taking part in this program would no longer
need to rely on imported fuel, thereby lowering the nation's trade
deficit and supporting domestic jobs.
Based on initial estimates, we anticipate the total investment
needed to convert the nation's trucking infrastructure to zero or near-
zero emission fuels to be between $50-100 billion over the next decade.
Federal investment of $20 billion over that time period would leverage
non-federal investment on a 4:1 basis.
Recommendation: Expand the current FHWA Alternative Fuel Corridor
program to not only designate corridors but to establish a
grant program for the installation of alternative fuel
infrastructure. Authorize the grants in lieu of tax credit of
the Treasury Department Section 1603 program.
summary--targeted outcomes
If the U.S. Congress were to move forward with the proposed
National Clean Truck & Corridor Initiative, there would be major
benefits in the near- and long-term future for the country. Below are
some of the expected outcomes from such a program:
Nationally, NOx emissions, the primary source of air
pollution in urban areas, would be reduced by 150,000 tons and
due to cleaner truck product availability, the nation would be
in a strong position to be in full compliance, for the first
time, with the federal air quality standards that were
established in the late 1970's;
Diesel fuel consumption would be reduced by 19
billion gallons by 2025, and the U.S. would be on a trajectory
to eliminate imported diesel by the end of the decade, thus
reducing the trade deficit and contributing to a declining
geopolitical significance of oil producing nations that don't
share our values;
Total greenhouse gas emissions from the trucking
sector would decline by 72 metric tons by 2025, placing the
U.S. in a leadership position and supporting the commitments
made under the global climate accord established in 2016;
Fleets would save approximately $20 billion in fuel
costs by 2025, with savings projected to expand exponentially
from 2026-2035 as the market for zero- and near-zero emission
trucks grow; and
U.S. truck makers and suppliers would be increasing
their market share and in a strong position to compete
globally.
For further information on this concept, please contact CALSTART's
Alycia Gilde, Director, Fuels and Infrastructure at
[email protected].
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
Mr. Popple, I wanted to thank you first for, at least in
your written testimony, highlighting my Green Bus Act. I
appreciate that very much. And I have a bill that says that any
buses purchased with Federal funds be zero-emission by 2029.
And it also increases funding for the Low and No Emission that
you made reference to in your public testimony. So I thank you
for that, and I hope that I can get members of the committee to
sign on to my bill.
In the staff report--and we have great staff. The staff
report states that, while there are 300 electric transit buses
in the United States, there are 2,250 electric transit buses in
Europe and 421,000 electric buses in China.
So I wanted to ask you, what do you think it is going to
take in the United States to be a global leader? You made
reference in your testimony that we have that opportunity to be
a global leader. We seem to be terribly behind at the moment.
But what is it going to take for us to truly be a global
leader?
Mr. Popple. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
I think the status of our progression towards more advanced
technologies in the medium and the heavy-duty sector has a lot
to do with our Nation's traditional focus on the light-duty
sector. So a lot of our policy early on and innovation early on
was focused on cars. I think the U.S. has the best electric
vehicle technology. We have the best battery technology. We
have the best engineers. And we are just starting to apply that
to the heavy-duty sector.
I also think that other countries that have already done
this demonstrate that there isn't technology risk or science
risk in taking sectors like buses and completely electrifying
them. We just need to focus on it and set tougher standards for
emissions for those sectors like China and Europe have.
Ms. Brownley. And with regards to CNG buses, I am just
curious--I know, Ms. Romero, you talked about our school buses.
I was a school board member way back in the day, and I know
that our fleet, at that point in the early 2000s, were
transitioning to CNG buses from traditional diesel buses.
Do we have any idea, when we talk about our bus fleet, you
know, what percentage is CNG? I understand that zero emissions
is where we need to go, but there are somewhat cleaner buses
out there than diesel buses. And I don't have any sense of, in
terms of school buses, you know, what percentage are CNG. I
know that the Federal Government had offered some opportunities
back in the early 2000s.
Ms. Romero. Yeah. I don't have the exact statistics for
compressed natural gas buses. But I do know that, out of the
nearly 500 million school buses on the roads in the U.S., about
90 percent of those are run on diesel--so it is still very
significant--and about 60 to 65 percent of our public buses.
Ms. Brownley. And the cost comparison between an electric
bus and a CNG bus, does anybody have any data on that?
Ms. Romero. It can still be about twice--go ahead.
Mr. Popple. On the transit side, we see a basic diesel bus
around a half a million dollars; a CNG bus can be up to
$600,000; and hybrids and electrics are $700,000 to $800,000.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
And, Mr. Logan, in your testimony, you talked about the
good things that are happening in Long Beach and L.A. and
bringing the environmental justice community together along
with leadership in both cities.
I also know that in the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach
they have required that trucks utilizing the port meet certain
clean emissions standards, and they have progressively gotten
stricter over time. And I think they have made some, you know,
major improvements to that.
Can you talk about, you know, lessons learned around that
initiative and what the Federal Government could do to
incentivize more of that? I have 11 seconds--10 seconds left.
Mr. Logan. Absolutely.
So I think one is just coupling incentives with mandates
through, for instance, at the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach,
within their leases, requiring the shippers to go to lower-
emission trucks and eventually to zero-emission trucks.
I think the lesson learned is that it was done, that we
were able to do that, that the sky did not fall, that business
continued to move forward and there was profit to be made, and
folks are actually being able to implement the program without
any blips in the system.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Armstrong, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commodity-based economies like North Dakota, we like
trucks, we like pipelines, we like rails, we like everything.
The geographic distribution of agricultural products and
natural resources and energy production necessitate the
transportation of products to consumer States--New York, Texas,
California, Oregon--from States that are production States. And
as far as I know, we look at availability, reliability, and
cost.
We already suffer from a bigger basis differential on our
agricultural products in North Dakota. We have a discount for
transportation on oil and natural gas. And I think it is
important that when we have this conversation we talk about it
in the scenario of--we talk about all-of-the-above energy, but
we like all-of-the-above transportation as well.
So as we continue to do this and move forward, we also see
repeated opposition to pipelines and rail transport, which are
also necessary to move our products. Rail transport accounts
for just over 2 percent of the global greenhouse gases.
Pipelines, right around the same, just over 2 percent. But, I
mean, last month, we passed an amendment on the floor of the
House that essentially banned the transportation of liquefied
natural gas by rail across this country. I mean, we constantly
see different States across the country fighting against
putting pipelines in the ground, which, regardless of how you
feel about everything else, it is a cleaner, safer way to move
a lot of this transportation.
So, Mr. Satterthwaite, what is the timeline for bringing
heavy-duty electric vehicle technology to the market,
specifically, like, Class 8 or higher?
I mean, we are talking about buses, and I am going to get
into infrastructure if I have enough time. But, I mean, we need
to move heavy product, whether it is cows, grain, or oil and
natural gas.
Mr. Satterthwaite. I hope I am not disappointing you by
saying I don't know when.
Mr. Armstrong. No. I thought that would be the answer.
Mr. Satterthwaite. Currently, we see three major challenges
to implementing battery-electric technology in heavy-duty
trucks.
The first is energy density of batteries. Essentially, in
order to have a tractor head that would have the same range and
the same power as today's diesel engine and fuel tank, we would
need to increase by weight a factor of three to five in order
to accommodate enough batteries to give that same power and
that same range. And so that is both a cost and a weight
penalty in the trucking industry.
So improvements in energy density of batteries are one of
the significant things that has to happen before battery-
electric technology can play a significant role in heavy-duty
trucks.
Mr. Armstrong. And I think that is important, because we
just talked about infrastructure and layout, but one of the
things we have to talk about is road restrictions. And, I mean,
we talk about infrastructure packages, but those are borne by
local, State, and county--or, I mean, counties when we do this.
We had an oil boom in western North Dakota. We had one of
the largest infrastructure packages in our history. But one of
the things that we required western counties to do was to bring
their roadway to a higher threshold so we didn't have to go
back and fix every road 2 years later. I mean, there is always
maintenance, but--so, when we are talking about that, I mean,
this essentially moves the needle all across the country on
road load. I mean, am I right?
Mr. Satterthwaite. If you force electric technology into
heavy-duty, over-the-road trucks, then you will need to address
all the other infrastructure--roads, weights, battery charging
stations. And so there is an awful lot of impact on the
infrastructure if you force the technology.
I think, again, if you put a mandate out there that says we
want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions moving the same freight
the same distance, the question is, what other technologies are
available and how can the market respond to that, including
addressing infrastructure questions.
Mr. Armstrong. And I don't disagree with that. And I think
it also includes--I mean, competition breeds low--the problem
with all of this is eventually it gets passed on to the
consumer. I mean, farmers and ranchers have been doing this for
200 years, longer than that in my State, and they have never
seen inputs go down, they have never seen the cost of
transportation go down.
And as we continue to bring this up, we talk about all of
those things, but if we push this too fast at the same time as
we are excluding other modes of transportation, then the cost
to the producer and the cost to the consumer is going to go up.
Mr. Satterthwaite. I agree. And, in effect, instead of a
technology-forcing mandate, I think you are trying to warn
against mode-of-transportation-forcing mandates. And I do
agree, there are more efficient ways to move certain types of
goods around the U.S. than the heavy-duty trucking industry. It
has become very efficient, but there is no doubt, there are
more efficient ways to move certain commodities.
Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, depending on where you are trying to
get them, absolutely.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's topic is such an important aspect of the
conversation around fighting climate change, given, as the
chair articulated, that the transportation sector really is the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States.
There were a few references to the State of Colorado in the
testimony. I happen to represent Colorado's Second
Congressional District. And at the State level, I am very proud
that Colorado was the 11th State, the first landlocked State,
to adopt the Zero Emission Vehicle, or ZEV, program, following
California's lead, which will ensure that 9 percent of vehicles
sold in Colorado by 2025 are plug-in, hybrid, and electric.
This rule alone is estimated to prevent 2.2 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide and save our State $1.1 billion.
At the Federal level, I just want to note, I am very proud
to support efforts happening in this chamber to drive down the
transportation emissions as well. And, in particular, I want to
applaud the leadership of my good friend and colleague from
California, Mr. Levin, for introducing the Zero-Emission
Vehicles Act, or the ZEV Act. And I am proud to be an original
cosponsor on that bill.
Just to give you a sense of why this matters a great deal
to me and to the folks that I represent, in my home State of
Colorado, some folks might be familiar with the struggles we
have had with respect to air quality in the Denver metro area.
Denver experiences what is known as a brown cloud, so a layer
of smog over the city, caused by weather patterns and local
sources of pollution, including transportation.
And just this past March, just 3 months ago, Denver's air
quality index, at one point, was at a level three times worse
than Beijing. That is sobering and underscores the need for
this committee and this Congress to take drastic and, I think,
significant action and really show leadership on this front.
And so, again, I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses
today and appreciate your willingness to engage in this
important conversation.
Ms. Romero, I wanted to follow up on some of the points you
made in both your written testimony and in your oral testimony.
As reported by the IPCC in 2018, we only have 11 years to
make drastic cuts in our emissions in order to avoid
irreversible global consequences from climate change.
You mention in your testimony the impact that tailpipe
emissions and greenhouse gases have on children, negatively
impacting their health and contributing to greater rates of
asthma.
With transportation as the number-one source of carbon
emissions in the U.S. and the fact that 55 percent of K-
through-12 students take a bus to school every day, there is a
distinct need to eliminate the pollution our kids are exposed
to when they ride diesel buses to school every day. You
mentioned some of the efforts that have happened in my home
State of Colorado on this front.
I am curious if you could expound on what you described in
your testimony of ways in which we could further incentivize
the electrification of diesel buses and other steps that you
might recommend we take as a Congress.
Ms. Romero. Yeah. Thank you for the question.
You know, to mobilize the resources we need to make this
transition, it is going to take a combination of public funding
and private finance. Our partners at Clean Energy Works
estimates that it would take $6 billion to cover the upfront
cost barrier to electrify just 10 percent of the Nation's
school bus fleet over the next 5 years. So, in short, we really
need that combination of public funding and private financing.
But it is possible, right?
I heard another witness talk about, you know, making sure
that there is a fair playing field for different types of
fuels. We have been propping up the fossil fuel industry for
decades.
And, Ms. Brownley, you asked, you know, what is it going to
take to be a global competitor? It takes investing in cutting-
edge technology. You know, when you have the iPhone 8, 9 and
10, you don't want the iPhone 4, 5 and 6 anymore. We have the
technologies here; we need to deploy these solutions.
And so it is about equaling the playing field and helping
school districts bridge the gap for that upfront cost so that
they can benefit from the fuel and maintenance cost savings.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Romero.
And thank you, again, to the witnesses today.
And I would yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Satterthwaite, based on your experience with Cummins,
do you think a single energy solution, like going all electric,
will be able to meet the various needs of your customers?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
No, I do not.
Mr. Palmer. Do you think consumers have some needs that are
better served by traditional sources and some demands that are
better served by electric? Is there some balance there?
Mr. Satterthwaite. I believe so, specifically today. As I
have said a couple times, I think the future is uncertain, but
today I think there are certain applications where battery-
electric technology is capable, available, and economic. Not
all.
How that changes over the future, I think, is what makes my
life interesting and my day job very interesting. Will the
right technology for the future be cleaner diesel? Natural gas?
Fuel cells? Battery-electric? This is what we work on every
day. And, frankly, there isn't an answer right now.
Mr. Palmer. We build CNG-powered trucks at Autocar in my
district for trash trucks. And, obviously, their power demands
for those type trucks are smaller than some of our bigger
freight-transfer trucks. And I do have some concerns about this
effort to go to 100-percent renewable and how that would impact
not only the reliability of the system but also the cost for
electric vehicles. It is not free.
Mr. Satterthwaite. It is not free.
And I would say that the customers that I talk to share
those concerns. Most of the customers I speak with have an
interest in figuring out how to get to a lower-carbon, a lower-
polluting operation of their own, and yet they are also worried
about is the technology ready, is it appropriate for them.
And in the meantime, we in the industry continue to make
improvement to the diesel engine, improvements to the natural
gas engine, which continue to take carbon out of the air and
reduce pollution on an annual basis through working with the
EPA and CARB.
Mr. Palmer. Well, it is not going to completely remove
carbon from--even if we go to 100-percent renewables and 100-
percent electric vehicles, it is not going to completely remove
carbon from the atmosphere.
I want to talk about another aspect of this, and I think
Congressman Armstrong touched on it a little bit, and that is
the weight aspect of this. And I am concerned about going to
pilotless vehicles and how that is going to impact our
infrastructure.
Because most of us--and I know nobody in this room texts
while they drive, but even if you are not distracted, you are
varying your position in a lane. You change lanes, but even if
you stay in the same lane, you don't stay in the same spot. If
we add to the weight of freight vehicles and we go to pilotless
vehicles, they are going to be in one spot. And it is going to
basically rut the aggregate that we are now using.
Do you see that as an issue, a problem, particularly in
your industry?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Sir, I am afraid you may have gotten out
of my area of expertise in terms of trucks and roads. I don't
know.
I think, to the earlier Congressman's comment, I do think
the infrastructure of this country, the roads in particular,
will need to be addressed, and heavier trucks definitely will
have an impact at some point. I am not an expert and really
able to comment on exactly how that is going to happen.
Mr. Palmer. That is something that I have been focusing on,
been working on. Down at Auburn University, they have a center
where they are testing various types of aggregate. They have a
big test track. And one of the interesting things is that--one
of my concerns is how do we clean up the coal ash. And they are
using coal ash now as part of the aggregate. You don't lose any
of the heavy metals, they don't leach into the ground, but it
hardens the asphalt, and I think that is going to be a big
deal.
As of today--and this will be my last question--there are
more than 30 counties in California that are out of compliance
with not just one but multiple Federal air quality standards in
the Clean Air Act despite all of the regulations that
California has in place. There are numerous other California
counties that are in violation of one of the air quality
standards. And many have been out of compliance for decades,
and it is unclear when, if ever, some will come into
compliance. For reference, Alabama does not have a single
county out of compliance.
So my question would be, does it make sense to apply more
regulations to the transportation industry when that doesn't
appear to be working in heavily regulated States like
California?
And this is EPA data I have here.
Mr. Satterthwaite. I think it is a responsibility of
industry and Cummins sees it as a responsibility of industry to
continue to improve technology to have better outcomes for all
American citizens.
I do think there is scope, and the EPA is appropriate to
continue to push the industry on what it is capable of and
asking us to deliver better for the American people across the
country.
Mr. Palmer. Be smarter.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a great conversation. I want to thank the witnesses
and thank the chair for setting this up.
And I am interested in the technology we are talking about.
Those of us who think we are in a climate crisis, many of us
believe we have to start identifying areas in which we simply
don't need to burn fossil fuel because we have alternative
technology that can help us move forward.
And what I am trying to understand--and I want to start
with you, Mr. Satterthwaite, because you are really at the
fulcrum of these heavy vehicles that have always relied on
internal combustion and fossil fuels--is whether we can
reimagine that technology in a way that doesn't burn fossil
fuel.
And I am not talking about natural gas, because, as I take
a look at that, I don't think we have time for fake solutions.
And, quite honestly, yes, it has less of a carbon profile in
the burning end of the system, but if you add in the fugitive
methane, which we think is somewhere between 1 and 9 percent,
at 3\1/2\-percent methane loss, it is just as bad as coal.
So, if we are serious about this crisis, we've got to
identify places where we don't need to use fossil fuel and move
on to new, clean technologies.
Can we do that with the type of heavy vehicles that you
have been such a leader in working on, if we decide that we
just have to go beyond fossil fuel to clean technology?
And let me just say that I have worked with Cummins in the
past when I was a California legislator. I know you are
innovators. I worked with a division of yours called Cle-Air
that did these wonderful retrofit devices for school buses that
dramatically reduced the particulate matter. So I am impressed
with your track record in this area. I just want to hear your
thoughts on whether we can reimagine this technology.
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you, Congressman. I will say that
much of Cle-Air's work was funded by the DERA act. So I just
wanted to make sure you knew that that is how that work was
done in California.
I would argue Cummins is reimagining the future. If you
look across the industry, last year, the first company to show
an electric truck was Cummins. And so we are currently trying
to do exactly that, imagine what a future would look like in a
very different state. And part of the challenge, of course, is
we are trying to do this economically at both a capital cost
and an operating cost level.
So we are asking ourselves all those questions. We strongly
believe the future will be multi-technology; it won't a single
technology. And yet, in the path to get there, we will need to
make improvements today and in the future.
And I think what I don't want to miss is the opportunity to
make improvements today, in light of trying to, you know, go
for gold, if you will, with zero emissions in the future and
ignore the opportunity to make significant emissions reductions
today.
Mr. Huffman. But I think I am hearing you say there is
nothing about these heavy vehicles and heavy equipment that you
have been powering that precludes going to fossil-free
technology?
Mr. Satterthwaite. At a certain point in time, at a certain
cost, at a certain reliability. But the technology is
developing. I would argue to say it is not fully developed, but
it is developing. And there are many forces in the industry
that are pushing it. And Cummins is also with those forces,
moving it along as well.
Mr. Huffman. Appreciate that.
Mr. Popple, the other concern I have about this climate
crisis is that we are way behind some other countries that seem
to be taking it much more seriously. We have seen the numbers
on electric buses. China is light-years ahead of us on
deploying this technology.
I recently took a trip to Sweden as part of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. They are
reimagining their highway system to address some of the
limitations of electrifying heavy trucks. And they are piloting
some charge-as-you-drive technologies, where the actual
transportation infrastructure of the country would help solve
the problem of battery density and battery weight.
What can we do in this country to reclaim the mantle of
leadership in this crisis when we talk about heavy vehicles
like buses and trucks?
Mr. Popple. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
I think we really should focus on economic productivity and
return to that being the focus of the investments we make. I
think there is a false tradeoff that is depicted between clean
innovation and economic efficiency.
On the bus side, on an apples-to-apples basis, if you power
a bus with an electric system, you use 2,000 watt-hours per
mile. If you use diesel, you use 10,000 watt-hours per mile. So
those countries that have already moved past legacy
technologies in some of their transportation systems, they have
8,000 watt-hours per mile of free economic value to put into a
data center or put into industry.
The other thing I would mention is that, from a light-
weighting perspective, some of the sectors are already getting
there, where the electric vehicle is at the same weight or
lighter than the combustion vehicle. So a Proterra battery-
electric bus with a carbon-fiber body is lighter than a CNG
bus.
So, as long as we make sure, as my colleague pointed out,
that the technologies are ready to go and have reached product
market fit, there are huge economic productivity gains to be
had.
Mr. Huffman. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank all of you for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of
representing the First Congressional District of Georgia, which
includes the whole coast of Georgia. It is over 100 miles of
pristine coastline. And it includes two major seaports, the
Port of Savannah, which is the second-busiest container port on
the Eastern Seaboard, as well as the Port of Brunswick, which
is the number-two roll-on/roll-off port in the country.
The Port of Savannah is one of the fastest-growing ports in
the world. In fact, for a short period of time there, they were
the third-fastest-growing port in the world. Only two ports in
China were growing faster.
I mention that because obviously they are growing at a very
high rate of speed, but they are also taking great initiatives
in saving fuel. In fact, the Georgia Ports Authority has saved
over 2 million gallons of fuel annually just by electrifying
their ship-to-shore cranes. And if you take all of the
initiatives together, they are saving nearly 7 million gallons
of fuel annually, which is significant, particularly for these
growing ports.
And one of their most critical benefits is that they have
two first-class railroads right there on the ports, in the
container port in Savannah, which really helps tremendously.
You know, one of the initiatives, if you will, that the
President has spoken about and that we in Congress have been
speaking about is the infrastructure initiative. And,
certainly, that is very important.
I will direct this question to you, Mr. Satterthwaite, but,
at the same time, anyone chime in here.
Improving our infrastructure, particularly improving our
roads and bridges, how would that make heavy-duty vehicles more
efficient and, in turn, cleaner?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think the impact of infrastructure, particularly roads
and bridges, on the heavy-duty industry, I think is in a couple
of areas.
One is that the sad state of our roads leads to more
breakdowns and more customers who face interruptions to their
business. Because, frankly, who of us hasn't driven over a
pothole and popped a tire someplace. And if you are driving an
18-wheeler rig, that is not only dangerous, it also stops that
load and interrupts that wheel of commerce from moving. So
making improvements will, initially at least, improve the
efficiency with which goods move across the U.S.
I think the next step is then what it enables us to do and
how we use those investments. There are some countries around
the world who are investing--as the Congressman said in Sweden,
about changing how they think about the infrastructure. If you
are upgrading it, I believe we may as well think long-term and
ask ourselves what other types of improvements would we put in
the infrastructure. Rather than just replacing what is there,
how do we build for the future?
So I think both those activities have big opportunity to
improve the efficiency of our industry.
Mr. Carter. Great.
Well, let me mention, I was also on that trip to Sweden and
witnessed the same thing that Jared witnessed, and it is very
innovative and certainly something we need to be looking at.
I want to also mention about my district--obviously, I am
very proud of the district, but it also has a large rural area.
South Georgia, rural south Georgia, is a large geographic area.
And I believe some of my colleagues up here mentioned also
about the effect that this might have on rural areas. And I
want to make sure the rural areas aren't left behind. I want to
make sure that they are included, because, you know, they
have--make sure they have a seat at the table, because they
have a big need for these heavy-duty vehicles.
And how can we help them? What kind of challenges do you
see? And, again, I will direct this to anyone who wants to jump
in. But what kind of challenges do you see the rural
communities having when compared to the urban cities in
reducing emissions?
Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, I will just jump in here. Thank
you for the question.
Based on my experience in working with some of the rural
communities in California, you know, a lot of these communities
don't have access, really, to local hospitals or even just to
government services to do their regular business, you know,
update and renew their driver's license and all of that sort of
thing--right?--because the metropolitan areas are so far away.
And so, in Huron, California, where my friend Rey Leon is
the mayor, there is a 7,000-person town that takes 4 hours for
them just to get to the nearest public hospital, because they
have to take three buses. That is 4 hours one way; it takes 4
hours back, with an hour to schedule your doctor appointment,
right?
So we do need to invest in public transportation in these
areas and bringing buses to these areas. I am sure that there
are some rural communities where the range will be more of a
challenge, right?
But, in Huron, what they are doing now is electric ride-
share programs that the community has led to help connect
people to services with clean-vehicle technology that doesn't
pollute these areas.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you very much for your answer. And
I do hope that we will remember the rural communities. This is
extremely important for them as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
holding this hearing today.
And I am grateful for all the witnesses for coming today.
As we have discussed, the transportation sector is now the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and auto emissions
powerfully affect air quality and public health. Air pollution
and climate change, both direct effects of tailpipe emissions,
affect all Americans, but they disproportionately impact low-
income communities, communities of color, and other vulnerable
populations.
Protecting these communities from dangerous air pollution
and from the worst impacts of climate change is a moral
imperative. I want to use my time to explore how we can best
meet that responsibility.
And, Mr. Logan, sir, if you don't mind, I will start off
with you.
Mr. Logan, environmental injustices in general and
disparities in air pollution exposure in particular are a
direct result of poor policymaking, and they cry out for a
policy solution.
For instance, I have the honor of sponsoring legislation to
ensure the Federal Government considers the true impact of
greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-benefit analysis. I believe
that when we talk about the cost of fighting climate change, we
also need to consider the public health costs of doing nothing.
What might the full and fair accounting look like in
practice? How can Congress promote it? And how can we ensure
that we are mindful not just of how much good we do but also
whom we help?
Mr. Logan. Great. Thank you.
So, first, I want to say that action needs to be taken, and
action needs to be taken now. We know that we are in a climate
crisis, and so actions definitely need to be taken.
There is cost to transitioning to zero emissions, for sure.
But there are costs of the impacts of the climate crisis,
whether that is in agriculture or whether that is in public
health in our communities. It is paramount that we look at
resourcing communities that are disproportionately impacted.
One of the reasons that we have the impacts in these
communities is because that is where the activities are, this
is where the operation is, in port and freight communities
specifically.
So, when we look at environmental justice, climate justice,
through that lens and through the lens of equity, we need to
make that we are investing in these communities to uplift them
so that we can transition in a smart and just way.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Ms. Romero, in your testimony, you mentioned that vehicle
pollution is linked with asthma. Childhood asthma, of course,
is the top reason for missed schooldays nationwide. It can
significantly affect children's quality of life and, in rare
cases, can prove fatal.
What is the best way for Congress to protect children from
this harmful pollution? And how do we ensure that the benefits
are concentrated in the communities that suffer the most?
Ms. Romero. Yeah. Look, African Americans are three to four
times more likely to be hospitalized and die from asthma.
And I think, you know, what it is going to take--I heard
Mr. Carter and other members really speak about the progress
that we have made on cleaner fuels and, you know, making steps
forward, with a sense of pride, and I could feel that.
I think, though, if anyone has watched a game of
basketball, when you have made the shot and you are sitting
there holding your hands up after you have made the shot, being
proud, and you stand there just a little too long, the rest of
the team has already taken the ball and scored on you, right?
So I think that I just want us to remember that we should
be proud for the progress that we have made but we have a whole
heck of a lot further to go, especially on the timeline that
the IPCC report is telling us. And so we really need to
accelerate and invest significant resources.
Mr. McEachin. I like that analogy. Thank you.
Mr. Popple, I heard people say that electric vehicles are
only for wealthy individuals. Can you explain why people who do
not own cars should be interested in the electrification of
transportation and how even they would benefit from this trend?
Mr. Popple. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
One of the reasons why I first got involved with Proterra
after starting my career in electric vehicles at Tesla Motors
was that I saw the opportunity in the fleet-vehicle sector for
us to deploy clean, electric vehicle technology into the most
accessible form of transportation.
So there are vehicle categories, specifically public
transit buses and city buses, that are predominantly utilized
by lower-income families. But we should also not forget about
the fact that, whether you own a vehicle or not, you are paying
the health cost of the truck or bus or car that drives past
you.
So I actually think that some of the best applications for
EV go into the most utilitarian types of vehicles.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for your answer.
And, Madam Chair, I am now giving you 10 seconds back. I
yield back.
Ms. Castor. The chair thanks you.
The ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Logan, let me ask you a question. You are in charge of
climate for the whole country. We give you a billion dollars.
What do you do?
Ms. Romero. It is going to take a lot more than a billion
dollars, right? It----
Mr. Graves. I know, but----
Ms. Romero. Is going to take all of that.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Logan, what do you do?
Mr. Logan. So I would say the same point. A billion dollars
is a significant amount of money, but we definitely need to go
beyond that globally and in the United States.
But couple that, you know, really feeding that into
incentive programs, couple it with regulatory measures, I think
that that gets----
Mr. Graves. Incentive programs to do what?
Mr. Logan. To deploy zero-emission vehicles, especially in
the heavy-duty sector.
I think, to the point that, you know, not one particular
technology is going to get us to where we need to be, zero-
emissions is definitely needed. We definitely need to move
toward zero-emissions, whether that is fuel cell or other types
of technology. But there is a cost to doing nothing, right?
And electric vehicles is an over-100-year-old technology.
Over 10 years ago, we put a robot on Mars. We can do this. We
have the technology, we have the know-how, and we have the
innovation.
Again, with regulatory measures, backed up with incentive
programs, we can get there.
Ms. Romero. And if I can add, as important as the ``what''
is the ``where'' and the ``who.'' And so I would take that
billion dollars and I would prioritize underserved and
pollution-burdened communities, whether urban, rural, et
cetera, so that we can help these clean-technology companies
actually break through the market barriers.
It is easy for the early adopters. It is easy for the rich
guys on the coasts--right?--to afford the Tesla as a toy car.
That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a
green economy that benefits every American all across the
country, starting with those who need it most.
Mr. Graves. You know, the thing that just--it is
fascinating to me. I heard, Mr. Popple, you said that we need
to look at economic productivity. And the way that I view that
is, we have to do economic analysis: What is the best bang for
the buck? What is the best return on investment for the tax
incentives we are providing, for the R&D dollars, for all of
the capital investments and incentives that we are providing?
And I hear people sitting here just saying zero-emissions
heavy trucks is what we need to do, when I am not sure that--
look, we have a finite amount of cash, we have a finite amount
of incentives that we can do. And I want to make sure that we
are investing our dollars and our limited resources in the
incentives and in the products that are actually going to
generate the best solutions.
And I heard my friend Mr. Huffman--Mr. Huffman, you still
here? Good. You said--and I wrote it down, so it is going to
come back up at Resources Committee, I promise--we don't have
time for fake solutions. You might count on it; it is coming
back up.
And you also talked about China, and you said China is
beating us. Look, I think it is important for us to talk about
the fact that, look, the United States, we have reduced
emissions by nearly a billion tons. China has increased, during
that same period of time, 4 billion tons. So I am not sure what
they are beating us on. They are not.
We had a hearing in the T&I Committee on BYD. They are
beating us on stealing our technology. That is what they are
beating us on. They are beating us and they are undercutting
domestic companies, like Mr. Popple right here, that are trying
to employ American jobs and not have state-owned enterprises
that are coming in and distorting the economics.
Mr. Satterthwaite, let me ask you a question. You laid out
a chart, and it is interesting. You have clean diesel, natural
gas, electric. You talk about how you have these extraordinary
reductions. And to throw out one of the figures that is in your
testimony, you talk about the Phase II greenhouse gas standards
for commercial vehicles. When fully implemented, those
standards will lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion
metric tons.
The United States, I said that we have reduced our
emissions by a billion tons. That is greater than the next--I
used to say 11; now it is 12--12 countries combined--combined.
Why is it, Mr. Satterthwaite, that you don't see all these
companies just coming to you and just saying, hey, I want
electric trucks? Why is that not happening?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think that customers are concerned. Most of our customers
are conservative in their business approach. They want to
invest in products and particularly in products that they are
confident are going to work for them and help their business be
successful.
And I think the two biggest concerns about electric heavy-
duty trucks right now are weight, which is a function of
battery density; range, which is also a function of energy
density and batteries; and then reliability and charging
infrastructure.
Imagine you are a truck company. You buy an electric truck
to do business in L.A., and that truck needs to go to Reno,
Nevada. And there is no charging station in Reno, or there is a
charging station that takes 8 hours to charge that truck. So
what does the driver do for those 8 hours?
So these are practical concerns that our customers have
about infrastructure, about technology readiness, and also
about cost.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I want to say that, look, when we move
forward--I agree with what all of our objectives here are; I
agree--we need to be careful.
Russia and Massachusetts have to import gas--excuse me. Let
me try that again. New York and Massachusetts have to import
gas from Russia. California has had to increase their oil
imports from Saudi Arabia and others. And as we talked about
the other day, the electrical grid is going to require two to
three times the electricity to move to EV vehicles in this new
economy.
We need to make sure that we are planning in a way that
actually allows us to achieve these goals with current
technology.
Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you very much, Chair Castor, and to all
our panelists. Really appreciate you all coming here today.
You know, I think I won't belabor the point. A lot of
people have mentioned how the transportation sector is now the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. My view is that
that is in no small part because it really requires a different
set of policies from other sectors.
The electric sector, the industrial sector are dominated by
capital-intensive assets that run most of the time. The
operative question on those sectors is, what is the variable
cost of energy? The transportation sector is dominated by
capital-intensive assets that are parked most of the time. And
the operative question is, what is the cost of capital in that
space? And I think sometimes we assume that we can do the same
tools everywhere, but they are not the same tools.
However, I would submit to you that the principles that
have to guide good climate policy are the same everywhere.
And I really liked your comments, Mr. Satterthwaite, when
you called for technology-neutral and goal-dependent
decarbonization strategies in the transportation sector. I
would suggest that that is true everywhere. To Mr. Graves'
point, we do have finite capital. Markets will allocate capital
accurately and efficiently if we define the goal. We get in our
way all the time when we start recommending paths.
And there is also the reality that lowering carbon dioxide
emissions is awesome, fun, and addictive once you start,
because--and this is complicated, so I am going to say this
real slow so everybody gets it--people don't give away fuel for
free. So if you burn less fuel, you save money. That requires
an investment, but you make money on investments. And in places
that have done this, we have seen them adopt this and move
along and go from there.
And that is essential, to make sure that our climate
policies focus on accelerating capital investment, and then
recognize that, once you own an efficient vehicle, once you own
an efficient power plant, once you own a solar panel on your
roof, you tend to operate it all the time because it is
cheaper, it is more efficient, and if you are fortunate enough
to own an electric car, it is super-fun to drive, way more fun
than the other car you have.
So, you know, that is in part why I introduced H.R. 2025 to
permanently extend the alternative refueling property tax
credit for investments in EV charging and other alternative
fuel. This is a real hard investment for the private sector to
make, but once you get that infrastructure out there, it is a
catalyst to move other investments forward.
I want to thank Chairman Neal and Chairman Thompson for
including an extension of that tax credit in the Taxpayer
Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2019.
Mr. Popple, as we consider a potential infrastructure
package, can you help understand why it is important that the
Federal Government make investments in EV charging
infrastructure?
Mr. Popple. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
I think certain types of EV charging infrastructure require
Federal investment because you have a period of
underutilization for infrastructure, and so you end up with a
market failure. It is difficult for a private business to have
patient enough capital, and you also have to be able to take a
little bit of risk for some of those charging stations in terms
of knowing where to put them.
However, on the fleet vehicle side, what I think is quite
interesting is that there is no risk in terms of where that
infrastructure should go and whether or not it will be
economically utilized. That is one of the reasons why we have
never had a charging infrastructure problem with our markets.
We don't have a chicken-and-egg problem because our customers
buy the same number of chickens and the same number of eggs as
they need to do that fleet vehicle job.
I agree also with your point on the fact that once you get
started with this technology you embrace it and you want to go
further with it. We have had dozens of cities throughout the
U.S. voluntarily, on their own, from the bottoms up, after they
have implemented some electric buses, they have passed an
action plan to go to 100-percent electric buses.
So for some sectors where the category is ready, once you
get it started, it takes a momentum on its own, and the
customer will take it from there.
Mr. Casten. Thanks.
So I want to shift. Since its inception in 2007, the
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program has helped
drive a whole lot of investment through direct loans to
automotive or component manufacturers for re-equipping,
expanding, or establishing facilities for the domestic
production of fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles. I
think the numbers to date are: It has supported over 4 million
advanced-technology vehicles and upwards of $17.7 billion in
remaining loan authority.
However, a 2018 report from Energy Futures Initiative
entitled ``Leveraging the DOE Loan Program'' notes that current
statutes prevent the program funds from being used to invest in
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, even though they account for
almost 25 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the
transportation sector.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter
this report into the record.
Ms. Castor. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
----------
Submission for the Record
Representative Sean Casten
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Leveraging the DOE Loan Program. Energy Futures
Initiative, 2018.
The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20190430/109329/HHRG-
116-CN00-Wstate-FosterD-20190430-SD003.pdf.
Mr. Casten. And, Mr. Popple, I was pleased to hear you call
to amend the program to allow companies like Proterra to be
able to apply for loans.
We would welcome from you and/or Mr. Satterthwaite, as you
think about low-carbon solutions in the transportation sector,
how important is it that the Federal Government provide access
to lower-cost financing options?
Mr. Popple. Well, I think it can be extremely important in
terms of starting a market, but what we have seen on the
battery-electric bus side is, once it is proven out, private
capital steps in.
So we had recent example where Mitsui has announced a $200
million program to finance batteries for our sector, but you
often need the Federal Government to at least initiate it.
Mr. Casten. Mr. Satterthwaite.
Mr. Satterthwaite. I would support Mr. Popple. I think
starting and getting some of these early starts and early wins
in the infrastructure, charging infrastructure, and alternate
fuel, refueling infrastructure, is an area where the Federal
Government can play a very big part.
Mr. Casten. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, would you entertain a unanimous
consent request, please? A report from the Rhodium Group and
also a recent E&E News report.
This is, unfortunately, in response to my friend Ranking
Member Graves' victory lap on our recent emissions reductions.
The victory lap is over, and these reports show that in 2018
our emissions began rising again. They are projected to
continue rising.
So, sadly, we don't have a lot of laurels to rest on. And I
think these reports, if you will enter them into the record,
will help correct that impression.
Ms. Castor. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
----------
Submissions for the Record
Representative Jared Huffman
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Harvey, Chelsea. ``CO2 Emissions Reached an All-Time
High in 2018.'' E&E News, 6 December 2018.
The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-
reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/
ATTACHMENT: Houser, Trevor; Pitt, Hannah; Hess, Hannah. Final US
Emissions Estimates for 2018. Rhodium Group, 31 May 2019.
The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://rhg.com/research/final-us-emissions-estimates-for-
2018/.
Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Lujan, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Popple, you said that the next wave of transportation
technology isn't just about driving down emissions but also, I
quote, ``creating good-paying jobs and boosting the clean-
energy economy.''
Proterra could be a model for growing the manufacturing of
heavy-duty vehicles in the country, with an eye toward reducing
emissions and protecting working men and women. Are you working
with communities and unions to hire family-supporting jobs that
reduce emissions?
Mr. Popple. Absolutely, Congressman. I appreciate the
question.
We work very closely on the infrastructure side with labor
groups like the IBEW. They tend to be one of the best sources
of high-voltage, trained, skilled labor.
We are a young manufacturer. We have about 500 employees.
So we are still evolving through what our long-term structure
will be in terms of our relationship with labor. But we are
supportive 100 percent of whatever decision our employees make
in terms of their right to organize.
We have a plant in Greenville, South Carolina; we have a
plant in L.A. County; and we also have a plant in the Bay Area.
And we are supportive of whatever our employees choose.
In terms of good jobs and clean-energy economy, our company
provides salary, healthcare benefits, stock equity in the
company for 100 percent of our employees. And we think that the
types of jobs that we are creating for this company can be a
model for this new industry as it grows and helps us improve
our energy productivity.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that response, Mr. Popple. My
father was a union ironworker. He learned how to weld in the
shipyards of San Pedro as a young man before he found his way
back to New Mexico. My brother is IBEW. My grandfather was a
union carpenter as well.
The other question that I have, connected to that--and you
alluded to this--but what are you doing also within the company
to promote safe working conditions and to make sure that, while
we are moving forward with what will be strong, new
technological advances, that people are smart about the
environments that they are creating for the teams that you are
assembling to build the future?
Mr. Popple. That is a great question. Thank you, sir.
The reality is, working on electric vehicles and
maintaining electric vehicles and operating electric vehicles
is healthier for the worker than the fossil-fuel alternative. A
lot of our service techs, one of the things they really like
about this job is, at the end of the day, they are not covered
in grease and oil. They don't feel like they are going back
home to their families possibly with something on them that is
a contaminant.
In terms of work environment, Proterra as a company exceeds
our industry averages for safety. We start every meeting, every
session, with a focus on safety, including with our board of
directors. And we take very seriously the need to train workers
on this new digital and electric technology, not just on the
vehicle side but also on the infrastructure side.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
And you anticipated my next question, which was: How can we
work with you to promote the skill and labor force needed,
specifically in the electric vehicle service and maintenance
workers and battery technicians? So I appreciate that very
much.
Ms. Romero, I represent a rural district in New Mexico.
What more can we be doing to promote electric vehicles and
clean transportation infrastructure in districts like mine?
Ms. Romero. Yeah. You know, electric vehicle infrastructure
charging stations are going to be put in neighborhoods where
they think there is going to be a lot of electric vehicle
ownership. And whether it comes to bringing these technologies
to rural communities or bringing them to urban communities of
color, the problem is the same. We need to make sure that we
are investing in accessible clean technology for all Americans.
And sometimes that means a utility or a company isn't going
to put it there, it doesn't make business sense for them. But
for us, as a government that serves all Americans across the
United States, we need to make sure that we are filling that
gap and providing fair access.
Mr. Lujan. So, in States like New Mexico, where, you know,
a lot of trucks are moving through there, there is a lot of
long-haul. So our interstate systems are probably the first
area that could benefit from that infrastructure investment.
As it then builds out away from those interstate systems
into maybe vehicles that aren't going to be on such long hauls,
what are you doing in that space?
Ms. Romero. Yeah. So I mentioned this a little bit earlier.
There is a small town, a farm worker town in central
California, Huron. It is a 7,000-person town. This is a
community that takes 4 hours on three different public buses
just to get to the nearest children's hospital. That is one
way. It is an 8-hour roundtrip. And, of course, the buses don't
run at night. As you know, in rural communities, the
infrastructure is lacking.
And so what they are doing is they have this Green Raiteros
program, where there is electric rideshare, community-owned--if
you think of Zipcar, led by communities--where people can come
in and use an electric vehicle to get to their appointments or
use an electric vehicle to provide service for other members of
the community. A lot of retired community members come in and
do that; they work or they volunteer as a driver. And they are
able to bring that technology in and help solve some of those
gaps.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the emphasis in that community,
as well, with the challenges they have for transportation. If
they don't have a rural healthcare clinic, I think that is
something else that we could look at, making sure those folks
have access to.
But when you talk about a town of that size, you are
talking about communities where I come from, so I get it. And I
appreciate your work in that space, Ms. Romero.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Levin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Castor. I am very grateful that
you are holding this hearing. This is a personal issue for me,
having grown up near a major port, the Port of Long Beach, for
the first 8 years of my life before we moved down to south
Orange County.
And I have three big ports in southern California, in Long
Beach, L.A., and San Diego, and I am friends with a lot of
folks there. I have had a chance to tour the Middle Harbor
Initiative at the Port of Long Beach and see all the zero-
emission things that are going on.
And I commend all of you, all four of you. And that
includes anybody trying to do zero-emission, as you are at
Proterra. I am also encouraged by the work being done at
Cummins with the Cummins Westport engine.
The reality is that we need to get to zero. When I say
zero, I don't just mean criteria pollutants. I think that is
great. I think those advances are really critical on NOx, SOx,
particulate matter. But the reality is we have to get to zero,
period. That means zero CO2 as well. We have to get there as
quickly as we can.
I think it is important also to note a lot of the work that
we are doing on the light-duty side, as we work to build out an
EV charging infrastructure throughout the State of California
in particular, which I am most familiar with. We are going to
go from 14,000 EV chargers to 250,000 EV chargers by 2025.
I have a bill that would increase the sales of new
passenger cars to be 50 percent of all new passenger cars in
California by 2035. And it ramps up--in the Nation--ramps up
from there.
We are already doing this stuff in California. I am always
mindful of, where are you going to get that electricity from?
Because I hear the naysayers say, well, if the electricity is
dirty, then the electric vehicles are going to be dirty. Right
now, we are getting--and this is our handy ISO app in
California--52 percent of all of our electricity in California
is coming from renewable sources. That is right now, today.
I am also mindful that fuel cells could play a big role in
this, as well, in the heavy-duty space. I worked in clean
energy for about 15 years, representing a variety, everybody
from electric trucks to fuel cells. And there are strengths and
weaknesses to each of those technologies. There are
infrastructure hurdles to each of those technologies as well.
And I wanted to just highlight the work we are doing in
California, again, with regard to heavy-duty. Specifically,
Port of Long Beach just got an $8 million grant from the CEC to
construct hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Port of L.A. got
$41 million last year from the California Air Resources Board
for the similar hydrogen fueling infrastructure, use of zero-
emissions forklifts and the like.
So we have made it a priority in California. And the
question for each of you is, what can we do at the Federal
level? I have seen a variety of suggestions, but what one thing
would you like to see us do at the Federal level to really
advance zero-emissions heavy-duty infrastructure?
Mr. Logan. If I may, Congressmember, so if I was just to
pick one today, I think investing in the DERA programs,
specifically within a program looking at the freight sector,
advancing zero-emissions. Using the example of the school bus
rebate program and alter that to look like a rebate system for
zero-emission technology in the freight sector.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Anybody else? Because we get to write laws up here.
Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, the sure thing I mentioned was
the Clean School Bus Act for school bus electrification.
The other thing that I think is a big topic of discussion,
potentially in a bipartisan way, is carbon pricing. And I
think, so far, there is no carbon pricing legislation at the
Federal level that is looking at how we leverage the revenue to
accelerate the transition. And I would say any revenue-neutral
option is not an option. So thinking about how do we leverage
those dollars to deploy into solutions that are going to get us
to zero-emission.
Mr. Levin. Okay.
Mr. Popple. So I would have two quick ones, Congressman.
One would be to open the ATVM program, which has funding to
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The fact that ATVM excludes
anything but a car shows how car-centric and -focused we have
been, to our misfortune.
And the second one would be, I would aggressively invest in
modernizing the power grid. Because we don't know exactly when
all these different sectors are going to go electric, but we do
know the low-carbon, common-currency fuel of the future is
electricity. And the more we invest in the grid, the more we
can get clean energy out of Texas or Iowa or northern
California or southern California into other sectors, from
Oregon--so any investment in the grid I think is a future-proof
investment.
Mr. Levin. It is almost like we need to pass an
infrastructure bill.
Mr. Popple. Absolutely.
Mr. Levin. Yes, sir.
Ms. Satterthwaite. I will just add, funding DERA,
continuing to fund DERA, and let customers choose which way to
reduce emissions, and do it with short- and long-term benefits.
Mr. Levin. I wanted to ask a related question, and perhaps
each of you could just briefly weigh in.
We have an opportunity with the USMCA, you know, the new
NAFTA. And when I think about air quality and emissions in my
region, the greater San Diego region, it seems to me heavy-duty
transit, you know, a lot of trucks coming to and from Mexico,
certainly contribute.
What, if anything, should we be doing in the new NAFTA
about heavy-duty emissions?
Mr. Logan. I would say, without a doubt, including in any
type of agreement a clean-truck and clean-freight mandate.
The communities in and around those ports of entry are
dramatically impacted. And, you know, I think this is one of
the ways in which we can look at the cost of doing business, to
help to be solution-oriented, addressing both the environmental
justice and climate justice.
Mr. Levin. Appreciate it.
I am out of time, and I appreciate the chair.
Maybe if one more wants to answer this, and--I am really
out of time.
Mr. Satterthwaite. If I could, just quickly?
Ms. Castor. Go ahead. Quickly.
Mr. Satterthwaite. Canada has essentially followed U.S. EPA
regulations for heavy-duty trucks. So there was already
harmonization between the U.S. and Canada.
Mexico has followed European standards, not U.S. standards.
They are not that different, but there could be an argument
that harmonization would be better, I think, as part of MCA. If
we could harmonize heavy-duty emissions regulations across the
historic NAFTA/USMCA, I think that could make a difference.
Mr. Levin. Thank you all very much.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Before we go to Mr. Griffith, I will recognize the ranking
member for a U.C. request.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I can't tell you how much it pains me to
submit anything that may refute what Mr. Huffman said. But I
just want to ask unanimous consent to submit a report, a July
2019 report by EIA that demonstrates in 2019 that they are
expecting emissions to have a net reduction of 2.2 percent,
which I believe would be lower than the majority of years
during the Obama administration.
Ms. Castor. Just a question. Is this in the electricity
generation sector, or does it include the transportation
sector?
Mr. Graves. Yeah. That is energy-related CO2 emissions.
Ms. Graves. So it is coal, natural gas, petroleum. So this
is likely in the electric power sector, not the transportation
sector? Or is it all sectors?
Mr. Graves. This is energy-related. It is my understanding
that it is tied back to all sectors that use those fuels.
Mr. Huffman. You beat me to it, Madam Chair. I think, if
allowed enough time, I could track down another unanimous
consent to show 2019 emissions are rising.
Mr. Graves. Bring it. Bring it.
Ms. Castor. Thank you all very much.
Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record
Representative Garret Graves
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submission for the Record
Representative Jared Huffman
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
July 16, 2019
ATTACHMENT: Storrow, Benjamin. ``2019 Power-Sector Trends Point to
a Continued Rise in U.S. Emissions.'' E&E News, 3 June 2019.
The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2019-power-sector-
trends-point-to-a-continued-rise-in-u-s-emissions/
Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me apologize to
you and the other members of the committee and to our
witnesses. I have been off in a hearing where we are working on
fentanyl and trying to keep it from coming into the U.S.
So I apologize, but it is not that I have been out doing
fun things. I have been working hard for the people of the
United States.
Mr. Satterthwaite, Cummins is a leader in the ultra-low-
emission natural gas engines. How do these natural gas engines
help reduce carbon emissions in the heavy-duty transportation
world?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Congressman.
As I mentioned in my testimony, our latest low-emissions
natural gas engine is actually achieving emissions levels which
are 90 percent below the EPA and CARB heavy-duty diesel
standards.
Natural gas usage is primarily limited to return-to-base
fleets--city buses, refuse trucks, other fleets that are on a
regular return to home bases--because of the challenges with
natural gas infrastructure. There is just not enough fueling
infrastructure to allow natural gas to extend into the long-
haul, over-the-road trucks.
What we have been able to reduce in the natural gas engines
is significant. On a horsepower-for-horsepower basis, natural
gas is somewhere between 30-percent lower greenhouse gas
generation than diesel for the same amount of work done. And so
those engines have made a significant difference in the
communities they have been in. Most of them are in urban areas
and with municipal fleets. And so that has made a significant
difference, we believe, in those communities.
Mr. Griffith. I support an all-of-the-above approach, but I
have expressed concerns in the past about electric vehicles and
that I think maybe government policy has tipped the scales and
we haven't researched enough on other fuels, which is why I ask
about natural gas, because I am very interested in that.
So then the question becomes, on electric trucks--and I
know a lot of companies, including Volvo, which its North
American headquarters is in my district, is working on an
electric truck. Don't we currently have the same problem with
over-the-road trucking--that we would have with electric trucks
as we would with natural gas?
Mr. Satterthwaite. I think if you say the same problem, you
mean the lack of infrastructure?
Mr. Griffith. I mean the lack of infrastructure, and where
are you going to refuel?
Mr. Satterthwaite. Without a doubt. That is a significant
impediment to the adoption of battery-electric technology in
the over-the-road, long-haul, heavy-duty trucking. Definitely.
We also believe there are weight or energy-density
challenges and also price and cost challenges which have yet to
be overcome.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Tell me what those are.
Mr. Satterthwaite. So, currently, if you want to engineer a
truck with the same power and the same range as today's diesel
or natural gas technology, it will weigh approximately three
times as much as today's cab because of the weight of batteries
needed for the power and the energy.
Mr. Griffith. Wow.
Mr. Satterthwaite. So that is one challenge.
Mr. Griffith. And so that challenge then creates a
challenge for the various States and localities that are trying
to keep their roads repaired, because that extra weight adds to
road wear, does it not?
Mr. Satterthwaite. That would be a consequence of that.
Mr. Griffith. And since most of our taxes currently are
based on taxing the diesel to get road money, wouldn't that
also then create a problem for the local governments and the
State governments for having enough funds to repair the roads
as a result of that extra weight?
Mr. Satterthwaite. That could definitely happen as well,
yes.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Well, I do think that we need to increase our
infrastructure both for natural gas and to make sure that we
have refueling for electric as we move into this direction. As
I said, I am all of the above, I am open to it, but we have to
solve these problems on both road maintenance and on refueling.
Because for a lot of the truckers in my area, driving up
and down Interstate 81, just in the State of Virginia, you have
328 miles. If you can't drive that far on a tank and there is
no place to refuel when you get to the end of the line, you are
not going to use that technology, no matter how efficient it
might be and how much it might do for the environment.
I appreciate it very much and appreciate you all being here
today.
And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
So I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
I am so glad that we got to this topic, because I think
there are exciting opportunities ahead. We have the climate
solutions. We know how to do this. We know how to unleash
American ingenuity. We must find cleaner and carbon-free
solutions for how we move people and goods across America and
across the globe.
And families and consumers will benefit greatly. Lower
costs--let's talk about a few of them. And by the way, this
isn't decades away. This is now. For families and communities,
when we talk about reducing carbon pollution, we talk about
better health. Communities and families will be healthier, and
that will help save money. Transportation-related businesses
have a whole lot to gain when fuel costs come down
dramatically.
This is going to be a revolution that we live through over
the coming years, if the Congress has the courage to act and
put the incentives where they need to be put.
Just look at what fuel economy has done on the passenger-
car side. For decades, every time the Congress has pushed
automobile manufacturers to do better, they have met the
challenge. But we are at risk right now of ceding that
leadership to other countries, like China.
Plus, we can create good, family-sustaining jobs as we
build this clean-energy economy--yes, in rural areas. And we
need to talk about the areas across the country that need those
investments.
Ms. Romero, talk to us about what the costs would be if we
just stuck with the status quo.
Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, we are talking about the
decimation of communities across the country.
And, honestly, even looking at having less than 11 years or
less than 10 years until the next level of global catastrophe
isn't enough. We are looking at low-income communities and
communities of color today surrounded by busy freeways and
highways, surrounded by pollution, where asthma and other
pollution-related illness is impacting their ability to do
anything.
And so the consequences are grave, they are human, and----
Ms. Castor. And you say: Gosh, start with school buses.
Ms. Romero. And start with school buses. Why not? I mean,
we need a lot more than that, obviously, in a comprehensive
approach, a massive mobilization of resources, but why not----
Ms. Castor. But that is an area where we could get co-
benefits there by reducing the costs for school districts.
Maybe they can plow some of those fuel costs back into the
classroom. And, plus, kids will be having a healthier ride to
school.
Ms. Romero. And we will raise the whole next generation to
understand the new technology and be the leaders for the next
future decades.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Logan, what do you see are the costs of the
status quo?
Mr. Logan. In the same way, with children across the
country. There are communities in and around ports that are
bearing the brunt of the health consequences in the multiple
billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
And so there is both the health cost, but there is also the
lost days of work, and there is also the low productivity of
many different sectors. I mentioned earlier agriculture but
also within the manufacturing as well.
And, you know, if we don't, you know, resolve this issue,
we are not going to have goods to move. We won't be having this
conversation because we won't need to move things. We won't
have things to move.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Popple, I think Proterra really tells an
important story.
You are currently building these electric buses in South
Carolina and in California. What other parts of the country do
you think can support these manufacturing jobs as we move
forward?
And I just know, we are going to invest a whole lot more.
It just makes too much sense for local communities back home.
So what do you see? What does the future hold? Can we go
into rural areas and areas that need a little bit of economic
development for these clean-energy jobs?
Mr. Popple. Absolutely. Especially, Congresswoman, if we
focus on early-adopter categories like transit and school bus.
Transit, in particular, has a Buy America requirement, which
means 70 percent or more of the supply chain has to come from
domestic sources.
So, if you look at our product, it is not a product that
just benefits California and South Carolina. Charging stations,
for us, are built in Michigan. Electric motors are built in
Colorado. Our composite bodies are built in Iowa and Rhode
Island.
So there is a national supply chain that can be set up on
the vehicle side and on installing the infrastructure. And all
of that infrastructure, that is local, so that is a local job
to that community.
Ms. Castor. And you said we are at risk right now to ceding
leadership in the world to China and other countries. Is that
right?
Mr. Popple. Absolutely, Congresswoman. And I think what is
at risk is, if we become less productive at moving goods and
people than other global countries or other global economies,
they will have a profound economic advantage, just like if we
were stuck with propeller planes and the rest of the world
moved to jets.
Ms. Castor. Well, I want to thank you all very much.
I want to thank the minority and Mr. Graves and my
colleagues for a terrific discussion.
We are going to continue the focus on the transportation
sector moving forward. To use Ms. Romero's analogy, we should
celebrate the U.S.'s ability to reduce carbon and air
pollution, but the game is still on. We need to keep our hustle
to achieve the type of reduction science shows we need to
achieve to avoid it being ``game over'' for our children and
future generations. That is what this committee's work is all
about.
As we heard in our second hearing from Dr. Liverman, every
ton of CO2 we keep from going up in the atmosphere is
important, because every increase in temperature counts to the
health of people and the planet.
So thank you again for being here today. Thank you again,
colleagues.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
United States House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis
Hearing on July 16, 2019, ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up
Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities''
Questions for the Record
Angelo Logan, Campaign Director, Moving Forward Network
the honorable kathy castor
1. Deploying zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles will require capital
investment. These costs are easy to identify, while the costs of the
status quo are less well-understood. How would you describe the costs
of the status quo in terms of the public health impacts of pollution
from legacy vehicles and the impacts of climate change to frontline
communities?
Although the economic impacts associated with heavy duty freight
transportation on public health is less available at the National
level, the State of California has conducted several studies on this
very topic. I draw from California's studies as examples of the cost of
the status quo in terms of the public health impacts of pollution from
legacy heavy-duty freight vehicles and the impacts to public health and
climate change to frontline communities.
In 2005 California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that
freight transportation is responsible for 360,000 missed workdays and
1,100,000 missed days of school with 2,830 hospital admissions and
2,400 premature deaths. Between 2005-2020 it is estimated that heavy-
duty freight transportation cost California residents $200 billion in
health costs.
The freight system relies predominately on diesel-powered
equipment, which produces diesel exhaust made up of toxins and climate
pollutants. Diesel exhaust creates CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Freight
transport worldwide contributes approximately 3 billion tons of CO2.
Black carbon is also a result of diesel exhaust. Black carbon is a fine
particulate matter and short-lived climate pollutant that has very high
global warming potential--some estimate over 600 times higher than CO2.
The freight transportation sector accounts for roughly 9% of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and in the next couple of decades, it is
expected that ocean going vessels alone will account for about 17% of
all man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The people hit first and worst from the climate crisis and freight
transport are the over 13 million people that live near major marine
ports, rail yards, and freight facilities. These communities are
disproportionately low-income communities of color and have increased
health risks from climate change impacts and the toxic diesel pollution
that is concentrated at high levels around freight hubs. The sources of
this diesel pollution are heavy-duty trucks, trains, ships, and cargo
handling equipment. Diesel exhaust is estimated to contain over 450
chemicals; many are known toxins linked to early death, respiratory
problems, heart attacks, and reduced birth weight and premature birth.
Children have higher rates of exposure to air pollution and are at
higher risk of health impacts.
Affected by freight transportation, African Americans are a high-
risk population that is 3 times their proportion of the U.S. population
and Latinos made up two times their proportion. All this to say,
freight transport poses a huge climate crisis for the planet and for
the local environmental justice communities that have been dealing with
the impacts of the air pollution that is causing the climate crisis.
2. We understand that the Moving Forward Network has dozens of
members around the country. Could you please highlight some of their
priorities for cleaning up goods movement?
The Moving Forward Network (MFN) is a national coalition of over 50
member organizations including community-based environmental justice
organizations, national environmental organizations, and academic
institutions, in over 20 major U.S. cities, representing over 2 million
members, committed to reducing the public health harms created by our
country's freight transportation system. Importantly, MFN members
include individuals who work and live in freight-impacted communities.
The MFN priorities are as follows:
Protect the Clean Air Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act throughout all legislative actions.
Congress must oppose all provisions to any Infrastructure Bill
or Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill that would
endanger public health by weakening the Clean Air Act and/or
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Congress must develop and adopt policy principles
for climate legislation that advance climate justice,
environmental justice, communities' self-determination and
local solutions. Frontline communities have the real expertise
and true solutions that will solve the climate crisis.
Therefore, the process for developing any solution or strategy
is paramount.
Congress must provide EPA with the tools and
resources needed to meet its mission and play a role in solving
the climate crisis. Congress must appropriate a substantial
increase of funds to the EPA, both DERA and the Environmental
Justice grants program. The Environmental Justice Grants
programs support communities working on solutions to
environmental and public health issues. The Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act (DERA) authorizes grants to eligible entities for
projects that reduce emissions from existing diesel engines.
EPA must develop a more targeted strategy for awarding these
funds. Funds for demonstration projects should target zero-
emission technologies.
Congress should hold EPA accountable to meeting its
mission and legal requirements under the Clean Air Act. EPA
must adopt regulations to reduce and eliminate emissions from
the freight sector. EPA must identify reducing freight-related
air pollution as a top priority for the Agency. Tackling such
pollution will further the Agency's air quality, climate and
environmental justice goals. EPA must adopt new national
standards for freight-related sources and provide more guidance
to states with freight-related activities in areas that violate
national air quality standards and/or produce localized health
risks with the goal of deploying zero-emission technologies.
3. California's Gross State Product is more than $3 trillion. If it
were a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the
world. For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
economic growth, how would you respond?
In response to suggestions that decarbonization of the freight
sector requires sacrificing economic growth, I only respond with the
mayor of Los Angeles' quote related to the joint ports of LA and Long
Beach, the country's largest port complex; ``The Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach are driving forces of our region's economy--they should
also be models for how we move toward a more sustainable future by
balancing growth and environmental stewardship,'' said Los Angeles
Mayor Eric Garcetti. ``The draft Clean Air Action Plan is an important
step in our work to reduce air pollution in our communities, and take
action on climate change.'' ``We have already proven that it's possible
to increase jobs and trade with cleaner air and healthier communities
and I want to thank all of our partners who helped make this
possible.'' The Mayor of Los Angeles is referring to jobs, trade and
growth as economic growth and prosperity. To answer the question, the
nations largest complex is decarbonizing by way of the ``Clean Air
Action Plan'' without sacrificing economic growth.
the honorable garret graves
1. In your testimony you talk about the Clean Air Act and holding
EPA accountable to meets its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act.
Do you agree that the federal government should hold those with
compliance obligations under the Clean Air Act accountable as well?
Should there be severe penalties for states that has areas habitually
out of compliance?
As of today, there are more than 30 counties in California that are
out of compliance with not just one, but MULTIPLE federal air quality
standards in the Clean Air Act. Reducing criteria pollutants (National
Ambient Air Quality Standards) would almost certainly translate into
greenhouse gas reductions as a co-benefit. Do any of you know what the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be if all of California
simply complied with the Clean Air Act? Do you know how many fewer
California deaths there would be if California were in full compliance?
The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law that should be
upheld by the federal government in the same regard as any other
federal law that is intended to protect the public's health and safety.
Under the Clean Air Act the EPA is charged with compliance and
enforcement of the law. As part of my testimony, I recommended to the
committee that Congress do everything in your power to hold EPA
accountable to this charge--requiring, to the full extent of its
authority, that EPA take action to address pollution. Also, Congress
should hold regular hearings on the progress of EPA in meeting its
legal requirements under the Clean Air Act, which includes requiring
states to comply with federal air quality standards.
I agree that reducing criteria pollutants and meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards would translate into greenhouse gas
reductions as a co-benefit. The fact that 30 counties in California are
out of compliance with multiple federal air quality standards means
significant greenhouse gas emissions and associated negative health
impacts such as premature deaths, and demonstrates the need to hold EPA
accountable to meeting its mission and legal requirements under the
Clean Air Act. Specifically, EPA should be adopting mobile source and
other regulations that reduce and eliminate criteria and climate
pollutants. In addition EPA should grant California the ability to
adopt standards beyond EPA's, not limit California's ability to adopt
standards that would allow them to meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. In other words, EPA should require California to
achieve compliance with air quality standards, not hinder the State.
references
Castor Q1
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, and
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).
Goods Movement Action Plan Phase 1: Foundations. September
2005.
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, and
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). Goods Movement
Action Plan Phase 1: Foundations. September 2005.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm.
Haveman JD, EM Jennings, and H Shatz. California and the
Global Economy: Recent Facts and Figures
National Port Strategy Assessment: Reducing Air Pollution
and Greenhouse Gases at U.S. Ports, Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation Air Quality, September 2016, https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/les/2016-09/documents/420r16011.pdf.
Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas
Emissions 1990-2014, Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, June 2016, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ONBL.pdf.
Lydia DePillis, ``Ports are the new power plants-at least
in terms of pollution,'' Wonkblog (blog), The Washington Post, November
24, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/24/ports-
are-the-new-power-plants-at-least-in-terms-of-pollution.
Castor Q3
http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/2016/11/18/port-of-los-
angeles-and-long-beach-unveil-bold-strategies-to-reduce-greenhouse-
gases-and-clean-the-air/
Graves Q1
42 U.S.C. section 7401(a)(4)
42 U.S.C. section 7410(k)(5)
Questions for the Record
Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony, you referenced examples of inclusive
financing programs that helped low-income customers have access to
energy efficiency upgrades to buildings. Could you please provide
additional detail about these programs and explain how a similar model
could be applied to public school transportation? What policies should
Congress adopt to promote broader use of inclusive financing?
There are a number of inclusive financing programs that have been
deployed to help address the upfront cost barriers for building energy
efficiency upgrades.
In 2009, Green For All was proud to be a part of a program with the
city of Portland, Oregon. Like many communities across the country,
residents in Portland were experiencing the effects of the Great
Recession, and needed a way to preserve jobs, create jobs, and spur
economic growth. The city found a way by launching an inclusive
financing pilot project to provide deep home energy efficiency
retrofits for residents. The project was developed with Clean Energy
Works Oregon, a nonprofit now known as Enhabit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://enhabit.org/programs/clean-energy-works/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leveraging public dollars to attract outside investment, Portland
established a self-sustaining revolving loan fund to offer low-interest
financing for residents to overcome the upfront cost barriers for deep
home energy efficiency retrofits. The program provided residents with
an Energy Advocate to asses their homes needs, along with the low-
interest financing that would allow residents to pay back the loan from
their bill savings through a charge on their utility bill, known as on-
bill financing. In addition, Green For All worked with Portland to
facilitate a community worker agreement for the program to achieve
triple-bottom line results by requiring the jobs to be prevailing-wage
jobs, setting goals for local and targeted hiring, and contracting with
women and minority-owned businesses. The initial pilot was so
successful, Portland was able to attract $20 million from the federal
government to expand the program.
Learn more about Portland's financing program design in our report:
https://www.greenforall.org/clean_Kenergy_works_portland_report (2009).
Find a summary of Portland's high-road jobs outcomes from the
project here: https://www.greenforall.org/
high_road_outcomes_in_portland_s_energy_efficiency_ upgrade_pilot
(2011)
Green For All collaborated with the National Housing Trust to
create a guide to On-Bill Programs that Advance Multi-family Energy
Efficiency, which is available here: https://www.greenforall.org/
on_bill_programs_that_advance_multifamily_ energy_efficiency (2013)
This report highlights four case studies on multi-family energy
efficiency programs: PSE&G New Jersey Multifamily Program, MPower
Oregon, Windsor Efficiency PAYS, and MidWest Energy
HowSmart' Kansas.
Green For All offers a Best Practices Guide for High Road
Agreements here: https://www.greenforall.org/
high_road_agreements_a_best_practice_brief_by_green_ for_all (2012).
Pay As You Save (PAYS) is another program model to help address
barriers that can prevent low-income populations from accessing clean
energy solutions. The PAYS model utilizes a tariff-based method;
customers select their improvements through their utilities, and pay
for their improvements over time. Until the investment is recovered,
the tariff for the PAYS charge applies automatically to any future
customers at that site. The PAYS model supports widespread adoption
even in market segments that are hard to reach, such as renters, low
and moderate-income households, multifamily buildings and municipal
customers. For instance, this model eliminates debt-based
disqualification. The debt-free PAYS model has yielded average energy
savings of 25% and has been adopted by utilities in Kansas, Kentucky,
North Carolina, New Hampshire, Hawaii, California and Arkansas. Learn
more about the PAYS program by Roanoke Electric in North Carolina
here.\2\ (page 14-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/greenforall/pages/7020/
attachments/original/1464933284/TOOLKIT_1_-
_Fair_and_Just_Investments.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If applied to public school transportation, similar models of local
lending and tariff-based payments could enable districts to invest in
making the switch from diesel to electric buses. Like energy efficiency
upgrades for buildings or solar panel installation, electric buses have
a higher upfront cost, which can be a barrier for many schools. But
because electric buses are so much cheaper to fuel and maintain, an
inclusive financing approach to remove the upfront cost barrier and
allow the school to pay back a loan out of their savings would make it
much more feasible for more schools to adopt electric buses. Other
federal policies that would assist in broadening the scope of electric
buses include matching programs, and interest-free government-funded
loans that prioritize low-income and minority-serving schools and
districts.
2. California's Gross State Product is over $3 trillion. If it were
a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world.
For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
economic growth, how would you respond?
Civil rights leader Van Jones said in a 2018 statement,
``Everything that's good for the planet is a job. It's a contract. It's
a business opportunity. Solar panels don't put themselves up. Wind
turbines don't manufacture themselves. Organic gardens don't make
themselves. Every single thing that we need to make the Earth whole is
also work that can make our society whole.''
Protecting our environment and building our economy are not at
odds. Decarbonization involves engaging people across sectors of
society, from architects to farmers to truck-drivers. Within these
fields, decarbonization allows opportunities for educational,
professional, and economic progress, and these jobs can provide steady
income, job security, and significant benefits for workers. For
example, the transition to clean and renewable energy has created so
many jobs that solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians are
now at the top of the United States' list of fastest-growing jobs, and
continue to grow in popularity, need, and compensation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\tps://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/26/solar-pv-installer-wind-
turbine-tech-are-fastest-growing-occupations-in-us/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republican and former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger
said on The Van Jones Show last year, ``The fact of the matter is in
California we have a 4.3% economic growth and the nationwide growth is
only 1.3%[...] How is that possible when we have the strictest
environmental laws in the United States? So we have already proven you
can do both--you can protect the environment and protect the economy at
the same time. It's that simple.'' Watch the segment here: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3xpPyai8zo It is worth noting California has
dedicated a significant portion of its climate investment dollars to
programs and projects that benefit the state's most disadvantaged
communities. A minimum of 35% of the state's cap and trade dollars, for
instance, are required to be spent in disadvantaged communities or to
benefit disadvantaged communities. In practice, the state regularly
invests more than half of its climate dollars to benefit disadvantaged
communities. This matters not only from a moral perspective, but from
an economic perspective too.
When new technologies and businesses come to market, their products
and services are generally more limited in quantity during the early
stages. This can keep prices high, making them affordable only to
``early adopters'' or people with the means and readiness to adopt
them.
As green businesses pick up market share and have more capital to
invest in improving technology, purchasing materials in larger
quantities, and so forth, prices can drop and put them within reach of
lower and moderate income consumers. The green economy is not immune to
these realities. Electric vehicles and solar panels were more expensive
at first, and are gradually becoming more affordable. Government
incentives and subsidies in the right places can help spur the kind of
growth needed to put the green economy within reach of more Americans.
Targeted investments in bringing clean technology to harder to reach
markets, and making them affordable for lower-income consumers has not
only been a way to ensure the green economy does not leave anyone
behind in California, it has been a way to bolster green business
growth and clean technology advancement, which I would argue, has
helped California's economy continue to prosper.
It is also important to recognize that California is not the only
state proving you can have strong environmental policies and a strong
economy. In Lancaster, Pennsylvania--a city that developed its first
clean energy goals in 2011--the city's clean energy infrastructure
provided a cost-effective approach to stormwater management that saved
the city about $2.8 million in energy, air-quality, and climate-related
benefits.\4\ There are multiple benefits to protecting our environment
and transitioning to a clean economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/
cnt-lancaster-report-508_1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California and across the country at large, smart
decarbonization policy can and should move us towards a more
sustainable and prosperous future for all Americans.
3. California is a national leader in the deployment of electric
vehicles as well as electric buses. How do low-income communities and
communities of color benefit from these policies?
Where should Congress focus its resources to provide the greatest
benefit to these communities?
Low-income communities and communities of color are hit first and
worst by pollution. In the transportation context, decades of
discriminatory land use and urban planning decisions have created a
situation where communities of color are more likely to live near busy
roads, freeways and highways, ports, and other major sources of
tailpipe emissions. And the cumulative impacts of these conditions put
them at greater risk of asthma, cancer, and pollution-related disease.
These communities have much to gain from investments in low-carbon
transportation and mobility options, and the transition to zero-
emission vehicles; It directly impacts their health and lives.
California has made big commitments like putting 5 million electric
vehicles on the road by 2030 \5\ and transitioning to 100% zero-
emission bus fleets by 2040,\6\ which have made the state a national
leader in the deployment of electric vehicles. One might think that
because communities of color are disproportionately affected by
tailpipe pollution it would mean they are natural beneficiaries of
these policies but the issue requires much more attention and intention
than that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/30/california-wants-5-
million-zero-emissions-cars-roads-2030/
\6\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-transitioning-all-
electric-public-bus-fleet-2040
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is, higher income consumers can more readily afford and
access EVs on their own. To expand access to EVs, California offers
rebate programs to low-moderate income consumers on a sliding scale.
Individuals making less than or equal to 300% of the federal poverty
level are offered higher rebates. In total, a qualifying low-income
individual in California could receive up to $13,500 to scrap an old
emitting vehicle and replace it with the purchase of a new EV.
California also recognizes that vehicle ownership is not the right
solution for everyone. In some cases, consumers can opt to receive a
bus or transit voucher to scrap their old emitting vehicle if they
would rather not replace it. To see a sampling of California's various
incentive programs for both rural and urban areas, visit the Resource
Finder at http://upliftca.org/resource-finder/.
In terms of federal policy, the federal government should conduct
an analysis of existing clean vehicle tax, rebate, voucher, and
incentive programs, and evaluate their impacts. How is each one
structured? Who do they benefit? How can they be strengthened to direct
investments to the people who actually need help accessing EVs? For
wealthier individuals, EV ownership is a matter of marketing. They have
the means to make the choice to buy the EV. That is not true for many
Americans, and the federal government should be focusing its resources
on creating the conditions that would enable them to make those
choices, too. Moreover, policies and incentive programs should be
structured in such a way as to meet the needs of lower and moderate-
income consumers. For instance, a tax credit that gives a taxpayer a
$2,500 credit or rebate only after they file their taxes, does nothing
to help people who cannot afford the sticker price of an EV. We also
know that lower-income Americans do not typically purchase new
vehicles, and while there has not been much of a used EV market to-
date, that is changing, and incentives should support the purchase of
both new and used EVs.
Another issue to consider is how to prioritize zero-emission
technology investments compared to other types of ``cleaner'' but still
dirty fuels. While we recognize EV technology may not be ready for mass
deployment in all transportation scenarios, wherever zero-emission
options are available, they should be given priority over alternative
fuel vehicles. For instance, electric school buses and transit buses
are viable and available today. Therefore, the federal government
should no longer be investing in diesel, natural gas, or other forms of
``cleaner'' but still dirty buses. The purpose of the public's limited
dollars should be to spur new economic growth and provide investments
in cutting-edge technology that will keep the United States competitive
while solving our greatest societal challenges. In the bus scenario in
particular, the cost of buses is so great that agencies expect to get
the full life-cycle use out of them. That means, these buses will be in
existence for many years to come, and as they come to the end of their
life and are retired, they should be replaced with the absolute best
available technology on the market today, which is a zero-emission bus.
Finally, we have seen public transportation infrastructure
deprioritized all across the country, in favor of freeway widening
projects that only keep more cars on the road. As a result, there are
low-income communities locked out of economic opportunities, education,
and healthcare because they lack reliable bus service and
transportation options where they live. In some neighborhoods,
including in Oakland, CA, there is not adequate bus service to meet the
demand. This results in a situation where it is commonplace that a bus
becomes full by the time it reaches your stop, and needs to skip your
stop. You are then left at the bus stop stranded and unable to get to
work on time. You may even lose your job if it occurs too regularly,
and these are circumstances beyond your control. There are rural
communities where it can take 8 hours round trip on multiple buses just
to get a child to the nearest hospital. These are not conditions that
can be remedied by continuing to favor individual vehicle ownership and
the idea that American households should have 2 and 3 cars each in our
policymaking. We need to look at transportation systems comprehensively
and design systems where people--not only goods--can get to where they
need to go with ease, efficiency, and affordability.
the honorable garret graves
1. You noted in your testimony the support for the Clean School Bus
Act of 2019. Do you believe this legislation better addresses this
issue when compared to the EPA's Clean School Bus program?
The Clean School Bus Act of 2019 and the EPA's existing Clean
School Bus Rebate Program should not be viewed as ``either-or.'' By
Clean Energy Works' estimate, it would take at least $6 billion to
transition just 10 percent of the nation's school bus fleet. There is
no way for cash-strapped schools to be able to make this transition
without funding and financing to overcome the upfront cost barriers of
buying electric. More funding--not less--is needed. And our children
deserve it. Children are an especially vulnerable population when it
comes to exposure to toxic tailpipe emissions. The Clean School Bus Act
of 2009 is meant to augment and complement other programs and available
funds to help schools in making the transition to zero-emission
electric buses that give kids a cleaner, safer ride to school.
The Clean School Bus Act of 2019 would provide grants of up to $2
million to local governments to invest exclusively in electric buses
and charging infrastructure, and to train their workers to operate and
maintain the electric buses. Importantly, it gives funding priority to
schools that serve low-income populations, and would authorize a total
of $1 billion dollars over 5 years for a Clean School-bus Grant Program
run by the U.S. Department of Energy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://scipol.org/track/clean-school-bus-act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's program commits $9.3 million in rebates to replace older
diesel-powered school buses with newer, cleaner buses--not necessarily
electric or zero-emission buses. It also funds retrofits for existing
buses in accordance with the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) of
2010. The program's focus is on reducing children's exposure to toxic
emissions from school buses, and was designed with 2010 conditions in
mind. There has been significant technological advancement since the
DERA of 2010. Today, technology has moved beyond lower-emission buses
to now having fully zero-emission buses on the market that can travel
more than 150 miles on a single charge. Given this, the federal
government should consider amending EPA's existing program to refocus
bus replacement dollars on replacing older buses with electric. Why
expose kids to dangerous levels of emissions if we don't have to?
School buses are expensive, and schools expect to get the full
life-cycle value out of the bus, which can be 10-12 years. That means,
buying ``cleaner'' diesel buses today locks children into having to
breathe toxic emissions for a full decade. Today, better technology
exists. Zero-emission electric buses are ready for deployment and are
serving schools in many different parts of the country now. Federal
dollars and grant programs to replace older, retiring buses should go
toward zero-emission electric bus technology.
The EPA's current program goes beyond bus replacement, and provides
funding for retrofits, as well. Until all dirty buses reach their
retirement age and can be replaced with clean zero-emission buses, a
process that could take a decade or more to complete, the EPA should
continue to fund school bus retrofits that will reduce children's
exposure to emissions.
Children's health must be a top-priority. Both the Clean School Bus
Act of 2019 and the EPA's Clean School Bus Rebate Program are critical
programs for reducing harmful exposure to tailpipe emissions and
curbing climate risk.
2. In your testimony, you say there are an estimated 150 million
Americans living in neighborhoods that don't meet federal air quality
standards. Do you know how many of them are in California?
According to the American Lung Association's State of the Air
report, California is home to seven of the top 10 ``Smoggiest Cities''
in the United States.\8\ It is estimated that 90% of Californians live
in counties with unhealthy air.\9\ With an estimated population of
39.56 million (2018), that would mean California is home to about 35.6
million Americans living in low-quality air conditions or approximately
23.5% of all Americans who are experiencing similar conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/24/air-
pollution-smog-soot-worst-california/3551734002/
\9\ https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/news/Pages/California-
Named-State-with-the-Worst-Air-Quality-Again.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has a population of over 39 million, a warm climate that
helps form pollutants, and a topography that traps pollution, which
creates unique challenges for the state in tackling air pollution.
These challenges have been recognized by the federal government and are
a key reason why California is given a special waiver to set higher
vehicle emissions standards that the federal standards. Other factors
contribute to the problem, such as rising housing prices which push
people to live further and further away from where they work, and
result in an increase in the overall vehicle miles travelled. While the
state has enacted numerous policies to reduce emissions, it still has
more work to do.
Approximately 76.5% of Americans living in poor air quality areas
live outside of California. Cities that made the top 10 ``Sootiest
Cities''' list include: Fair Banks, AK; Pittsburgh, PA; four cities in
Ohio; and Weirton, West Virginia.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/24/air-
pollution-smog-soot-worst-california/3551734002/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Your program exists to lift people out of poverty, according to
your testimony. How will changes in the heavy-duty transportation
industry affect the low-income neighborhoods from an economic
standpoint?
First, we aim to reduce transportation costs for low-income
households and expand mobility access. Lower-income earners spend a
higher percentage of their incomes on basic necessities like energy and
transportation, while low-income communities can oftentimes be locked
out of economic opportunities due to inadequate transportation and
mobility access. By investing not only in clean transportation
solutions like electric vehicles, but also improved and expanded public
transit service, transit-oriented affordable housing development,
electric vanpools and rideshare programs for rural communities, and
other solutions that help people reach jobs, education, and healthcare
more efficiently and affordably, we can reduce the cost of living and
improve quality of life.
Second, we aim to leverage job creation to put the people who most
need work, to work doing the job that most needs done: building a more
sustainable future.
Shifting the transportation industry from dirty diesel to electric
vehicles shifts the job market, as well. It is estimated the industry
will require 40 million installed chargers across the United States,
Europe, and China.\11\ As electric vehicles become more widespread,
technicians will be needed across the country to install and support
these technologies. If we look to the spike in solar panel installers
and wind turbine technicians as an example, we can see how clean
technology can energize our economy and provide new, well-paying, and
cutting-edge jobs to the people who need them most. The federal
government can help ensure this by tying federal funds to fair labor
and workforce standards such as paying a prevailing wage, local and
targeted hiring, contracting with women, minority, and veteran-owned
businesses, requiring entities receiving public dollars to be union
neutral, and more. Senator Gillibrand's Build Local Hire Local Act of
2019 is an excellent example of how this could be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/
our-insights/charging-ahead-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the automobile industry will face some disruptions in its
traditional forms of production, the electric car industry doesn't
eliminate the industry and the need for automobile technicians.\12\
Rather, it opens up the market for potentially higher-paying jobs, like
engineering autonomous technology, and hardware and software engineers.
This will require a shift in our job training and workforce development
programs to include creating job training pathways and pipelines for
low-opportunity youth, women, minorities, veterans, and other
vulnerable populations to access these new jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://evadoption.com/15-shifts-how-the-transition-to-
electric-vehicles-will-transform-industries-jobs-and-the-environment/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Are you aware of the attached ``The 200'' lawsuit in
California?\13\ Without the need to comment directly on the lawsuit,
what are you doing to ensure that energy, environment and climate
policies in California are not creating an undue burden on those who
are already struggling economically?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://centerforjobs.org/ca/news/behind-the-green-curtain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California utilizes a variety of tools and policies to identify its
most vulnerable and disproportionately impacted populations, dedicate
and direct resources to benefit those communities, routinely evaluate
and measure program success, and maintain a transparent process by
which the public can view results.
For example, CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool the state uses which
looks at cumulative impacts to identify the most ``disadvantaged''
populations. The tool includes environmental indicators like air
quality and toxic exposure, health indicators such as asthma and cancer
rates, vulnerable population factors such as children and senior
populations, income and poverty indicators, and other risk factors that
would illustrate where there are disproportionate pollution burdens and
people who lack the means to address the issues on their own.\14\ The
tool both identifies where heavy sources of pollution are found, as
well as where the people who are most susceptible to the effects live.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policymakers use the tool to make informed climate and clean energy
investment decisions. Senate Bill 535 (2012) required a portion of
California's cap and trade dollars go to benefit the most disadvantaged
communities, and today the state spends more than 50% of the funds on
programs that benefit these communities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-funding-
guidelines-administering-agencies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that equity has become such a key priority for
the state that it uses a variety of metrics for evaluating the success
of its climate programs;\16\ Whereas most programs would measure
greenhouse gas reduction levels as the sole measure of success,
California considers co-benefits and impacts such as preventing
displacement, engaging the community, and workforce development and job
creation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-methodologies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the federal government were to adopt a national carbon pricing
program, which could provide significant funding for many clean energy
solutions, it should adopt many of the criteria described above that
would ensure dollars are deployed to create fair and inclusive access
to and participation in the clean economy. You will find Green For
All's two-pager on the key principles of effective and equitable carbon
pricing policy here.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rebuildthedream/pages/
7689/attachments/original/1487686952/
GreenForAll_CarbonPricingPolicy_2Pager_(3).pdf?1487686952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Congress should consider developing a system for
evaluating all policies, especially climate and energy policy, through
an equity screen. Bills would be evaluated in terms of how well they
propose to address existing disparities and whether it would be likely
to widen or narrow the gap between the eco-haves and eco-have nots. A
scoring rubric could be developed to assign value to different equity
measures, assigning the bill an ``equity score.'' In many ways, this
would be similar to how bills are evaluated and marked up for their
financial or budgetary impact.
Questions for the Record
Ryan Popple, President and CEO, Proterra Inc
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony, you referenced the Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program administered by the U.S. Department
of Energy. How could this loan program be amended to facilitate greater
deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles?
One of the goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which established the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program (ATVM), is to increase the efficiency of vehicles and
improve US energy security. The loan program, however, was limited to
the improvement of the use of advanced technologies in light-duty cars
and components manufactured in the United States. Manufacturers of
heavy-duty vehicles--such as electric public transit buses--are
ineligible to apply for the low-interest loans. My understanding is
that there is approximately $16B remaining in this loan program, having
successfully helped companies such as Tesla, Nissan and Ford. The loans
are currently limited by statute to manufacturers and suppliers of
light duty vehicles, the class of vehicles that weigh 8500 pounds or
less. Congress should amend this program to allow U.S. heavy duty
vehicle manufacturers, like Proterra, to apply for loans that will help
them invest in R&D and accelerate product development. The amendment
should expand the eligibility to include manufacturers of zero-emission
heavy duty vehicles--which weigh more than 8500 pounds--for public
transportation that meet certain criteria. I suggest expanding the
ultra-efficient vehicle category by adding a new vehicle class. The new
class of vehicles must be able to operate as a fully electric vehicle
that can carry 28 passengers and pass standard energy economy tests
established by the FTA's Model Bus Testing Program.
2. California's Gross State Product is over $3 trillion. If it were
a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world.
For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
economic growth, how would you respond?
Investing in decarbonization promotes economic growth and American
leadership in the global economy. Advancement and growth in the clean
energy sector is critical to America's economic competitiveness and is
creating good paying jobs across the country. Decarbonization in its
various forms has contributed to California's significant economic
growth in the form of investment, venture capital and job creation.
California has demonstrated decades of job growth in the clean tech
economy--experiencing more job and wage growth than the United States
as whole.\1\ Today, more than 500,000 Californians are working in clean
energy.\2\ Further, by targeting efficiency technologies like LED and
electric vehicles, the US economy could create more value with less
energy, providing a competitive advantage.
The reality is that encouraging innovation attracts entrepreneurs,
which in turn attracts private venture capital funding, which in turn
leads to job creation and generates economic growth. In 2017,
California attracted $1.42B of clean technology venture capital
funding.\3\ And the state attracted over $22B in clean technology
venture capital funding from 2007 to 2017 due to the strong ecosystem
of innovation that was developed in response to semiconductor,
software, energy and healthcare opportunities.\4\ California's share of
the clean technology global venture capital funding during this same
period has ranged from 48% to 18%.\5\ Proterra alone has raised over
$500M in capital and created more than 575 U.S. jobs while establishing
its Corporate HQ and two manufacturing facilities in CA.
Lastly, California's emissions fell 1% in 2017, to 424 million
metric tons. But the state's economy grew at 3.6%, higher than the
national average, demonstrating that reducing emissions does not hamper
economic growth.\6\ According to the California Green Innovation Index,
California had greater emissions reductions (-11.1%) than the United
States as a whole (-10.2%) between 2006-2016, while also achieving
greater economic output.\7\
3. Deploying more electric vehicles, buses, and trucks will add
significant demand to the electricity grid. What can Congress do to
prepare the grid for large-scale electrification?
It is worth noting that Tesla reports deploying approximately
14,000 ``super chargers'' in North America of power levels ranging from
75 kW to 150 kW and, as I understand, without any stress on the overall
grid. https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. Tesla has made local
investments to distribution hardware (transformers and switch gear) to
facilitate super charger locations in many areas, but they haven't
required more power plants. The Tesla example is relevant because those
``super chargers'' are the approximate power level of a bus charger,
meaning we have a proof point that approximately 14,000 electric buses
worth of plug-in chargers has already been installed without impact to
the grid. To put this into perspective, the load of the entire US
public transit fleet (approximately 70,000 buses) charging at 100 kW
simultaneously would be 7 gigawatts, or less than the average annual
capacity increase from 2007-2017.\8\
I believe that planning for and managing demand on the grid is the
primary responsibility of utility companies. Recent studies have shown
that, overall, there's not a near capacity scarcity and EVs have the
potential to help balance loads and improve the resiliency of our
nation's electricity infrastructure.\9\ That being said, it is
imperative we take a collaborative approach to proactively managing
grid demand as we move towards large-scale electrification. Congress
can help in the following ways:
Expand the Alternative Fuel Tax Credit (26 U.S.C.
Sec. 6426(d)) to make fuel neutral by including electricity as
an alternative fuel. By including electricity as an alternative
fuel, Congress will level the playing field by making the
credit fuel neutral, promote competition on the merits for
alternative technologies and further promote conversion to
alternative fuels, thereby reducing U.S. dependence on foreign
oil and encouraging creativity and innovation in the
marketplace.
Expand federal funding for energy research and
development, and in particular for the Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Vehicle
Technologies Office) and Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy.
Provide additional federal funding support for
infrastructure projects that will support medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle fleet deployments at the state and local levels
including school bus and transit bus projects.
Increase federal agency research on electrification,
automation, and connectivity technologies and deployment
strategies.
Fund vehicle-to-grid integration and stationary
battery storage demonstration projects to promote grid
resiliency and smart cities demonstration projects.
Fund research and development of battery-electric
technologies and create incentives to further investment in
primary battery cell development and manufacturing in the
United States to support a domestic supply chain for stationary
storage and vehicle applications.
Encourage more collaboration between the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and the state regulators
(including state Public Utility Commissions and state energy
offices) on electric vehicles, electric vehicle infrastructure
and other emerging grid technologies to ensure better planning
and coordination.
Help cities and utilities plan so that they can
identify the structural needs to support the integration of
vehicles and infrastructure into city and utility operations.
Encourage North American electric vehicle charging
connection standardization by working with private standard
setting organizations, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE).
Encourage the adoption of a new Transportation
Infrastructure bill that includes funding for heavy-duty
electric vehicle fleets and the accompanying electric vehicle
infrastructure.
Support investment in infrastructure, storage and
smart technologies that enable demand management and promote
grid resiliency.
Support or create incentives for power companies to
accelerate transition of the grid from point-to-point to
electric distribution as a network.
the honorable garret graves
1. I assume you are competing against Chinese bus manufacturers.
How well do you compete against them and what is your biggest concern
about having to compete with them in the U.S. market? What can Congress
do to help?
One of our competitors is the Chinese-manufacturer Build Your
Dreams (BYD) and we compete throughout the United States for electric
bus deployments for public transit agencies. Published reports show
that BYD benefits from aggressive Chinese subsidy programs to lower
prices in order to win business. We believe this reflects a strategy to
price below market costs to eliminate competition and dominate the
market in the United States and around the globe--which is the goal of
Made in China 2025. To address this practice, Rep. Harley Rouda
recently introduced a bill (HR 2739) that would prevent federal transit
funds from being used by transit agencies to purchase rail cars or
buses manufactured by Chinese owned, controlled, or subsidized
companies. The same bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators
Cornyn and Baldwin (S 846). Both bills were made part of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020. Section 6015 of
the Senate NDAA retained Rouda bill language that would preclude
funding for Chinese-supported rail and bus rolling stock.
Unfortunately, section 896 of the House NDAA did not and limited the
restriction solely to rail rolling stock. Congress should pass the
Senate version in the NDAA conference report so that buses are
included. A final NDAA bill that includes buses will ensure that U.S.
manufacturers like Proterra and its domestic suppliers do not face
unfair competition from companies that receive support from the Chinese
government. Prohibiting federal transit funds from being expended on
Chinese rolling stock would have the added benefit of protecting our
national security and transportation and electric grid infrastructure
from the threat that China poses and improving cybersecurity in public
transportation.
2. What are some of the challenges of electrification for long-haul
agriculture and food supply vehicles? Do you see potential concerns for
farmers, the food supply chain, and to food safety, animal welfare?
The challenge for long-haul agriculture and food supply vehicles,
as I see it, revolves around vehicle range and charging infrastructure
deployment. Range is impacted by the use of auxiliary items like
refrigeration and HVAC systems to provide humane conditions for animals
being transported. Electrification in the food sector would have to
accommodate refrigeration in many applications, which will impact the
range of those vehicles. Short distance food supply vehicles would
require careful route analysis and planning to ensure that they were
able to meet their daily routes while accommodating the energy needs
for refrigeration. High power and high-speed charging could solve that
problem if vehicles were able to charge mid-day. Mid-day charging could
top off the batteries on longer routes. However, this raises a second
challenge involving the right placement of high power, high-speed
chargers for long-haul agriculture and food supply vehicles.
That being said, we see opportunities for EV technology to improve
economic productivity in the agriculture sector, and to reduce
emissions exposure and health care costs for workers in the
agricultural economy. The bus & truck sector share many components and
supply chains with the off-road commercial vehicle sector, which
includes mining, construction and agricultural vehicles like tractors
and harvesting equipment. In the near-term, the first opportunities for
EV technology to provide benefits to the agricultural sector will be in
fleet-based farm and ranch vehicles. These EVs will enable farmers to
reduce their dependency on a single fuel type, and in many cases allow
farming operations to self-generate much of their energy, as we
increasingly see farms deploying solar and wind energy to diversify
their revenue and gain more self-sufficiency. In terms of food safety
and animal welfare, zero emission electric vehicles used in the
agriculture sector will reduce the level of diesel pollution in crops
and livestock, enabling a healthier food supply for America. In the
long-term, zero emission freight trucks and trains could enable low-
cost, zero emission freight shipments between major agriculture
markets. Long-haul electric trucks are already being introduced by
major manufacturers including Freightliner, Tesla and Volvo. Long-haul
will require more infrastructure investment that may include on-road
charging similar to what has been demonstrated in Northern Europe. But
the near-term opportunities for farm, construction and mining electric
vehicle technology offer the most immediate economic, health and
environmental improvements for the agricultural sector.
references
1. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
https://www.next10.org/2018-giiE; see also Energy Efficiency,
Innovation and Job Creation in California, David Roland-Holst, UC
Berkeley. https://are.berkeley.edu/dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/
UCB%20Energy%20Innovation%20and%20Job%20Creation %2010-20-08.pdf
2. Clean Jobs California 2019. https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-
jobs-california-2019/; see also Many Shades of Green: Diversity and
Distribution of California's Green Jobs, Next 10, U.S. Metro Economies:
Current and Potential Green Jobs in the U.S. Economy, U.S. Conference
of Mayors. http://actrees.org/files/Research/
Many_Shades_of_Green_1209.pdf;
3. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
https://www.next10.org/2018-gii
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Clean Energy Powers California Climate Emissions Drop, J.D.
Morris, Bix & Tech (Aug. 14, 2019). https://www.sfchronicle.com/
business/article/California-cuts-greenhouse-gases-but-14299117.php
7. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
https://www.next10.org/2018-gii
8. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_02_a.html
9. Connecting Electric Vehicles to the Grid for Greater
Infrastructure Resilience, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. April
20, 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/connecting-electric-
vehicles-to-the-grid-for-greater-infrastructure-resilience.html
Questions for the Record
Tony Satterthwaite President--Distribution Business Cummins Inc.
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony, you referenced the SuperTruck program
administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. How could this program
be expanded or modified to accelerate development and deployment of
zero-emission heavy-duty truck technology?
The SuperTruck program administered by the U.S. Department of
Energy could be expanded and modified to accelerate the development and
deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty truck technology by setting more
aggressive emissions goals and expanding the resources available to
meet those targets. For example, the current running SuperTruck II
program sets a target of 55% improvement of Brake Thermal Efficiency
(BTE) over the 2009 baseline class 8 truck. The next iteration of the
program could supplement a BTE goal, which measures the efficiency of
an internal combustion engine, for an emissions goal. Awarding
competitive grants for truck and engine manufacturers to create teams
to meet aggressive class 8 targets can help spur development and remove
barriers like cost and infrastructure that exist for commercial
customers. Use of the national labs, universities and commercial fleet
partners can ensure access to resources and an understanding of how a
customer wants to use a vehicle. By setting an emissions goal and not a
technology mandate teams can try different approaches to meet these
aggressive targets, like high efficiency diesel, natural gas, fuel cell
and battery-electric power.
2. In your testimony, you referenced opportunities to capture
landfill gas or biogas for processing into fuels for vehicles. What
should Congress do to expand deployment of these technologies?
Congress can and should continue to invest in a variety of emerging
technologies to help reduce the impacts of climate change. The
Department of Energy and National Labs should continue to conduct
research on net-zero carbon sustainable fuel choices including landfill
gas or biogas as fuel. Creating consistency in the tax code around
these technologies can also help industry develop long-term strategy.
By supporting American innovation on a number of promising
technologies, Congress can ensure US leadership on whichever option
markets and customers choose to do their job.
the honorable garret graves
1. What are some of the challenges of electrification for long-haul
agriculture and food supply vehicles? Do you see potential concerns for
farmers, the food supply chain, and to food safety, animal welfare?
The challenges for vehicle electrification for long-haul
agriculture and food supply vehicles are the same faced in many heavy-
duty applications: cost, weight and infrastructure. Currently, the cost
of an electrified powertrain for a commercial vehicle is significantly
more than a comparable diesel or natural gas truck. In fact, for dollar
per unit of NOx reduced, just transitioning a food supply fleet to the
latest diesel technology will be far more effective in reducing NOx in
the air. With existing technology, battery weight on such a truck will
also negatively impact the amount of freight carried, so more trucks
will be needed to carry the same amount of product. Finally, there is
not currently consistent and reliable charging infrastructure on long-
haul routes for many customers to switch to battery electric power.
The food supply chain has additional challenges of refrigeration
during transportation, currently supplied by diesel reefer units. The
same challenges facing heavy-duty applications: cost weight and
infrastructure, will also impact mobile refrigeration in an electrified
scenario. Currently, there are no commercially-available electrified
mobile refrigeration units. Heavy duty vehicles can recover some energy
from braking, but refrigeration units do not have this option, making
the range or time of operation of the electrified reefer a concern.
These are some of the barriers that may concern agriculture
customers. We are, however, encouraged by government efforts to address
the problems of cost, weight and infrastructure, and of additional low
and no-emissions technology options for these markets like natural gas
and fuel cell to power long-haul vehicles.