[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY:
SOLUTIONS FOR PLANES, TRAINS, AND EVERY-
THING BEYOND AUTOMOBILES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 23, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-72
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-663 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Emily Wimberger, Ph.D., Climate Economist, Rhodium Group......... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Jeremy Baines, President, Neste US, Inc.......................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
J.P. Fjeld-Hansen, Vice President and Managing Director, Musket
and Trillium Corporations, on behalf of the National
Association of Truckstop Operators............................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Answers to submitted questions............................... 145
Fred Felleman, Commissioner, Port of Seattle and the Northwest
Seaport Alliance............................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 147
Timothy A. Blubaugh, Executive Vice President, Truck and
Engineering Manufacturers Association.......................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Answers to submitted questions............................... 150
Wayne Eckerle, Ph.D., Vice President, Global Research and
Technology, Cummins, Inc....................................... 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Answers to submitted questions............................... 153
Adrian Martinez, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice.................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Submitted Material
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Ian Jefferies, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads, to
Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............. 109
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Robbie Diamond, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Securing America's Future Energy, to
Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.................... 113
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Bert Kalisch, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Public Gas Association, to
Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............. 117
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive
Director, Diesel Technology Forum, to Mr. Tonko and Mr.
Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 130
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Christopher Miller, Executive
Director, Advanced Engine Systems Institute, to Mr. Pallone,
with Report, ``Technology Feasibility for Model Year 2024
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in Meeting Lower NOx Standards,''
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, June 2019,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 126
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Allison Cunningham, Director,
Federal Government Affairs, NGVAmerica, to Mr. Tonko and Mr.
Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................ 133
Fact sheet, ``Vehicle Comparison-Diesel, CNG, EV, and Hydrogen,''
Love's, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko......................... 139
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Capt. Joseph G. DePete,
President, Air Line Pilots Association International, to Mr.
Tonko and Mr. Shimkus submitted by Mr. Tonko................... 140
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: SOLUTIONS FOR PLANES, TRAINS, AND
EVERYTHING BEYOND AUTOMOBILES
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Barragan, Blunt
Rochester, Soto, Schakowsky, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone
(ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers,
McKinley, Johnson, Long, Flores, Carter, and Walden (ex
officio).
Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci,
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin Haberman,
Professional Staff Member; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator;
Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel,
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; and
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes
for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Today's hearing is another benchmark in our series
examining decarbonization of our economy by midcentury.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in America. While debate is often focused on light-
duty automobiles, more than 40 percent of the sector's
emissions come from other sources, including buses, trucks,
ships, trains, and planes.
Much like at our September hearing on the industrial
sector, it will quickly become apparent that nonlight-duty
segments of transportation have numerous challenges to overcome
in order to achieve necessary, ambitious decarbonization
targets.
For one, in recent decades there has been growth in
Vehicles Miles Traveled, and in many cases this growth is
expected to continue.
Second, these vehicles are capital-intensive investments
with slow turnover. Investment decisions being made today will
impact the emissions profile of the sector and, in turn, our
ability to decarbonize it, for decades to come.
Other significant barriers--cost, technology development,
and infrastructure needs--will not be news to anyone. We know
that we need investments, in research especially, in advanced
batteries and fuel cells. We need new infrastructure to enable
the transition, including a national network of alternative
fueling and charging stations. And we need greater market
demand for cleaner fuels.
Transportation emissions are a diverse set of challenges.
Transforming the sector will be no easy task. But many of the
principles that we have been discussing as part of our broader,
economywide approach apply here. We need to ensure that
pollution reduction, both climate and traditional air
pollutants, occurs in front line communities near ports, near
airports, near highways.
We must be open to many different technologies and pathways
to decarbonization. And we need a comprehensive, portfolio
approach.
Establishing a price signal can be a critical component of
our response and can speed up adoption and innovation in low-
emissions alternatives. But carbon pricing is not a silver
bullet, and that is especially true for our transportation
sector. We must look to performance standards and other
complementary investments such as in research and
infrastructure.
Today we will hear recommendations from across that sector
that should push us towards this portfolio approach. And while
the challenges seen daunting, there are great solutions already
being developed and deployed as we speak. Some are commercially
available right now. More are expected to become viable in the
near future.
Efficiency remains a top solution across all modes. For
medium and heavy-duty vehicles, the National Academies recently
found strengthening fuel economy standards can reduce fuel
consumption by as much as 30 percent by 2030.
Electrification is also a powerful solution for certain
parts of the sector. We have seen the potential of EVs with
light-duty vehicles, and today adoption of electric buses is
occurring at an even faster rate than passenger vehicles.
Public- and private-sector leaders have quickly come to realize
that there are opportunities from electrifying transit, and
school buses, and delivery trucks--vehicles that take shorter,
often predetermined, routes and can take advantage of
predictable periods of nonuse for charging.
But electrification is not the only option. In applications
facing weight or distance concerns, hydrogen energy is a very
promising solution, especially given the speed of refueling.
This has enabled fuel cells to find a role in warehouses. They
are beginning to be deployed in ports and on tarmacs, and there
are great opportunities for long-haul freight trucking powered
by hydrogen.
Despite these exciting options, which are rapidly becoming
more affordable, there will likely still be a need for lower-
emissions liquid fuels for years to come. This is especially
true for maritime and aviation, where sustainable fuels are
just beginning to be commercialized. Development of cost-
competitive, drop-in fuels, largely compatible with existing
systems, is critical for these very difficult-to-decarbonize
applications.
I hope today's hearing will help us better understand what
we will need to do to help develop demand for new and cleaner
fuels. But in all these cases, major innovation in
transportation will not happen without our leadership, without
our partnership, and without our vision for building the
enabling infrastructure.
I thank each and every witness here today for attending
this hearing, and look forward to the words of advice that you
will share. Your testimony is especially meaningful to our
efforts for decarbonization. Thank you all for attending.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Today's hearing is another benchmark in our series
examining decarbonization of our economy by mid-century.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in America. While debate is often focused on light-
duty automobiles, more than 40% of the sector's emissions come
from other sources--buses, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.
Much like at our September hearing on the industrial
sector, it will quickly become apparent that nonlight-duty
segments of transportation have numerous challenges to overcome
in order to achieve necessary, ambitious decarbonization
targets.
For one, in recent decades there has been growth in vehicle
miles traveled, and in many cases, this growth is expected to
continue.
Second, these vehicles are capital-intensive investments
with slow turnover. Investment decisions being made today will
impact the emissions profile of the sector--and in turn our
ability to decarbonize it--for decades to come.
Other significant barriers--cost, technology development,
and infrastructure needs--will not be news to anyone.
We know that we need investments in research, especially in
advanced batteries and fuel cells.
We need new infrastructure to enable the transition,
including a national network of alternative fueling and
charging stations.
And we need greater market demand for cleaner fuels.
Transportation emissions are a diverse set of challenges.
Transforming the sector will be no easy task. But many of the
principles we have been discussing as part of our broader,
economy-wide approach apply here.
We need to ensure that pollution reduction--both climate
and traditional air pollutants--occurs in frontline communities
near ports, airports, and highways.
We must be open to many different technologies and pathways
to decarbonization.
And we need a comprehensive, portfolio approach.
Establishing a price signal can be a critical component of
our response and can speed up adoption and innovation in low-
emissions alternatives, but carbon pricing is not a silver
bullet, and that is especially true for transportation.
We must look to performance standards and other
complementary investments, such as in research and
infrastructure.
Today, we will hear recommendations from across the sector
that should push us towards this portfolio approach.
And while the challenges seem daunting, there are great
solutions already being developed and deployed today.
Some are commercially available right now. More are
expected to become viable in the near future.
Efficiency remains a top solution across all modes.
For medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, the National Academies
recently found strengthening fuel economy standards can reduce
fuel consumption by as much as 30% by 2030.
Electrification is also a powerful solution for certain
parts of the sector.
We have seen the potential of EVs with light-duty vehicles,
and today, adoption of electric buses is occurring at an even
faster rate than passenger vehicles.
Public and private sector leaders have quickly come to
realize the opportunities from electrifying transit and school
buses and delivery trucks--vehicles that take shorter, often
predetermined, routes and can take advantage of predictable
periods of non-use for charging.
But electrification is not the only option. In applications
facing weight or distance concerns, hydrogen energy is a very
promising solution, especially given the speed of refueling.
This has enabled fuel cells to find a role in warehouses.
They are beginning to be deployed in ports and on tarmacs, and
there are great opportunities for long-haul freight trucking
powered by hydrogen.
Despite these exciting options, which are rapidly becoming
more affordable, there will likely still be a need for lower-
emissions liquid fuels for years to come.
This is especially true for maritime and aviation where
sustainable fuels are just beginning to be commercialized.
Development of cost-competitive, drop-in fuels, largely
compatible with existing systems, is critical for these very
difficult to decarbonize applications.
I hope today's hearing will help us better understand what
we will need to do to help develop demand for new, cleaner
fuels.
But in all these cases, major innovation in transportation
will not happen without our leadership, partnership, and vision
for building the enabling infrastructure.
I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Representative Shimkus, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement. Welcome, Representative.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, the subcommittee turns to what is possible for
decarbonizing transportation beyond automobiles and light
trucks. This means aviation, shipping and ports, rail, et
cetera. It means that medium and heavy vehicles used in
agriculture, industry, transit to move loads of all types on
the highways and throughout every size community across the
United States.
The transportation sector produces 29 percent of the
Nation's carbon dioxide emissions according to the EPA. Medium
and heavy vehicles account for just under a quarter of these
emissions, which provides a large target for further emission
reductions. These vehicles, which are powered mostly by diesel
engines, also provide a large role in the economy of the United
States.
According to the Diesel Technology Forum, heavy-duty diesel
engines were responsible for doing $4 trillion in economic
activity in the first quarter of 2019. This includes
agriculture, mining, construction, and transportation, and
represents 12 percent of all private sector industry activity.
Last year, more than 1 million new heavy diesel engines
were produced on American assembly lines, and provide new, more
efficient products for use in future economic activity. In the
transportation sector alone, diesel is the most visible in
medium and heavy trucking. Of the 14 million commercial trucks
on the road, 75 percent are powered by diesel engines. Ninety-
seven percent of the Class A tractor trailer fleets runs on
diesel. And the Forum and some of our witnesses this morning
will testify that the quality of the new engines is providing
large environmental benefit.
Between 2010 and 2030, more efficient diesel trucks are
expected to save some 130 billion gallons of fuel and 1.3
billion tons of CO2, more than the emissions from
all light-duty vehicles in a given year. This is particularly
impressive when you consider that vehicle miles traveled in
medium and heavy trucking is projected to increase. The Energy
Information Administration projects that vehicle miles traveled
just for medium and heavy commercial and freight trucking to
increase nearly 60 percent by 2050.
I raise these facts to underscore the point that getting to
zero emissions in transportation will not be possible anytime
soon, and it will not mean the elimination of the diesel engine
anytime soon.
There are a host of reasons for this: the availability and
performance of fuels and engines; the technological limits of
efficiency improvements; the complex infrastructure for
transportation of goods; the affordability of new technology;
capital costs; and fleet turnover; the performance of
logistical realities of each subsector; and the fundamental
need for affordable, reliable engine power in every aspect of
our economy and our daily lives.
Congress has to be practical and realistic when it
confronts environmental policies concerning the transportation
sector. Setting unrealistic goals because it checks political
boxes is not how you develop and ultimately enact successful
bipartisan policies. A ``100 by '50,'' net-zero emissions,
clean-energy economy, decarbonization--these are taglines,
descriptions. Some may be workable, some may not be workable.
But what is not workable or productive is legislation by a
tagline.
Instead of taglines, let's legislate by looking at whether
policies will raise costs, lock in policies that constrict
innovation opportunities, inhibit transportation, and
negatively impact not only commerce but what people rely upon
every day.
The good news is trends for improving transportation
emissions are positive, as we will hear from industry witnesses
this morning. We will also hear several witnesses talk about
the ongoing innovation and prospects for cleaner fuels and
engines in transportation.
I would like to welcome in particular our witness from the
National Association of Truckstop Operators, J.P. Fjeld-Hansen.
He can speak about benefits of policies that focus on our
existing energy infrastructure, on our renewable fuels policy,
and on the innovation that is driven by focusing on needs of
consumers, in this case the trucking industry and the driving
public.
Tim Blubaugh from the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association will provide an overview about the success in
reducing criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions, and
the investments and challenges to developing zero-emission
truck technologies.
The testimony from Mr. Eckerle at Cummins and Mr. Baines
from Neste also highlight what is possible in other
transportation models.
This promises to be an informative hearing. And I look
forward to the testimony and to identifying what may be
possible to do while preserving the essential roles of heavy-
duty engines in our economy and our way of life. And at the
conclusion of this, Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to make
sure they take a look at this chart we placed at their desk
from Love's. It is in response to questions I had for them
yesterday. I think it is highly instructive about the
challenges we have on cost, fuel capacity, range. And there
also is a line for carbon intensity score that I think is just
highly educational.
And I know we have noticed a hearing for next week on the
renewable fuel standard. That does play a big role into this
debate that we are having today. I am glad you called it. And
we can use current public policy and reform some issues around
the RFS that could be very helpful, especially in the debate we
are having today. So thank you for noticing that hearing, and I
look forward to working with you on both of them.
And I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Today the subcommittee turns to what is possible for
decarbonizing transportation beyond automobiles and light
trucks. This means aviation, shipping and ports, rail. It means
the medium and heavy vehicles used in agriculture, industry,
transit, and to move loads of all types on the highways and
throughout every size community across the United States.
The transportation sector produces 29% of the Nation's
carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA. Medium and heavy
vehicles account for just under a quarter of these emissions,
which provides a large target for further emissions reductions.
These vehicles, which are powered mostly by diesel engines,
also provide a large role in the economy of the United States.
According to the Diesel Technology Forum, heavy duty diesel
engines were responsible for delivering $4 trillion in economic
activity in the first quarter of 2019. This includes
agriculture, mining, construction, and transportation, and
represents 12 percent of all private sector industrial
activity.
Last year, more than one million new heavy-diesel engines
were produced on American assembly lines and provide new, more
efficient products for use in future economic activity.
In the transportation sector alone, diesel is most visible
in medium and heavy trucking. Of the 14 million commercial
trucks on the road, 75% are powered by diesel engines, 97% of
the Class 8 tractor-trailer fleet runs on diesel. And, as the
Forum and some of our witnesses this morning will testify, the
quality of the new engines is providing large environmental
benefits. Between 2010 and 2030, more efficient diesel trucks
are expected to save some 130 billion gallons of fuel and 1.3
billion tons of CO2--more than the emissions from
all light duty vehicles in any given year.
This is particularly impressive when you consider that
vehicle miles traveled in medium and heavy trucking is
projected to increase. The Energy Information Administration
projects that vehicle miles traveled just for medium and heavy
commercial and freight trucking to increase by nearly 60% by
2050.
I raise these facts to underscore the point that getting to
zero emissions in transportation will not be possible any time
soon, and it will not mean the elimination of the diesel engine
anytime soon.
There are a host of reasons for this: the availability, and
performance of fuels and engines, the technological limits of
efficiency improvements, the complex infrastructure for
transporting goods, the affordability of new technology,
capital costs and fleet turnover, the performance and
logistical realities of each subsector, and the fundamental
need for affordable, reliable engine power in every aspect of
our economy and daily lives.
Congress has to be practical and realistic when it
confronts environmental policies concerning the transportation
sector. Setting unrealistic goals because it checks political
boxes is not how you develop and ultimately enact successful
bipartisan policies. 100 by 50, net zero emissions, clean
energy economy, deep decarbonization--these are all tag lines,
descriptions. Some may be workable, some may not be. But what's
not workable or productive is legislating by tagline.
Instead of taglines, let's legislate by looking at whether
policies will raise costs, lock in policies that constrict
innovative opportunities, inhibit transportation and negatively
impact not only commerce, but what people rely upon every day.
The good news is trends for improving transportation
emissions are positive, as we will hear from industry witnesses
this morning. We will also hear several witnesses talk about
the ongoing innovation and prospects for cleaner fuels and
engines in transportation.
I would like to welcome in particular, our witness from the
National Association of Truck Stop Operators, J.P. Fjeld-
Hansen. He can speak about the benefits of policies that focus
on our existing energy infrastructure, on our renewable fuels
policy, and on the innovation that is driven by focusing on the
needs of consumers, in this case the trucking industry and the
driving public.
Tim Blubaugh for the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association will provide an overview about the success in
reducing criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions, and
the investments and challenges to developing zero-emissions
truck technologies. The testimony from Mr. Eckerle at Cummins,
and Mr. Baines at Neste also highlight what is possible in
other transportation modes.
This promises to be an informative hearing. I look forward
to the testimony and to identifying what may be possible to do
while preserving the essential roles of heavy-duty engine power
in our economy and way of life.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And we thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, chair of
the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Pallone.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
This morning we are holding the fourth hearing in our
series on building a 100 percent clean economy. And each of
these hearings has focused on a separate sector of our economy.
And today we will be discussing key elements of the
transportation sector, which is the largest source of climate
pollution in our economy. Specifically, we will hear from our
witnesses about the challenges and opportunities of
decarbonizing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, aviation, rail,
and maritime shipping.
And this hearing and the overall series of hearings are
critical as we work to develop legislation to decarbonize the
American economy and build a cleaner, more prosperous future
for all Americans. It will be one of the most ambitious,
challenging, and necessary transformations our country has ever
attempted. And our target of net-zero climate pollution by 2050
is founded on science, which tell us we must act with urgency
if we are to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.
To conquer this challenge, we need the best ideas from all
stakeholders and sectors.
And last month, this subcommittee held a hearing focused on
decarbonizing the industrial sector. We heard from experts
about the challenges to reducing emissions from some of the
most difficult-to-decarbonize industrial processes. But more
importantly, we learned about the opportunities to overcome
those challenges. Today's hearing will shift gears and focus on
how we transport the industrial products covered in last
month's hearing, as well as people, cargo, and the products we
use in our everyday lives.
Transportation is obviously vital to our economy. The fast,
efficient movement of people and goods helps businesses grow
and communities thrive. Yet, given the size and complexity of
this sector, decarbonization presents significant challenges,
especially for nonlight-duty vehicles like planes, trains,
trucks, buses, and ships. And I look forward to hearing about
the different policy solutions for this sector from our
witnesses today.
We often hear about the role innovation will play in
addressing climate change and transitioning to a 100 percent
clean economy. In fact, we can already see how innovation is
changing the transportation sector. Manufacturers like today's
witness Cummins are developing new products and systems for
low- or zero-carbon transportation. And this innovation is
critical, but as we have heard at every hearing in our climate
series, innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is driven by
policy. And I would imagine we are going to hear that same
message today.
Any suggestion that policy plays no role in spurring
American industry to innovate new technologies willfully
ignores the last half-century of American progress. For
decades, under laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Federal
Government and State leaders have set ambitious standards that
spur industry to develop solutions that protect public health
and the environment while growing our economy.
And that same formula will work for many aspects of
addressing the climate crisis, including in the transportation
sector. In fact, it is already working. For example, today's
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are
reducing emissions from those vehicles. According to the
National Academy of Sciences, even greater efficiency gains are
well within our reach, but they do require policy support.
Efficiency standards will similarly play an important role
in subsectors that cannot be readily electrified, such as
aviation, maritime shipping, and rail. Cutting pollution will
also require a continued shift to clean fuels, including low-
and zero-carbon electricity and liquid fuels. And this
transition toward climate-safe fuels is key to decarbonizing
the transportation sector, but it comes with its challenges,
particularly the need to develop recharging and refueling
infrastructure across the country.
Cities and companies are helping to lead the way, deploying
electric buses and delivery vehicles throughout their fleets.
These vehicles have the dual benefits of improving local air
quality while reducing carbon pollution, but the rate at which
these clean vehicles are being deployed is woefully
insufficient, and we have to act to accelerate that transition.
So I just look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we
continue our work to determine the best ways to reach our
climate goals and develop the 100 percent clean economy of the
future.
I don't know if anybody wants my time. But if not, I will
yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
This morning, we are holding the fourth hearing in our
series on building a 100 percent clean economy. Each of these
hearings has focused on a separate sector of our economy, and
today we will be discussing key elements of the transportation
sector, which is the largest source of climate pollution in our
economy. Specifically, we will hear from our witnesses about
the challenges and opportunities of decarbonizing medium and
heavy-duty vehicles, aviation, rail, and maritime shipping.
This hearing and the overall series of hearings are
critical as we work to develop legislation to decarbonize the
American economy and build a cleaner, more prosperous future
for all Americans. It will be one of the most ambitious,
challenging, and necessary transformations our country has ever
attempted. Our target of net zero climate pollution by 2050 is
founded on science, which tells us we must act with urgency if
we are to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.
To conquer this challenge, we need the best ideas from all
stakeholders and sectors.
Last month, this subcommittee held a hearing focused on
decarbonizing the industrial sector. We heard from experts
about the challenges to reducing emissions from some of the
most difficult-to-decarbonize industrial processes. But more
importantly, we learned about the opportunities to overcome
those challenges. Today's hearing will shift gears and focus on
how we transport the industrial products covered in last
month's hearing, as well as people, cargo, and the products we
use in our everyday lives.
Transportation is vital to our economy. The fast, efficient
movement of people and goods helps businesses grow and
communities thrive. Yet, given the size and complexity of this
sector, decarbonization presents significant challenges,
especially for nonlight-duty vehicles like planes, trains,
trucks, buses, and ships. I look forward to hearing about the
different policy solutions for this sector from our witnesses
today.
We often hear about the role innovation will play in
addressing climate change and transitioning to a 100 percent
clean economy. In fact, we can already see how innovation is
changing the transportation sector. Manufacturers like today's
witness Cummins are developing new products and systems for
low- or zero-carbon transportation. This innovation is
critical, but, as we have heard at every hearing of our climate
series, innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is driven by
policy. I would imagine we will hear that same message today.
Any suggestion that policy plays no role in spurring
American industry to innovate new technologies willfully
ignores the last half century of American progress. For
decades, under laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Federal
Government and State leaders have set ambitious standards that
spur industry to develop solutions that protect public health
and the environment while growing our economy. That same
formula will work for many aspects of addressing the climate
crisis, including in the transportation sector. In fact, it is
already working. For example, today's efficiency standards for
medium and heavy-duty trucks are reducing emissions from those
vehicles. According to the National Academy of Sciences, even
greater efficiency gains are well within our reach--but they
require policy support.
Efficiency standards will similarly play an important role
in subsectors that cannot be readily electrified, such as
aviation, maritime shipping, and rail. Cutting pollution will
also require a continued shift to cleaner fuels, including low-
and zero-carbon electricity and liquid fuels. This transition
toward climate-safe fuels is key to decarbonizing the
transportation sector, but it comes with its own challenges--
particularly the need to develop recharging and refueling
infrastructure across the country.
Cities and companies are helping to lead the way, deploying
electric buses and delivery vehicles throughout their fleets.
These vehicles have the dual benefits of improving local air
quality while reducing carbon pollution, but the rate at which
these clean vehicles are being deployed is woefully
insufficient. We must act to accelerate this transition.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we continue
our work to determine the best ways to reach our climate goals
and develop the 100 percent clean economy of the future.
Mr. Tonko. The Chairman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement. Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
welcome all of panelists. And in advance, a couple of us are on
a couple of subcommittees--well, I am actually on all of them,
like Chairman Pallone is--so we have another hearing going on
downstairs, so we will be bouncing back and forth. But thank
you for being here, thanks for your testimony.
I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing as
well, as we review the challenges and opportunities associated
with decarbonizing the U.S. transportation sector, and focus on
the light-duty portions of that sector today. I very much look
forward to the witnesses' testimony, particularly from several
panelists who can speak to innovation in engines and fuel, and
energy infrastructure this morning. I will have a question for
you about some of that. We have Red Rocks Biofuels in my
district, and so we will have some discussion about that when I
get back.
There is a lot of underappreciated work toward cleaner
engines. And today provides us with an opportunity to take a
look at some of those innovation initiatives.
A couple years ago, Daimler Trucks North America opened its
High Desert Research Facility and Proving Grounds in my
district, Madras, Oregon, which I visited during construction.
And that track provides durability and performance tests. And
it will be critical for proving new, innovative, and more
efficient technologies, and represents a constant effort by the
industry to innovate to make cleaner, more efficient engines,
as well as to make design changes in the vehicle bodies to
improve energy conservation.
Reducing transportation emissions is a large, difficult,
and complex topic, one that impacts all Americans, especially
those whose livelihoods depend upon the affordable and reliable
delivery of products across the Nation's transportation
systems, which probably is just about all of us. Last Congress,
Republicans worked closely with Democrats on this committee to
pass bipartisan legislation setting national standards for the
development of autonomous vehicles. We agreed then that
national standards would encourage investment in innovation in
the United States in this important sector of the economy.
And it is important, I think, we all acknowledge that this
innovation would reduce highway accidents, save lives, and
increase fuel economy while reducing emissions. In fact,
according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050 you
could see as much as a 44 percent reduction in fuel consumption
among connected autonomous vehicles, and up to 18 percent
reduction among trucks.
The report says, and I quote, ``In one representative
platooning test, two semi-trucks were platooned at a constant
speed of 64 miles an hour at a 36 foot distance. The
configuration resulted in an average fuel consumption savings
of 4.5 percent to the lead truck, and 10 percent to the
following truck.`` That was their report.
Unfortunately, that bipartisan work went up on the rocks in
the Senate. Although it has taken a little longer than we would
like, I remain confident that the bicameral, bipartisan staff
discussions that have been ongoing for months, this Congress
will shortly produce substantial results. So, we can't miss the
opportunity for the United States to lead on developing this
technology and delivering safety and mobility benefits for
Americans, particularly our senior citizens and people with
disabilities.
Meanwhile, the administration has outlined a national
policy that seeks to ensure people have the cars they want at
prices they can afford. That will actually enable a more rapid
turnover, I believe, to a cleaner, more efficient fleet. And at
the same time, we have seen California seeking an aggressive
and expensive standard-setting scheme that would drive up the
price of cars and trucks nationwide, which I think would slow
the cleaner-emitting vehicles coming to market and being with
the uptake.
Republicans believe in putting the consumer first, and
encouraging American innovators to do what they do best, which
is innovate. In the runup to these series of hearings, we have
urged our majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting
economically harmful top-down regulatory policies that punish
consumers with higher prices and fewer choices.
You know, California frequently chooses this path as a
result of their cap-and-trade scheme, unique refining
requirements, and gas taxes. California consumers pay about 77
cents a gallon more than the national average. Seventy-seven
cents a gallon. They are not really happy about paying $4.13
per gallon to get to work and take the kids to soccer practice.
Republicans support innovation, conservation, adaptation,
and preparation. We believe these policies have caused America
to lead the world in carbon emissions reductions. We believe
over regulation and high taxation hurts consumers, especially
low-income consumers, and that can lead to economic stagnation.
So, in line with this principle, there are bipartisan bills
Congress could pass today that would ensure the United States
remains the global leader in emissions reduction and economic
productivity and clean energy production, bills that focus on
what works for Americans and their economic interests and well-
being. Earlier this month I expressed in a letter to Chairman
Pallone that we are encouraged by his expressed willingness to
develop climate policies through a collaborative approach that
would ensure every affected community, industry, and
stakeholder has a seat at the table. Again, we are eagerly
awaiting the opportunity to work together on these important
policies to encourage innovation, conservation, and adaptation.
There is a lot we can do together in this space to help
consumers and reduce emissions.
Today's hearing gives us an overview on the transportation
system, some of the initiatives there that would be good for
consumers, the economy, and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the hearing. I look forward
to the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding today's hearing which
seeks to review the challenges and opportunities associated
with decarbonizing the U.S. transportation sector and focuses
on the nonlight-duty portions of this sector.
And I very much look forward to the witness testimony,
particularly from the several panelists who can speak to
innovation in engines, fuel, and energy infrastructure this
morning. There is a lot of underappreciated work towards
cleaner engines and today provides a look at some of that work.
A couple of years ago, Daimler Trucks North America opened
its high desert research facility and proving ground in Madras,
Oregon, which I visited during construction. This track
provides durability and performance testing that will be
critical for proving new, innovative and more efficient
technologies, and represents the constant effort by the
industry to innovate, to make cleaner, more efficient engines,
as well as to make design changes in the vehicle bodies to
improve energy conservation.
Reducing transportation emissions is a large, difficult,
and complex topic--and one that impacts all Americans,
especially those whose livelihoods depend upon the affordable
and reliable delivery of products across the Nation's
transportation systems.
Last Congress, Republicans worked closely with Democrats on
this committee to pass bipartisan legislation setting national
standards for the development of autonomous vehicles. We agreed
then that national standards would encourage investment in
innovation in the U.S. in this important sector of the economy.
As important, I think we all acknowledged that this
innovation would reduce highway accidents, save lives and
increase fuel economy while reducing emissions. In fact,
according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050 you
could see a 44 percent reduction in fuel consumption among
connected autonomous vehicles and up to 18 percent reduction
among trucks.
The report says, and I quote, ``In one representative
platooning test two semi-trucks were platooned at a constant
speed of 64 miles per hour at a 36-foot distance. The
configuration resulted in an average fuel consumption savings
of 4.5% for the lead truck and 10% for the following truck.''
Unfortunately, that bipartisan work went up on the rocks in
the Senate. Although it has taken longer than we like, I remain
confident that the bicameral bipartisan staff discussions that
have been ongoing for months will shortly produce substantial
results. We can't miss this opportunity for the United States
to lead on developing this technology and delivering safety and
mobility benefits to all Americans, particularly our senior
citizens and people with disabilities.
Meanwhile, the administration has outlined a national
policy that seeks to ensure people have the cars they want at
prices they can afford, which will also enable a more rapid
turnover to a cleaner, more efficient fleet. And at the same
time, we had California seeking an aggressive and expensive,
standard-setting scheme that would drive up the price of cars
and trucks nationwide, slowing the turnover to cleaner emitting
vehicles.
Republicans believe in putting the consumer first and
encouraging American innovators to do what they do best:
innovate.
In the runup to this series of hearings, we have urged our
majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting economically harmful,
top-down regulatory policies that punish consumers with higher
prices and fewer choices.
California frequently chooses this path and as a result of
their cap and trade scheme, unique refining requirement and gas
taxes, California consumers pay about 77 cents a gallon more
per gallon than the national average. And they're not happy
about paying an average of $4.13 per gallon to get to work or
take the kids to soccer practice.
Republicans support innovation, conservation, adaptation
and preparation. We believe these policies have caused America
to lead the world in carbon emissions reductions. We believe
over-regulation and high taxation hurts consumers--especially
low-income consumers--and can lead to economic stagnation.
In line with this principle, there are bipartisan bills
Congress could pass today that will ensure the United States
remains the global leader in emissions reduction, in economic
productivity, and clean energy production. Bills that focus on
what works for Americans and their economic interests and well-
being.
Earlier this month, I expressed in a letter to Chairman
Pallone, that we were encouraged by his expressed willingness
to develop climate policies through a ``collaborative process''
that would ``ensure every effected community, industry and
stakeholder'' has a seat at the table.
We eagerly await the opportunity to work together on these
important policies to encourage innovation, conservation and
adaptation. There's so much we could do together in this space
to help consumers and reduce emissions.
Today's hearing will give us all an overview of more
efficient, cleaner transportation systems. I am looking forward
to realistic, practical policies that will be good for American
consumers, our economy, and our environment.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
And now I, as chair, would like to remind Members that,
pursuant to committee rules, all Members' written opening
statements shall be made part of the record.
Now we introduce our witnesses. And you look like you are
quite the team there, shoulder to shoulder.
We will begin with Dr. Emily Wimberger, climate economist
of the Rhodium Group. Is that Weimberger or Wimberger?
Dr. Wimberger. Wimberger.
Mr. Tonko. Wimberger. I apologize. Wimberger.
Mr. Jeremy Baines, president of Neste US; Mr. J.P. Fjeld-
Hansen, managing director and vice president, Musket
Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop
Operators; the Honorable Fred Felleman, commissioner, Port of
Seattle and the Northwest Seaport Alliance; Mr. Timothy
Blubaugh, executive vice president of Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association; Dr. Wayne Eckerle, vice president,
research and technology, at Cummins; and, finally, Mr. Adrian
Martinez, staff attorney for Earthjustice.
Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute left. Please
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will
turn red when your time expires.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize Ms. Wimberger
for 5 minutes, please, to provide your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF EMILY WIMBERGER, Ph.D., CLIMATE ECONOMIST,
RHODIUM GROUP; JEREMY BAINES, PRESIDENT, NESTE US, INC.; J.P.
FJELD-HANSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSKET AND
TRILLIUM CORPORATIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
TRUCKSTOP OPERATORS; FRED FELLEMAN, COMMISSIONER, PORT OF
SEATTLE AND THE NORTHWEST SEAPORT ALLIANCE; TIMOTHY A.
BLUBAUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TRUCK AND ENGINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; WAYNE ECKERLE, PH.D., VICE
PRESIDENT, GLOCAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, CUMMINS, INC.; AND
ADRIAN MARTINEZ, STAFF ATTORNEY, EARTHJUSTICE
STATEMENT OF EMILY WIMBERGER, Ph.D.
Dr. Wimberger. Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Emily
Wimberger, and I am an economist at Rhodium Group, which is an
independent firm whose research supports decision makers in the
public, financial, services, corporate, and nonprofit sectors.
Prior to joining Rhodium, I was the chief economist at the
California Air Resources Board. Thank you for convening this
hearing today and inviting me to speak.
First I will start, I will reiterate some alarming
emissions terms that were mentioned by the Chair. Each year
Rhodium provides an independent assessment of U.S. greenhouse
emissions and progress made towards long-term climate goals. In
July of this year, Rhodium released Taking Stock 2019, which
found that by 2025, the U.S. is on track to reduce emissions
anywhere from 12 to 19 percent below 2005 levels. This is a far
cry to commitments that were made under the Paris Agreement
pledge to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent.
Even more alarming, Rhodium's emissions estimates for 2018
show that greenhouse gas emissions rose last year after 3 years
of decline. Rhodium estimates that carbon emissions from fossil
fuel combustion increased 2.7 percent in 2018, the second
largest annual increase since the year 2000.
The transportation sector remained the largest source of
emissions on the back of strong economic growth and demand for
diesel and jet fuel.
While these trends put the U.S. farther from achieving
long-term climate goals, decarbonizing nonlight-duty
transportation presents tremendous opportunities for American
innovation and global economic leadership. To meaningfully
reduce emissions in the sector, we must reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels. Federal policies that focus on
electrification, low-carbon fuels, and efficiency can create
markets for advanced technologies that will reduce emissions
and create opportunities for growth across the U.S. economy.
Since 2010, sales of electric passenger vehicles in the
U.S. have grown from under 10,000 a year to over 360,000.
However, we have not seen that uptake in the nonlight-duty
sectors. In the U.S., electric buses have only recently been
introduced in very low volumes. And electric trucks have yet to
meaningfully reach the market.
There are, however, examples of policies that drive
electrification and nonlight-duty applications. Globally, 99
percent of the electric bus fleet is in China, where national
mandates have led to widespread electrification.
In California, regulations are driving electrification of
buses, marine vessels, offroad equipment, and trucks as the
State works to achieve legislatively mandated climate targets
and air quality standards. California's policies have created
markets for energy-efficient products, low-carbon fuels, and
zero-emission vehicles and equipment. The State is home to
nearly half of the zero-emission vehicles in the United States,
over 40 percent of North American clean fuel investment, and
the world's best electric car manufacturer.
There are also important opportunities for low-carbon fuels
to complement electrification and nonlight-duty transportation.
There are high barriers to electrification in some applications
where deployment of advanced biofuels and electrofuels created
with clean power will be critical for decarbonization.
Effective policy design can drive long-term deployment of
the lowest-carbon fuels by providing clear market signals and
certainty to businesses, making investments in fuel development
and deployment.
The Federal Renewable Fuel Standard and California's Low
Carbon Fuel Standard have been critical in driving innovation
in low-carbon fuels. However, biofuels derived from plants and
waste make up just 5 percent of current U.S. liquid fuel
demand, and advanced biofuels have struggled to reach market.
Efficiency is a third tenet of decarbonizing nonlight-duty
transportation, moving more people and goods with fewer
emissions. While tremendous efficiency gains have been made in
light-duty vehicles, similar gains have yet to be realized in
other applications. Federal policies that target engine
standards, more stringent locomotive and oceangoing vessel
standards, and deployment of cleaner technologies for aircraft
will result in cost savings to consumers and American
businesses. In addition, policies that increase efficient
mobility and transit options can provide health and community
benefits.
Technologies that increase fuel economy can also amplify
carbon reductions achieved through electrification and the use
of low-carbon fuels.
Reducing emissions in nonlight-duty transportation
applications presents a tremendous opportunity to drive
American innovation and create markets for new technologies
that can be exported around the world. It is time for strong
Federal leadership through comprehensive policies that promote
electrification, low-carbon fuels, and efficiency. There are
examples of cost-effective, comprehensive policies in States,
cities, and regions around the globe that reduce emissions and
promote economic growth. It is time for the U.S. to lead in
this challenge.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on such a
very critically important topic.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wimberger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Wimberger.
And now, Mr. Baines, you are recognized for 5 minutes,
please. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY BAINES
Mr. Baines. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jeremy
Baines, and I am the president of Neste US. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak here today.
Neste is a publicly traded company headquartered in
Finland, and has a rapidly growing presence in the United
States. We are the world's largest producer of renewable
diesel, and will be the number-one producer of sustainable
aviation fuel by the end of the year.
We are also in the business of fighting climate change. And
our purpose is to create a healthier climate for our children
and for the next generations.
We are all wondering how to provide solutions for these
hard-to-decarbonize transportation sectors. We can't, after
all, just hook an extension cord to an airplane or a ship. But
there are viable, scalable, and sustainable solutions.
Low-carbon liquid transportation fuels must do the heavy
lifting to decarbonize these sectors. That's why Neste shifted
its business model to focus on making and selling renewable
products that can help decarbonize hard-to-abate industries
like heavy commercial trucking, marine transport, and aviation.
I will spend my time today talking about the aviation
industry, specifically, how sustainable aviation fuel, also
known as SAF, can help reduce carbon emissions from air travel.
Today, aviation is responsible for around 2.7 percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, the United Nations project
that the global emissions could triple.
The airline industry recognizes this challenge. They have
voluntarily committed to halve carbon emissions from 2005
levels over the next 30 years. I am inspired by this ambition
and how they are attacking this challenge by improving
efficiency and taking other steps to reduce the industry's
climate impact. These are steps in the right direction. But, as
the industry acknowledges, even all these steps are not enough
to hit the industry goals.
SAF must be part of the solution if we want our children to
live in a world where air travel is not limited. SAF is a drop-
in fuel and works with today's aircraft engines, as well as
existing storage, logistics, and airport infrastructure. SAF
can reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or
more, and in its significantly less pollutants like particulate
matter. This is particularly meaningful to communities that are
disproportionately impacted by pollution.
SAF can be made from a wide variety of sustainable,
scalable, and renewable low-carbon feedstocks, such as used
cooking oils, MSW, forestry residue, or even captured carbon
dioxide. Most importantly, SAF is available today. It is not a
someday solution that has yet to be proven at scale.
Unfortunately, there are structural and policy challenges
that are preventing SAF from taking off. For example, SAF
receives less credits under the renewable fuel standard
compared to renewable ground transportation fuels. This means
that it is more profitable for a company like Neste to reduce
renewable fuels for road transportation compared to SAF.
Congress can help change this dynamic by insuring there is
a level playing field for all renewable fuels. Neste sees
immense opportunity in SAF. It is the only product available
today that can keep planes flying and reduce emissions. To help
the aviation industry grow, SAF production needs to start
rapidly increasing now. The head of the International Civil
Aviation Organization put it like this:
``SAF production capacity needs to double and then double
again.''
We think there needs to be several more ``agains'' in this
math. I believe this is a compelling reason for Congress to
consider SAF-specific policies. Some promising options include
permanent blenders or investment tax credit, exemptions for jet
fuel excise taxes, or a RIN multiplier.
When I joined Neste I was skeptical of renewable fuels. I
felt at the time they were too complicated, costly, and
unrealistic. Today I am in a very different place. I see
renewable fuels, and especially SAF, as smart business, and a
way to create a better world for our children. With policy
support to scale the industry, SAF can provide a large
contribution to the big emission reduction challenges we face.
Now is the time to start a robust policy discussion to meet
these goals.
Neste looks forward to working with Congress and the
aviation industry to identify win/win opportunities that can
incentivize SAF and decarbonize air travel.
Thank you. And I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baines follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Baines. We will talk about that
extension cord later.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes,
please. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF J.P. FJELD-HANSEN
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Thank you very much. And I will keep the
accents going here.
Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today. My name is J.P. Fjeld-Hansen, and I am the vice
president of Musket and Trillium, which are the supply and
alternative fuel arms of Love's Travel Stops.
Love's is a family-owned business that has grown from a
single community store to the second largest travel center
chain in the United States, with more than 500 retail fueling
stations in 41 States. Today I am testifying on behalf of the
National Association of Truckstop Operators. NATSO is the
premier national trade association representing Love's and
other highway fuel retailers.
In my testimony today, I hope to demonstrate to you that
travel center companies such as Love's are invaluable partners
to policymakers as you seek to minimize the carbon footprint of
the transportation sector. Motor fuel retailers are agnostic to
the type of fuel we sell. However, our customers' decision are
largely driven by price.
The industry is very capable of efficiently bringing the
lowest cost fuel to market. At the same time, customers are
reluctant to transition to more expensive alternatives. This
should be viewed as an opportunity, not as an obstacle.
Motor fuel retailers are effectively surrogates for the
customer. If you want to encourage consumers to transition to
an alternative fuel, we know based on our experience what types
of incentive programs work and what types of policies do not
work. We could compete to sell low-cost fuel. If the Government
can provide the requisite signals and policy certainty, we can
bring actual affordable alternative fuel solutions to market.
We are already doing that today.
It is tempting to focus solely on how we want the world to
look in 10, 20, or 30 years. I am here today to offer our
assistance in this endeavor, and also to urge you not to allow
these larger aspirations to distract you from making interim
progress. By building on existing policies and infrastructure,
we can improve the transportation sector emissions footprint in
the short term while also considering more long-term solutions.
We should be able to do both.
As detailed further in my written testimony, Love's has
invested significant capital to bring alternative fuels to
market. Some examples would be our company Trillium agreed to
set up a public/private partnership with the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation where we constructed 29 CNG
stations serving more than 1,600 transit buses throughout the
State.
In Miami-Dade County, we have built two CNG stations that
are capable of refueling 600 CNG buses for the Miami-Dade
County transit system.
We also provide full-service design, installation, and
maintenance for on-site solar and power generation projects,
enabling customers to reduce their energy bills and improve
resiliency.
Trillium designed, built, and operates the Nation's largest
heavy-duty hydrogen refueling station to support the Orange
County Transportation Authority's fleet of hydrogen buses.
And Trillium earlier this year completed the successful
acquisition of the renewable natural gas production facility at
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility in San Diego. And we
also operate all four of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit
System CNG stations.
This is just a small example. In undertaking these
projects, we responded to public policy and the need of our
customers. And we are eager to continue playing this role. That
is precisely how it's supposed to work.
I encourage the subcommittee to learn from these lessons
and apply those lessons to any incentive programs you create
going forward. Once the regulatory incentive regime is in place
that makes alternative fuel cost competitive, whatever the fuel
might be, the private sector will bring those fuels to market
most effectively. That is why it would be counterproductive to
allow regulated public utilities to use their monopoly to
squeeze out private-sector involvement in the EV recharging
business.
That is precisely what utilities are trying to do right now
in a number of States throughout the country. And if they are
successful, it will not only preclude companies such as Love's
from participating in that market, it would cement in place
stagnant technologies and fueling solutions that at the end of
the day will not get consumers what they want.
Fuel retailers have to be cognizant and responsive to their
customers' demands in order to succeed; utilities do not. The
best path forward is to leverage existing infrastructure and
refueling sites that are strategically located where cars and
trucks are known to travel, and develop policies that make it
profitable for those businesses to invest in alternative fuels.
On behalf of NATSO and the Love family of companies, I look
forward to continue working with you to achieve what I believe
are mutually compatible goals. And I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fjeld-Hansen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Fjeld-Hansen.
And now we move to Commissioner Felleman. You are
recognized for 5 minutes. And welcome.
STATEMENT OF FRED FELLEMAN
Mr. Felleman. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tonko and
Ranking Member Shimkus, as well as distinguished members of the
committee.
I am Fred Felleman, Port of Seattle Commission vice
president and managing member of the Northwest Seaport
Alliance. The port's diverse business lines include managing
commercial fishing and cruise terminals, as well as the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. In partnership with the
Port of Tacoma we also jointly manage the fourth largest
container port complex in North America.
We are committed to carrying out our mission in an
environmentally sustainable manner while recognizing the needs
of disproportionately impacted communities. As founding chair
of the port's Energy and Sustainability Committee, I look
forward to this opportunity to share the progress we have
achieved voluntarily and identify opportunities to collaborate
in the future.
In Washington State we are very fortunate to have a green
grid powered primarily by hydroelectricity. In addition, we
have made significant investments in wind and solar projects,
creating additional renewable energy and jobs in the districts
of Representatives Walden and McMorris Rodgers.
The aviation and maritime sectors are particularly
difficult to decarbonize. According to the International Air
Transport Association and International Maritime Organization,
air transport and maritime shipping each account for about 2
percent of the global CO2 emissions and will
continue to grow unless action is taken. Nevertheless, the Port
of Seattle has a goal of being the greenest and most energy-
efficient port in the Nation.
At Sea-Tac Airport we are providing preconditioned air and
electricity to power aircraft while they are at the gate,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40,000 metric
tons. We are also installing charging stations on our airfield
to support ground-handling equipment.
Off airfield, we are transitioning our bus fleet and
central heating plant to renewable natural gas. Our taxi and
ride-sharing services are required to meet strict fuel economy
standards, and we are providing electric vehicle charging
stations to the public.
Our longer-term goal is to fuel every flight at Sea-Tac
with 10 percent blend of biofuel by 2028. Sustainable aviation
fuels have a life cycle carbon footprint of 80 percent lower
than the current jet fuel.
For the maritime sector, the Port of Seattle is one of the
first ports in the country to install shore power at a marine
terminal, enabling cruise ships to turn off their engines while
at berth, utilizing our low-carbon electrical grid.
Plugging container ships into shore power at the Northwest
Seaport Alliance's major terminals would also result in
emissions reductions of nearly 14,000 tons of greenhouse gas
annually. Connecting all our cruise ships to shore power would
have saved over 10,000 metric tons last year alone.
The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma also require that all cargo
trucks entering Seaport Alliance international container
terminals are at least 2007.
At the Port of Tacoma they are nearing completion of an LNG
terminal to serve maritime vessels. Additionally, the State's
ferry service is transitioning to electrification.
Moving forward, our primary strategy is to electrify marine
terminals and convert diesel powered drayage trucks and cargo
handling equipment to electricity or other clean energy
sources.
The job ahead of us is daunting. Maritime and aviation
transportation systems and global supply chains are complex,
and the port's authority to manage them is limited. Funding is
a huge obstacle to faster implementation. And we must also
carefully balance our environmental priorities alongside our
economic and social responsibilities. Support from the Federal
Government is needed to help us overcome these challenges to
meet our carbon-emission targets.
We ask that Congress support the transition to sustainable
aviation fuels through funding, research, and interagency
partnerships, support electrification for marine terminals and
other clean-energy solutions for maritime operations, increase
funding and expand program eligibility for environmental
elements or projects that reduce emissions, and harmonize
Federal and global efforts to decarbonize oceangoing vessels
while at sea.
Climate change is already impacting our abilities to
operate our core business reliably and predictably. But this is
also creating opportunities for innovation and job creation.
Our ports are supporting the State of Washington's maritime
Blue Initiative to drive innovation and advance clean maritime
technologies. Creating jobs of the future will enable our
region to capture a growing portion of the global maritime blue
economy that is expected to reach $3 trillion by 2030.
Similarly, by supporting the development of sustainable
aviation fuels, there will be broad-based benefits for research
institutions, refineries, farmers, foresters, and feedstock
producers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today.
Decarbonization of the maritime sector is a big, bold, and
essential goal. The Port of Seattle and the Northwest Seaport
Alliance look forward to working with Congress to achieve this
goal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Felleman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And now we will hear from Mr. Blubaugh for 5 minutes,
please. And welcome.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY A. BLUBAUGH
Mr. Blubaugh. Good morning. Thanks to the committee for
having me here today. My name is Tim Blubaugh, and I am with
the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. I would like to
share with you a little bit about our industry, about our
successes in reducing both criteria pollution emissions and
greenhouse gas emissions, and our investments in zero-emission
technology, truck technologies.
EMA is made up of the United States' leading manufacturers
of heavy-duty trucks and engines. The products that EMA member
companies design and build are not just big cars. The annual
sales of heavy trucks in the United States is a small fraction
of passenger car sales, yet they come in an extremely wide
variety of sizes and configurations. Commercial vehicles are
highly customized for many diverse applications, including
parcel delivery vans, pickup and delivery trucks, refuse
trucks, construction vehicles, regional freight tractors, and
long-haul tractors.
Heavy trucks are purchased by sophisticated business
entities as a capital investment--one that must return a
profit. A commercial fleet will specify the details of the
truck they want the manufacturer to build, so that it will
serve the needs of their unique trucking operation with the
lowest possible life cycle cost.
For more than 50 years, EMA member companies have worked
cooperatively with regulators to dramatically reduce the
environmental impacts of our products. The emissions from
today's heavy-duty trucks and engines have been reduced by 99
percent from those built 30 years ago. That remarkable success
does not happen without enormous capital investment and
incredible technological innovation.
The success of those investments and innovations were
maximized because the target emission regulations were aligned
nationwide and provided the regulatory certainty needed for a
level competitive playing field. Key to implementing those
regulations, government and industry work collaboratively to
update the Nation's diesel fuel supply to ultralow-sulfur
diesel for particulate matter filters, and to establish a
nationwide retail market for diesel exhaust fluid for NOx
aftertreatment systems.
After successfully implementing EPA's near-zero criteria
pollutant standards, EMA member companies shifted gears to
implementing EPA and DOT's historic heavy-duty greenhouse gas
and fuel efficiency rules, and we later collaborated again to
develop the more stringent Phase 2 rules that will go into
effect in 2021, with further reductions in 2024, and yet more
in 2027.
Our industry continues to innovate. We have advocated for
EPA to pursue the Cleaner Trucks Initiative announced last
year, to both further reduce NOx emissions and to modernize the
regulatory program. In doing so, we have cautioned that any
additional NOx reductions must not undermine the existing
greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency program, or the nationwide
regulatory alignment that has consistently existed for the
heavy-duty program. The inherent trade-offs between NOx and
greenhouse gas reductions demand that any standard to further
reduce NOX emissions must be carefully crafted to avoid
undermining the Nation's greenhouse gas emission goals.
EMA members are not just working in the regulatory space.
Independent of any regulatory push, and on top of the enormous
investments needed to meet the stringent Phase 2 greenhouse gas
standards, our members are investing billions of dollars to
develop zero-emission powertrains and trucks. However,
converting a commercial fleet to battery-electric technology is
nothing like convincing a consumer to purchase a zero-emission
passenger car. Attractive styling or effective marketing will
not persuade the trucking fleet's business managers, who are
forced to operate on razor-thin profit margins, that battery-
electric trucks make financial sense.
Converting the commercial vehicle marketplace to zero
emission will require a coordinated effort by government,
industry, and other stakeholders. Not only must manufacturers
find the resources to develop the battery-electric technology
for low-volume sales in a wide variety of vehicle
configurations, but fleets need to adapt their entire trucking
operations to such paradigm-shifting technology. Fleets may
need to adjust truck routes, utilization, maintenance, and
other practices; and they will need to invest in training, new
maintenance facilities, and new parts inventories. Most
importantly, fleets must invest in developing the
infrastructure needed to charge the trucks.
The transformation that the commercial vehicle industry
went through to convert to ultralow-sulfur diesel and to
establish the nationwide availability of diesel exhaust fluid
was challenging, but it pales in comparison to the enormous
challenge of converting the industry to battery-electric trucks
and establishing the infrastructure needed to charge them.
Our members are proud of what they have accomplished in
implementing stringent emission standards. And we embrace
future challenges. We look forward to continuing to supply the
trucking industry with the products they need to cost-
effectively and efficiently move freight, while balancing the
need to minimize impacts on the environment. While we work to
increase the acceptability and deployment of zero-emission
commercial vehicles, we also caution that there will be
unprecedented challenges. Success will require time, enormous
investment, cooperative efforts by all stakeholders, and,
ultimately, marketplace acceptance.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blubaugh follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And now we will move to Dr. Eckerle. You are recognized for
5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ECKERLE, Ph.D.
Dr. Eckerle. Thank you. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member
Walden, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is
Wayne Eckerle, and I have been doing research and technology
for 43 years, 30 years at Cummins. Sustaining a vibrant economy
while preserving the planet for generations to come is a
challenge of our time. Cummins and I, personally, have set an
aim to meet that challenge.
Cummins celebrated its 100th anniversary this year. Over
this 100-year period, Cummins has primarily supplied power to
its customers with internal combustion engines. Today there are
more than 15 million engines in use by our customers, primarily
running on diesel, but also natural gas, renewable natural gas,
and biofuels.
Over the past three decades, we have improved efficiency of
our diesel engines by 80 percent and have reduced our NOx and
particulate emissions by 99 percent. We commend the committee's
commitment to facilitate the transition of the U.S. economy to
net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050. We also recognize
that sectors that Cummins supplies significantly contribute to
emissions. And we commit to doing our part to address climate
change and air quality, and have adopted science-based climate
goals.
We look forward to joining forces in innovating with the
broader energy community towards a comprehensive solution by
decarbonizing our primary energy sources.
So, what does the path forward to carbon neutrality look
like? There has to be a multifaceted approach using multiple
technologies. I see internal combustion engines continuing to
play an important role to meet this goal. Cummins will continue
to grow and apply our power train and vehicle system expertise
to optimize power trains and systems of vehicles through
connectivity and automation to generate greater energy and fuel
efficiency.
Cummins is also investing to enable its engines to use fuel
sources that would otherwise be considered waste products,
delivering robust power with fuels like landfill gas and
digester gases.
To reach the goal of a 100 percent carbon-neutral power
supply, the energy source for the internal combustion engine
must also be carbon neutral. To that end, Cummins is partnering
with the Department of Energy National Labs and other companies
to create the decarbonized energy sources needed to operate
internal combustion engines in a 100 percent clean economy.
In addition to continuing to innovate on our engine
technology, Cummins is putting more focus on battery and fuel
cell-powered electric power trains. We are investing heavily in
power train electrification through our research and
development, and through our recent purchase of several battery
and fuel cell companies.
For instance, we are the number-one global provider of
hydrogen fuel cells for locomotives. We clearly see batteries
and fuel cells as part of our portfolio of solutions to meet a
carbon-neutral future. Factors like infrastructure, electricity
source, geographic region, and power needs will often help
determine which solution works in a given situation. But to be
clear, an electric vehicle is not a zero-emissions vehicle
unless electricity is generated from a power plant that also
has zero emissions.
Policies need to incentivize low or carbon-neutral
technologies to help us reach our goal, otherwise cost will
remain a nearly insurmountable barrier. Customers want payback,
period--payback on their initial technology investment within a
short window of time. Today, without subsidies, the electric
powertrains cannot compete on cost with internal combustion
engines.
Cummins' continued investment in infrastructure for
alternative fuels like natural gas and hydrogen fueling can
help deploy these technologies faster. From a policy
standpoint, in order to reach a carbon-neutral future and get
there effectively and successfully, we need three things:
One, we need government investment in R&D and
infrastructure.
Two, we need policies that support the goal and enable us
to develop the technologies to get there.
And three, we need national regulations that are uniform,
predictable, and enforceable so we can continue to invest in
these technologies to meet the national goals.
In conclusion, the heavy-duty vehicle industry is
undergoing significant change, and Cummins is leading the way.
Of all the challenges that I have personally faced, this is by
far the most difficult one. However, I also did not think 43
years ago that we would have been able to reduce emissions in a
diesel engine by 99 percent. Because of this past success and
the American spirit of innovation and ingenuity, I am confident
that, if the right policies are put in place and if the
Government and business really do work together, we can develop
the technologies to attain this goal.
Thank you for having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eckerle follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
And then, finally, we will go to Mr. Martinez for 5
minutes, please. And, welcome also.
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN MARTINEZ
Mr. Martinez. Good morning, Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Adrian Martinez, and I am a staff
attorney for Earthjustice. Earthjustice is a nonprofit legal
organization. And I work out of the Los Angeles office. I have
been working on smog pollution for the last 15 years in the
Nation's smog capital. And while this has provided great job
security, because we have a lot of smog in Los Angeles, it also
has shown that we need to move to zero emissions.
I am part of the Right to Zero campaign. And essentially
what--the Right to Zero campaign was based out of our air
quality work in California. And, in looking at how do we get to
meet clean air standards, we looked at all the emissions
sources, we kind of look at what regulations were on the books
in California and federally, and what else we needed to do. And
we came to one conclusion. We came to the conclusion that we
need to move to zero emissions in our transportation sector, in
our energy sector, and in our buildings, and then eventually in
our industrial processes.
And we came to that conclusion for many reasons. But when
we look at the amount of air pollution that come from all these
sources, there is just this incremental approach of slowly
cleaning up engines was not going to work.
In summary, kind of our solution is when we look at our
best climate strategy in a place like Los Angeles, the best
solution is to actually solve our air quality problems. And the
main reason is, to solve our air quality problems we need to
move to zero emissions.
The first point I want to make today is that this area is
moving very fast. This morning I saw two electric buses on the
streets of Washington, DC. Three, even four years ago there
would be zero, and I would have never thought I would see an
electric bus on the street. We are seeing movement in the
trucking sector, in the locomotive sector, and all these
sectors. So, I am going to start with transit buses.
On the transit bus sector, this is one area on the larger
vehicles where we have seen a lot of progress. There are more
than 2,000 buses on the roads or on order in North America. And
this is a dramatic increase from years prior. The ways that the
Federal Government can continue to support this, we need to
continue to support transit agencies purchasing these vehicles.
We need to encourage development of large-scale infrastructure
to charge. It is one thing to charge one to five buses, it is
another thing if you are a large fleet like Los Angeles Metro
that needs to charge hundreds of buses at a depot at a time.
This is an area where we are going to learn a lot of
information. We like to focus on public agencies because, as
they are figuring out charging and how to operate larger
vehicles, this is information that can be transferred to
private industry too.
Second point, second sector I would like to focus on, is
school buses. This is an area we are seeing a lot of progress
nationally. There is a lot of interest in how do we transport
our children to school in a zero-emission way. School districts
need a lot of support for buses in general, but moving to
electric school buses is a critical area.
The one positive of school buses is, because of their
operational profile where they are operating for very limited
times of the day, and then some are even dormant during the
summer, they could provide an additional greater resources for
energy utilities. We are seeing energy utilities even as close
as Virginia get into this, the game of electric buses, because
they see it as a way to deploy electricity in a flexible
manner.
I want to focus on refuse trucks. We are starting to see
more on electric refuse trucks nationally, and we are seeing it
all over the country from New York to Carson, California, to
Ada County, Idaho. We are starting to see deployments of
electric refuse trucks. These are electric vehicles that
inherently are popular. Whenever we talk to people about the
potential for a quieter refuse truck, they are very excited in
their neighborhoods.
I want to close to talk about ports. One of the areas where
we spend a lot of time focusing are on our ports. Los Angeles
and Long Beach have the two busiest ports in the Nation, and
these are some of the areas most impacted by air pollution in
the region. The ports provide an important opportunity for
advancing zero emissions. Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles and
Mayor Garcia of Long Beach have committed to achieving 100
percent zero emissions in cargo handling equipment and drayage
trucks by 2030 and 2035, respectively. We are starting to see a
lot of technology deployments.
The Port of Los Angeles just deployed a top pick that is
100 percent zero emissions. And just for context, this has a 1
megawatt battery, so it is a big piece of infrastructure.
Infrastructure is key, and this is a place where this
committee and the Federal Government can play a big role.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
We will now move to Member questions. I will start by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and we will go across the
panel.
Dr. Wimberger, let me start with you. This morning we have
heard a lot of potential solutions, including some that are in
the early stages of being deployed. But we also know we are
working against the clock to achieve major emissions
reductions. With that urgency in mind, what are the most
important things the Federal Government can do to ensure these
emerging solutions are commercialized at scale?
Dr. Wimberger. That is a great question. I think there is a
great role for the Federal Government to have technology-
neutral fiscal incentives to really drive research and
development and early deployment of some of these advanced
technologies. There is, we have heard a lot about sort of the
expense of the up-front capital costs, and some of the
uncertainty that businesses face when thinking about deploying
specific technologies. So I think there is a real role for the
Federal Government in the near term to see--technology neutral
is really important, but to keep fiscal incentives on the table
as a really important driver to overcoming some of those market
barriers to getting technologies into market.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
And let me go down the panel and ask each of you, what is
most needed from us, from the Federal Government, to scale up
the solutions you have highlighted in your respective
industries? Mr. Baines.
Mr. Baines. Yes. Well, I think a comprehensive approach is
necessary. And there are a lot of policy options out there.
Like was indicated, I think incentives for these nascent
industries could be quite important. There can be, through the
RFS program, there can be RIN multipliers. There are
opportunities through the tax code as well. There are
exemptions, investment exemptions or blenders incentives.
So, I think there are many, many different policy options
out there that the Federal Government can take a position on.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I think in that--I think the most
important thing for us to make meaningful investments in this
is that we get some horizon and some certainty around the
regulations, and especially the tax credits or RIN mechanisms
or LCFS mechanisms. So I think that is the really number one.
And I also think it is important that we focus on all the
all-of-the-above solution. I think if we get really pigeonholed
into certain specific things, then that slows the efforts down.
And I think also, if we are looking at existing regulation,
like the RFS, I think Mr. Shimkus has brought forward, a
cleanup of some sort of the RFS. And I think we should always
make sure that these existing regulations are current. And I
would like just to use one little example.
We addressed the ethanol blend world really aggressively by
lowering the mandate for ethanol because the market could not
absorb more ethanol blending. So we took that down. I think, if
we look at the cellulosic category, there we had very, you
know, we had really aggressive goals, and the industry couldn't
meet them. So we took the mandates down well through RNG. And
that was based on switchgrass and all these other, you know,
exotic things.
But I think RNG has now come in and solved that. And there
is a lot of runway to increase that one, so.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. If I might.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Mr. Felleman.
Mr. Felleman. Well, certainly, the comprehensive approach
makes the most sense. But in the near term, the idea that,
whether it be cash credits or other incentives, the level
playing field, as we have heard, is to start with. We need to
fund research and innovation because a lot of these solutions
have not been made. But there are a lot of smart people in the
tech field that just haven't applied themselves to this world.
Obviously, interagency coordination is critical. Public
investments in, as we were speaking, we can be the guinea pig
to try out things. We can justify at the port investing in
programs that will ultimately create jobs at the same time as
creating these innovations.
But, ultimately, with the aviation biofuels, which is
really one of the great challenges--and I got to visit Neste's
facility in Rotterdam to take lessons learned there--but we
need a market demand. And if DoD committed to a certain
percentage that would basically--the refineries would come if
they knew there was a guaranteed market for their fuels.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Mr. Blubaugh.
Mr. Blubaugh. With the medium- and heavy-trucks commercial
vehicle industry, we have to pay attention to the diversity,
all the different products in the industry, and think about
systems in a holistic approach, thinking about tractors and
trailers, manufacturers and fleets, and infrastructure. I think
the incentives help overcome the marketplace barriers to the
higher cost. The incentives should be technology neutral.
And I think we have to pay attention to barriers to
deployment of greater greenhouse gas reduction such as more
stringent NOx emissions, or things like the Federal excise tax
that tax these enhanced technologies at a 12 percent rate.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Dr. Eckerle.
Dr. Eckerle. As I mentioned, Government investment in R&D
as well as in the infrastructure. Having sound policies that
are aligned with the goal is really important because that will
develop a fundamental technology that we can take forward.
And, finally, national regulations that are uniform so that
we are all rowing in the same direction.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
And, finally, Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. I think on of the big things that needs to
happen is research and development and support for public
agencies, figuring out how to charge larger number of vehicles.
We have transit agencies that will have a lot more vehicles. We
have ports. These types of investments we will learn a lot of
information.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you to each and every one of you for your
advice.
And now we will recognize Mr. Shimkus, our ranking member
of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the staff would put up the chart from Love's produced to
us. And, hopefully, we are going to have that passed out to you
all too, if you have it.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, will you briefly--and it is hard to see,
I get it, but you all have it there----
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus Can you just briefly highlight--I mean, I found
this very, very helpful. You have questions marks here for the,
you know, the cost of infrastructure or the vehicles you have,
CI scores across the board, and range issues that I think are
very, just very instructive. So, briefly, can you highlight
some of these points?
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes. So what we really tried to achieve
here was, you know, we are talking a lot about policy, and
research, and R&D. We tend to talk very little about how this
needs to look from the consumer's perspective.
So what we were trying to do is say, kind of saying,
``Well, if we set all these other things aside, what does it
look like from the consumer perspective, and what are the real
carbon score savings?''
So, I have listed the existing fuels, being diesel, B20,
and RD, renewable diesel, where we really don't need any
infrastructure investments at all. Friends like Neste are
building plants and we are getting access to the fuel. And it
follows the existing logistic chain.
CNG and RNG, there is a lot of existing infrastructure
there as well, in our natural gas infrastructure. The
investments there would really be to upgrade the fleets to CNG
engines. It is a different engine altogether, so you need to
have a unique engine in your truck. And you also need to
develop, obviously, we have a lot of natural gas already coming
out of the ground. We can supplement that with renewable
natural gas. But that is a fairly established business already.
Then you have all these new technologies that requires
significant infrastructure investment.
So, if we look at the price, yes, a CNG truck is a little
bit more expensive than a diesel truck. When it comes to EV and
hydrogen trucks, there really aren't any commercial options
available on the market today. We hear a little about Tesla,
Nikola, but these are not commercialized operations. So I
really can't comment on any of the price.
And I don't know if our friend from Cummins has any
thoughts on it.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me just jump in because I want to
get to three points.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. But I do want to highlight, in our discussions
yesterday you talked about range. I think range is a big issue
too.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Especially we have our colleague here from the
Port of Los Angeles. And if you have a warehouse that is 500
miles away, an electric tractor trailer that goes 300 miles,
and then you have to stop for a charge, that raises the cost of
the good. That is really challenging.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes. So, two things happen with range. In
order to achieve range in the EV, you need to add battery
capacity. And if you add battery capacity, you increase the
weight.
So, if you want to have an electric vehicle that goes 500
miles, you will lose 40 percent of your payload just because of
the weight of the battery.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you. And I don't mean--I do mean to
cut you off because I----
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes, yes. No, no, no.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Want to get to some other
questions.
I also like the importance of this hearing on we are
tapping around the renewable fuel standard and the bucket,
cellulosic bucket, or what we call the advanced bucket, that
industry then moved into the RNG debate, which I think is
really critical and important.
Mr. Baines, Feldhausen, Mr. Eckerle, talk about that real
quick, about the--maybe not Eckerle as much, but as far as the
RIN issue debate on this portion.
Mr. Baines. Sir, if we look at the sustainability of
aviation fuels, that RIN, it's a multiplier of 1.6. For
renewable diesel, it is a multiplier of 1.7 today. I think that
is, those are the--these kind of policy options, they really
incentivize producers to go one way or another.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and let me drop in now with a question on
you have mentioned the word ``drop-in fuels.'' Let me go to Mr.
Eckerle because I haven't asked him, the importance of drop-in
fuels?
Dr. Eckerle. Yes. I mean it----
Mr. Shimkus. And a definition of it real quick?
Dr. Eckerle. Yes. Drop-in is, you know, basically you could
run on our current petroleum fuel, that fuel with no change in
our engine system. And so, you know, we are all in favor of
that. It----
Mr. Shimkus. So that would cut down maybe a huge
infrastructure cost if you dealt with a different debate or----
Dr. Eckerle. If there is enough supply.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me stay with you and finish with Mr.
Blubaugh.
You both in your testimony talk about a national regulatory
environment, I think Mr. Blubaugh's statement. And Mr. Eckerle,
you mentioned national-level emissions policy and regulations.
What do you mean by that?
Dr. Eckerle. Well, what I mean by that is, for us, as we
develop our products, if we have to develop them for different
regulations, it really divides the resources that we have.
And----
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Blubaugh?
Mr. Blubaugh. The same. All EMA members supply vehicles
nationally and globally. If we have one national program, we
can develop those products much more efficiently, provide them
at a lower cost, higher----
Mr. Shimkus. So, I will finish with my--I got 1 second
left--and just say I think you are addressing the concern that
there will be a Balkanized market based upon regional
differences and rules and regulations. And I think that is an
important point to be made.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone, full committee
chair, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
I wanted to first ask Mr. Martinez. I appreciate your being
here today, and thank you for your work on behalf of the front
line communities in Southern California. How would you describe
the nexus between climate pollution and other pollutants, like
ozone and particulate matter? And how will addressing the
climate crisis help communities like the ones that you have
worked with, if you will?
Mr. Martinez. Yes, there is a big nexus, because when you
look at a lot of the climate pollution there is also air
pollution associated. So, in Los Angeles and communities
throughout the Nation, the ports, airports, they are a large
source of emissions. And what we are seeing, a really effective
tool is to address the air-quality problems as a way to push
the air emissions. And we are seeing ports and other entities
move that way, albeit it is a difficult approach, but it is
something that is needed.
And I just want to put a plug in. The Moving Forward
Network has provided some recommendations on how to move
forward, some national standards on these types of equipment to
advance zero emissions. And I think those will be important
issues to address.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
As I discussed in my opening statement, smart policy plays
a critical role in driving American innovation. And this is
especially true for the transportation sector. So I wanted to
move to Mr. Eckerle.
In your testimony you highlighted Cummins' legacy of
innovation. In your experience, how has ambitious and
predictable policy helped to fuel this innovation at Cummins?
And how would Federal climate policy affect your work for the
products of the next decade?
Dr. Eckerle. Having predictability around regulations is
very, very important. Our product development cycle is on the
order of 3 to 6 years. And so, as we do that work, when we have
an eye on where we have to be and when, it just drives our
investment. And so it really allows us to focus and be able to
do the products that are needed.
From a climate change standpoint, it is very similar. To
the extent that we have a national regulation, we understand
it. We will tailor our investments appropriately and be able to
hit the goal line much more efficiently.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
And in my opening statement, again, I mentioned that
certain transportation subsectors can't be readily electrified
and are going to need transition to low- and zero-carbon fuels,
and that Congress can play a key role in this transition as
part of the 100 percent clean economy of the future. So let me
ask Mr. Baines, how has California's low-carbon fuel standard
influenced your investment decisions and strategy for
developing and commercializing innovative liquid fuels?
Mr. Baines. Well, I think the low-carbon fuel standard
provided a really clear and robust policy for us to be able to
build our production around, and to be able to develop it as a
market.
It is a long-term policy, so there is a transparency for us
to be able to make the kind of investments that are needed to
produce low-carbon fuels.
Mr. Pallone. Then let me ask you, and also maybe Dr.
Wimberger, what should the Federal Government be doing in the
near term to help drive the market for low, for zero-carbon
fuels in aviation, and for oceangoing vessels? I'll ask Mr.
Baines and then will ask Dr. Wimberger.
Mr. Baines. Well, I think it goes, again, to this
comprehensive approach with there are many different policy
options that are out there. Incentivizing the research and the
production of these fuels, incentivizing the incorporation or
the blending of those fuels are different options.
There are some options that we can have in the RFS program
around the RIN multiplier, like I mentioned earlier on. And the
tax code can also play an important role in that.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
Dr. Wimberger.
Dr. Wimberger. I would echo a lot of the statements about
consistent policies and having a really strong price signal.
Through a clean fuel standard that opens up to, that
incentivizes fully the lowest-carbon fuels across different
applications, so not just focusing on liquid fuels but thinking
about electrofuels, and thinking about really innovative ways
that we can have a really strong price signal that will drive
innovation and technology in these areas.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative McKinley for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this whole concept of 100 percent renewables by
2050 is interesting. As an engineer, it is going to be great:
full employment for engineers and scientists for the next 30
years. But I think it is delusional to think that in some
aspects that we are ever going to achieve that. So I am curious
to see how this language gets worked out.
I want to focus on airplanes as much as I can, because the
other things maybe it is more doable. Airplanes, teach me. I
can learn about this because I am just curious. Jet fuel, the
specific energy of jet fuel is 50 times the density capacity
for batteries, with lithium ion batteries. I am curious how we
are going to do that, to move into that arena on that,
especially given that, for a Tesla car using lithium ion
batteries, it is 1,000 pounds for an automobile.
Can any of you give me an idea of what is the size? If it
is 1,000 pounds for a Tesla car, what is it going to be for an
Airbus 320? Anyone have an idea? I don't have that. I am not--
please.
Mr. Felleman. Well, I do know that there is a company in
the Seattle area that is in the process of getting
certification for a modification of a Beaver. It is an older
plane, but they are using one engine as an electric engine and
one as a traditional jet engine. And they are able to
demonstrate the ability to do, in a relatively small plane, the
ability to actually fly. So----
Mr. McKinley. I am fine with the smaller planes----
Mr. Felleman [continuing]. The technologies are getting
there.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. We have right now. We know the
capac--we can do that. The Purdue engineers at their
aeronautical program have put something together. MIT is saying
``small planes, yes, we can do that.''
But I'm talking about the 320s, the 747s, the 737s, you
know, how we are going to be able to do that? So I am curious,
what is the size? And it is one thing to say the size, whatever
that might be, but then I want to go to the airports. What is
going to happen if you exhaust your battery so it is at the
end, are you going to--how long is the plane--if we complain
now about our length of time waiting for traffic, how long is
it going to be to recharge that battery to fly that plane back
to Pittsburgh or back to San Diego or wherever that might be?
Or are we going----
Mr. Felleman. Sorry.
Mr. McKinley. Or are we going to replace the battery, which
might be the faster way to do, pull it out and replace it? That
is fine. What happens in small towns? What happens foreign when
we fly to Honduras or we fly to Guatemala, are they going to
hold our batteries for us so that we can move them in? I don't
think so. I think we are going to be--we are going to create a
problem for ourselves that are going to have consequences as a
result of this because we are just, quite frankly, we are not
there yet.
I think that I want us to do it. I love the idea. I think
it is--for an engineer I think it is fabulous to be able to
have this kind of aspirational goal where we might go with
this. But I would think that, quite frankly, instead of doing
these delusional concepts, why aren't we spending the time to
develop batteries better than we are right now, putting funding
into research at National Energy Technology Laboratory to find
out how?
How are we going to find ways to replace lithium? Because
we know it takes 500,000 gallons of wastewater to produce one
ton of lithium. And that will only generate enough batteries
for 10 cars. We have to find a replacement for lithium.
So I am hoping over the next 30 years is we use our
engineering technology or science and find new batteries, new
ways of doing it, or cobalt where the increase--where we are
dealing with a terrorist activity, a terrorist government in
Congo, and their increased price on cobalt was 142 percent last
year. Do we want to do business with people trading in red, in
blood diamonds? I think we should be spending more time,
instead of passing legislation like this, putting more money
into research to find out how we can do, how we can actually
achieve this.
Because this, there is a great article in Aviation Week,
just came out in January, that it isn't going to happen, folks.
We can do it on small planes, but when we get to larger planes,
we don't have it. It is going to take more than 30 years or
longer.
But I am looking at posing a challenge to you. What do we
do in a small airport? What are we going to do to them when
they land on that? What are we--can any of you give me an idea?
Well, my time has expired. How are we going to deal with
this in Peoria, Illinois?
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. McNerney [presiding]. The gentleman yields. And the
acting Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. No, you are the chair. You are the chair.
Mr. McNerney. The chair, the real chair.
First of all, I want to say, very encouraging testimony. I
see we are really committed to moving in the right direction,
and I really appreciate that.
Commissioner Felleman, the Port of Stockton is in my
congressional district, so finding ways to reduce port-related
emissions is very important to me and my constituents. You
mentioned how Federal support for the development of
electrified cargo handling equipment is essential to
decarbonizing the sector. At the Port of Stockton we have seen
how State and local partnerships can make a real difference.
Can you speak to some of the hurdles that are facing
widespread adoption of electrified cargo-handling equipment at
ports across the country?
Mr. Felleman. Thank you. In fact, you know, the Port of
Seattle has been beneficiary of some of California's hand-me-
downs because they have been taking the initiatives to make
progress on the technology that we are now advancing from
there.
But one of the challenges is just the power for the top
picks. There is, like, a lot of--well, it hasn't been designed
for actual commercial utilization. But there are--basically it
is the terminal operators that have to shoulder the response.
Our port is a landlord port, so we basically lease to the
terminal, and terminal operator then, you know, assumes all
those costs. So, initially, changing over from a Tier 4 is like
what we are doing right now. We are getting to the better
diesel operations. But to go from that to electrification is
primarily an expense.
We do have the shore power. That infrastructure is getting
put in place. And the discussion about battery change-out, in
Long Beach we know that, you know, the cars coming in, they
swap out the battery packs. That is not the challenge. Storage
and electricity isn't a challenge. It is, you know, primarily
an expense cost. And actually the technology of not all of it
has been electrified.
Mr. McNerney. Can you speak to how to power demand is
managed at ports and how electrification of machineries impacts
that?
Mr. Felleman. Well, we are sort of lucky in the Seattle
area. We have the green grid from hydropower.
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Mr. Felleman. And City Light has its own dam.
But if we really had a huge requirement we--Bonneville
Power Authority can route power to our thing, that is the
Columbia River system. But I think ultimately it is going to
require storage so that we can use, you know, like, cruise
ships are only at our dock for, like, 10 hours. And they are a
huge demand. So, we can sort of schedule, you know, having
storage in place or when the demand varies.
So, I am hoping that, like with the electronic world, that
we will have a Moore's Law of batteries. That, I would agree
very much, that that's where we have to continue to invest,
but----
Mr. McNerney. Right. Battery storage is key to this. And
they are making investments and improvements now, I think. I
don't know if we are going to see Moore's Law, though. That is,
that would be pretty optimistic.
Mr. Eckerle, can you discuss how we can best deploy zero-
or low-carbon fuel systems at ports across the various types of
transportation systems to serve them?
Dr. Eckerle. Well, it is really a matter of getting
infrastructure from our standpoint as those fuels become
available. You know, we are ready and able to utilize those in
our engine systems.
Mr. McNerney. So it is really the investment in Federal
dollars needed in your opinion for that?
Dr. Eckerle. Yes. In the infrastructure, yes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Wimberger, I want to thank you for your work at the
CARB. Basically you have set standards for the country, and it
has made a lot of difference in our district.
I mean, it is clear that in the Central Valley the tule fog
that used to be a real problem is now dissipating and not
appearing because there is less particulate pollution in the
air to attract that fog. So you have made a lot of difference
in people's lives.
Ports are a major hub for heavy-duty trucks. In mid-
November 2018, the U.K. announced the Cleaner Trucks Initiative
focused on modernizing regulations for heavy-duty trucks
relative to heavy NOx emissions. But to date the EPA has not
proposed a single regulation under that initiative, and it is
not likely to do so until the spring of next year.
How are we going to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions
on a tight schedule to protect public health and reduce
greenhouse emissions?
Dr. Wimberger. That is a great question. I think the chair
of Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, just responded to EPA,
the head of EPA, there are challenges in California in
achieving our 2031 and 2032 NOx requirements in the south
coast. And a lot of that does deal with emissions that are
covered under Federal regulations, so including trucks, and
ports, and locomotives. And there were commitments made to work
together collaboratively to see reductions in those areas.
And I think there are ongoing conversations to think about
how we can reduce NOx emissions in that time frame that are
required. There is only so much I think the State can do. And
we are seeing huge declines in California for NOx emissions in
nonattainment areas under California-specific regulations. But
there are mobile sources where EPA does have preceding
jurisdiction, and we are seeing increases in those emissions in
the future.
So there is ongoing--it is going to be tricky, it is going
to be tough, but we have reduced emissions tremendously in
California and will continue to do so to protect public health.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. My time has expired. And I am
going to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, you know, I think
this idea, this notion of 100 percent clean energy for our
transportation network, is a very noble, a noble goal. And I
also think that it is a mischaracterization for those that
think that my Republican colleagues and I don't support green
energy initiatives. We simply don't believe that you can ground
our economy to a standstill in order to get there. You have to
have an economy that will support market-driven solutions to
accomplish these things if we want to get there.
And, you know, technological innovation has unlocked a vast
supply of natural gas in the shale plays in my district in
eastern and southeastern Ohio. And as we are all aware, these
shale plays have helped to drive down the price of natural gas,
making the fuel a very affordable option for our energy and
manufacturing needs.
So, Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, how has the current price point of
natural gas influenced Trillium's decision to build projects
reliant on compressed natural gas?
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I would say there was a wave kind of
converting over-the-road engines to CNG back in 2012, 2013 when
you had, you know, crude at a hundred-and-some dollars, and
natural gas was still $2.50. The fact that crude has come down
since then has lessened those incentives. But you still have
the fuel mixer credit, which is part of RFS, I guess, or the
tax extenders that would, you know, incentivize more usage. But
we see tremendous progress on the transit side.
So, if I look at the over-the-road trucker, the guy who
bought the CNG truck in 2014, he probably is buying a diesel
truck today based on the incentive structure that is available.
But on the transit side, where you have the asset that
depreciates a little over time, it is still an economic
advantage. And as you can see on the schedule, just compressed
natural gas using fossil natural gas gives you a 21 percent
reduction in carbon intensity. So, it is not zero, but it is 21
percent.
Mr. Johnson. It is moving in that direction.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. As you know, continuing with you, the U.S. is
also exporting liquefied natural gas to our allies across the
world because of our vast supplies and resources.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Do you feel this increasingly global supply of
gas could influence the greater use of CNG transportation
projects throughout the rest of the world?
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I think you are seeing natural gas
increasingly becoming a fuel source in other parts of the world
as well.
Mr. Johnson. Good. Good.
Mr. Eckerle, continuing along this line, I understand
Cummins produces engines that run on CNG. Can you talk about
the prospects of that business, the research you are doing to
improve the performance and application of natural gas-fueled
engines?
Dr. Eckerle. Yes. And we work on improving performance by
natural gas engines just like our diesel engines. And so we are
continually working on technology that is going to reduce the
emissions. And we are increasing the efficiency of those
engines substantially as well.
Mr. Johnson. OK. So, how can your work advancing
technological innovation in the United States engine market
translate to clean engine and fuel advances that are affordable
in other nations that are much higher in their greenhouse gas
emissions than the United States are?
Dr. Eckerle. Yes. You're probably aware Cummins is a global
company, and last year we produced 1.5 million engines, many of
those in countries outside North America. And the technology
that we are applying in North America we are applying in those
countries as well. So, the efficiency benefits are global. And
all of our projects, we are working to meet lower greenhouse
gas in all those countries.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Blubaugh, do you have any thoughts
along those lines?
Mr. Blubaugh. Yes. The heavy-truck industry does export
quite a bit, as Dr. Eckerle said. Some of the challenges are we
have tried to export the cleanest diesel trucks. And what you
need, you need ultralow-sulfur diesel to do that, and you need
diesel exhaust fluid.
We have just gotten Mexico moving forward to where they
could adopt the cleanest trucks, the 2010 trucks, but you need
that infrastructure to support those vehicles.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. OK.
And, Dr. Eckerle, I apologize. I couldn't see your name tag
through your cup. I didn't--I called you Mr. Eckerle instead of
Dr. Eckerle, so I apologize.
Dr. Eckerle. No need to apologize. I can be Wayne.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes Representative Barragan for 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
conversation and you all being here. I happen to represent
America's Port. It is the busiest port by container volume in
the country. We have a lot of jobs, and our economy is heavily,
heavily dependent on it.
And with that said, my district is one of the most heavily
polluted districts in the country. It has the Port of L.A.,
including the Port of Long Beach right next door, and it is
surrounded by three freeways. And so this topic of what can we
do is critically, critically important to me and my
constituents.
Now, the ports combined are right across in a part of my
district, and they are responsible for significant amounts of
local air pollution, so from sulfur dioxide particulate matter
and nitrogen oxide levels, which is exacerbating the
environmental disparities in my district, a district that is a
majority minority, almost 90 percent Latino/African American.
And they are on the front lines of the pollution that is
resulting.
There has been some discussion about the ports and what has
been done. Now, although the ports have actionable clean air
plans which have reduced emissions, there is so much more work
to do. And the purpose of these hearings is to try to get ideas
on what we can do, and legislation we can add so that we can do
our part.
Now, the climate crisis is urgent. It is urgent. And we are
seeing people marching and people recognizing that. And we, as
legislators, need to as well. And so I appreciate the work you
are doing, Mr. Martinez, in my community and in the area to
address the issues. You talked a little bit, Mr. Martinez,
about some of the work you have done with pollution and
environmental justice issues in Los Angeles County and
California. Can you speak--and you spoke a little bit to the
progress of what is being done to reduce emissions--but can you
maybe give us some concrete steps that can be taken to build on
that progress?
Then we can consider trying to put into either this
legislation that we are going to come up with on the 100
percent by 2050 and/or the LIFT America Act, which is our
committee's infrastructure portion of the bill.
Mr. Martinez. Yes. If you look at the examples of the Port
of L.A. and the Port of Long Beach, it started out with an
emissions inventory. To the extent ports haven't done one of
those, they should, because you need to know where your
emissions are coming from.
Second, they developed what are called Clean Air Action
Plans. You know, these are strategies for each category of
equipment.
And then the third thing is I think the Ports of L.A. and
Long Beach have their zero-emission goals for at least two big
parts of their operations, trucking and cargo equipment. I
think that is important.
One thing that the Port of Long Beach did that was
particularly important was an EV Blueprint process where they
spent some time bringing all stakeholders from industry, from
community, and the kind of the best thinkers on how do we get
to electrify their cargo equipment. And I think that pursuing
that at ports across the Nation to allow them to figure out how
do they get to zero emissions would be a good strategy.
Ms. Barragan. OK. According to information from the Clean
Air Task Force, marine shipping is 2.6 percent of the global
greenhouse gas emissions and could account for 17 percent of
these emissions by 2050. Equally concerning is that existing
fueling solutions are either marginally cleaner or face
technological obstacles.
Mr. Baines, are Federal programs to invest in and support
the development of emerging energy technologies in shipping
sufficient? And can you expand on recommendations in your
testimony for how we can do more to support innovation to drive
down emissions?
Mr. Baines. Thank you for the question. Neste does focus
mainly on the road transportation and the adjacent sector. Our
fuels can be used in marine applications. Our renewable diesel
is being used today in California in some of the ferries where
it already reduces emissions.
I think one of the beauties of the fuels that we produce is
that it is a drop-in fuel. So it is the existing engines, it is
the existing infrastructure, it is existing technology today.
So there are no investment costs required to be able to benefit
from lower greenhouse gas emissions, from lower environmental
pollutants.
So, I think that is a great advantage of these kind of
fuels that we produce today.
Ms. Barragan. One of my concerns is we talked a little bit
about the natural gas and the calls for low-sulfur substitutes
but, you know, I think we need to think bigger than that, and
we need to think bolder than that in figuring out how do we get
to the zero emissions, how do we get to that place given the
urgency that we have, so that we can make sure that we are
doing enough to avoid the warming of the 1.5 degrees Celsius.
So, I just wanted to thank you all for your work. And,
hopefully, we can continue the discussion. Five minutes is
nowhere near enough time to have this conversation.
I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Long of Missouri
for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the transportation
sector represents the largest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in our economy. And we have a lot of room for
improvement to reduce emissions. That being said, I think it is
important that this committee works together to put forward
practical and commonsense solutions rather than proposing pie-
in-the-sky deals that are unrealistic and would harm our
economy.
That is why I was proud to work with my good friend
Congresswoman Matsui from California on a bill to reauthorize
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which I was glad to see
passed the House with bipartisan support.
Our bill provides grants to States to upgrade older diesel
engines with cleaner, American-made technology. This is a great
example of bipartisan solution that makes real differences in
the real communities like mine. My home State of Missouri is
using the DERA grant money to upgrade school buses to make sure
our children are breathing cleaner air on their rides to and
from school. Diesel engines can have a long working life with a
slower turnover rate, which allows older engines to operate for
a longer time.
With roughly 10 million old diesel engines still in
operation today, it is important that we continue to make sure
of homegrown technologies to upgrade these engines and improve
our environment.
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of
2019 reauthorizes the program through 2024. As EPA
Administrator Wheeler notes, this is an effective and
innovative program to improve air quality across the country.
DERA fund has proven to be a cost-effective tool to help
communities meet their air quality implementation plans and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
My question: What is your view of the program, and is this
an example of the practical use of existing policies to drive
for cleaner transportation?
Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I would say typically we look at our role
as really adapting to the programs. And we rely on gentlemen
like yourself to really come up with a lot of the call it
politics behind it. And our job is really to bring it to market
effectively and cheaply.
And I think turning a little example on that is, I think
you brought up the DEF there earlier, which I think is the
great story where you are seeing an implementation. I think we
are about 60 percent implemented today with these new modern
engines that are low emission. So, it is working for sure.
Mr. Long. Good. OK. Well, you answered the second part of
my question in that, so I appreciate that.
And in this series of climate hearings I have tried to
focus on how we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions while
keeping energy and commodity prices low, particularly for rural
agricultural communities like those that I represent where two
of the biggest industries are farming and trucking. From what I
have seen, the Green New Deal and other decarbonization efforts
seek to replace fossil fuels entirely with renewable energy.
Mr. Blubaugh and Mr., or I guess Dr. Eckerle, I just
learned, do you have any tech--do we have the technology to
decarbonize the farming and trucking industries while
continuing to produce and move goods to market without raising
costs on farming, trucking, or consumers?
Mr. Blubaugh. First I would like to say, with DERA less
than 50 percent of the trucks are current technology, because
trucks are durable and the new trucks are expensive. DERA is an
excellent way to overcome that hurdle and get more to the newer
greatest, latest and greatest technology.
As far as farming equipment, upgrading farming equipment is
a challenge. It can be done. We are working on the technology
to do so. But the cost of the technology is often a barrier,
and similar to the benefits of DERA, allowing farmers or other
people who use that equipment the ability to afford the new
technology is critical.
Mr. Long. OK. And can we do it without limiting the
mobility inherent in diesel engines?
Mr. Blubaugh. It depends on what technology. We can't--
there is no broad-brushed approach to this. It depends on what
is the application and what is the technology.
Obviously, current, latest, the clean, near-zero-emission
diesel technology can do that without limiting its performance
of its electrification.
Mr. Long. OK. And for you or Dr. Eckerle, either one, what
would be necessary for electrification to work for heavy-duty
vehicles and farm equipment?
Dr. Eckerle. The more power that a piece of equipment or a
piece of transportation uses, the more difficult it is going to
be to replace it with true electrification. Now, there are
certain applications where carbon-neutral fuels are going to be
the right answer, you know, from an internal combustion engine.
So, one size does not fit all here.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you. I have no time to yield back, but
if I did I would yield it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tonko. We understand your kindness, sir. The gentleman
yields back.
And we now recognize for 5 minutes the Representative of
Delaware, Representative Blunt Rochester.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very
important hearing today. The science is clear: We must
transition to a 100 percent clean energy economy as quickly as
possible and if we are going to avert the impacts of climate
change.
I hear every day from my constituents in Delaware about the
impacts that they already feel. Whether it is a farmer whose
crops are suffering from extreme weather, or a small business
owner who relies on the tourism of our Delaware beaches, or
young students just worried about the future, Delawarians know
all too well we must address the climate crisis.
The transportation sector will play a key role in solving
this problem as it is our now, is our country's largest source
of carbon pollution. We have an opportunity to transition our
transportation sector to zero- or low-carbon fuels, but we must
do it in a just and equitable way. All too often, the
communities that are hit first and worst by the impacts of
climate change are communities of color, that suffer from some
of the worst air quality in the Nation, and floods any time
that it rains.
Thank you to the panelists for your testimony today. I am
especially excited about today's hearing because we have a
modernizing and expanding port in Wilmington, Delaware, where
we have a real opportunity to innovate during this expansion to
reduce our emissions. Already as part of this expansion our
port will have electric cargo-handling equipment.
My first question is to Mr. Felleman. You detailed the
great strides that the Northwest Seaport Alliance is taking to
reduce emissions. And following along on Ms. Barragan's
questions, what steps can Congress take to accelerate these
efforts at ports across the country?
And, absent Federal action, do you think that we will be
able to really see progress in terms of transitioning to low-
and zero-carbon fuels at ports? Will it happen on its own?
Mr. Felleman. I really appreciate the point. If we don't
have a national policy, a commitment to doing this, then it all
falls apart.
If you look at our greatest competitor to the north, Canada
has a national policy to move freight across the country. And,
in fact, they are serving Chicago at a cheaper cost than we are
at the Port of Seattle because they have a unified national
policy to do that.
There are efficiencies that we can achieve. One of them,
most importantly, is on-dock rail. And so you eliminate
trucking to a portion of your use. So, that is one way to be
very efficient.
Unfortunately, the rail lines right now are just a little
bit of a monopolistic challenge is we are $300 a container at a
cost disadvantage to Canada because of disparitous rail rates.
So, while we want to get this cargo onto rail, at the same time
it is an asymmetric situation for us.
But there are other efforts like idle reduction measures
that you can--you know, scheduling a truck to get to the dock
when the container is ready to pick up. But the ScRAPS program,
the DERA program that was spoken of, we have taken great
advantage of that. And I only think that that is one way in
which we can, as I said, turn over these long-lived trucks and
get onto the next phase.
So----
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
Mr. Felleman [continuing]. But I think, just as Mr.
Martinez said, you know, you have to measure what you care
about. So you have to have an inventory. We are on our third
round of inventories. We are watching the relative parameters
go down. As we win some things, trucks become a greater portion
of the pie. So, I think that is a critical way to be strategic.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. So I am going to shift to Mr.
Martinez.
How will the steps taken by the Port of L.A. to reduce
emissions improve air quality for communities near the port?
Mr. Martinez. Yes. So, the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach
have been doing programs for many years. I am part of a
coalition that is pushing them to do more because the air
pollution crisis in the communities is still very high.
One thing they did that I think is important, they are
working to advance zero emissions in cargo-handling equipment.
And one of the biggest challenges there is on infrastructure.
How do you plan for adding a significant amount of new
equipment, and how do you charge it in an effective and safe
way?
And I think helping them figure that out, and support for
that will be important.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Well, thank you for that.
I want to say I was fortunate to be on a bus, one of our
electric fleets in Delaware this year. We did kind of a ribbon
cutting, and it was really nice. They had ``It's Electric,''
you know, on the bus, for Electric Slide. But it made me think
as you were talking, you know, Mr. Martinez, and I guess I am
going to ask this of Mr. Eckerle, can you elaborate on why a
national policy rather than a patchwork of different efforts is
really necessary?
Dr. Eckerle. Because it allows us to focus on the right
technology. The more we are divided, the more different
technologies we have to invest in, we can't do a great job for
everybody.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,
Representative Carter, for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you
for being here, ladies and gentlemen.
I have the honor and privilege of representing the 1st
Congressional District of Georgia, which includes two major
seaports: the Port of Savannah, the number-two container port
on the Eastern Seaboard, and the Port of Brunswick, the number-
two roll-on/roll-off port in the country. So, very familiar
with what we are talking about here. And very appreciative of
all your initiatives to make sure we are doing everything we
can to decrease emissions.
I wanted to ask you, Mr. Felleman, I wanted to ask you
about the Port of Seattle. Because I know that you mentioned
that the port has done quite a few things to decrease emissions
in electrification, increasing the efficiency of the diesel
engines, even as much as, from what I understand, putting out
mussels and oysters to help in carbon sequestration. What a
great idea, and what a great initiative. That is wonderful.
But what I have a question about is about mandates versus
incentivizing. Because the Port of Savannah and the Port of
Brunswick--the Georgia Ports Authority runs both of them--have
done a great job by theirself in making sure that they have
decreased emissions, and making sure that they have done all of
the above in making sure that they are taking care of our
environment. And I just found, you know, there was an
announcement earlier this year that you were investing in
technology to improve traffic flow at the terminal. How is that
going?
Because the city, the port in Savannah, is one of the least
congested ports in America, which I think makes it very
attractive to a lot of the users, the fact that it is the least
congested, one of the least congested around.
Mr. Felleman. Well, with all due respect, your ability to
have started to outcompete the Port of Seattle makes me
reluctant to give you our tricks. But I do very much appreciate
your interest.
You know, one of the challenges the Port of Seattle has is
that we are really embedded into the city. So our last mile is
a particular challenge. So that advantage that you have as a
less, uncongested area is a great advantage.
The benefits of getting trucks on appointment is a huge
thing. So having smart gates has been something that we have
been investing in. So trucks can actually sit and wait in a
parking lot and get called on appointment. So this is a big
advantage.
Mr. Carter. And that decreases idling time, would it?
Mr. Felleman. Yes. Yes. And it is a better condition for
the drivers.
One of the things we didn't speak to is really kind of a
trucking model. For those folks that are lucky enough to be in
a fleet, the fleet can make a major investment and amortize it
over a long time. The drayage fleet is an independent operator.
So they only--these guys, mostly immigrants, very
disadvantaged, are only paid per container they move. And so it
is greatly in their advantage as well to have a faster
turnaround.
And all these things that we have talked about, the
business model, anything that saves fuel is good for the bottom
line. So this is ultimately everybody's best interest to find
ways of doing that.
I don't know that--I think the throughput was the primary
thing. But I don't know if you have on-dock rail, because that
is one of the great efficiencies----
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Felleman [continuing]. That you can move so much more
cargo through.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
Mr. Felleman. And then the train engines we have heard
about are also----
Mr. Carter. Right.
Mr. Felleman [continuing]. Getting quite a bit cleaner.
Mr. Carter. Right. And that has been something. And another
thing that we worked on in Georgia is the inland ports. Now,
that has really helped us where we can rail the cargo to the
inland ports and then disperse them out. That has helped with
the congestion, and it has also helped with the efficiency of
the port as well.
I am, as you can tell, I am very proud of the job that the
Georgia Ports Authority has done. I think it is they have done
an outstanding job. So a lot can be learned there.
But my main point I wanted to get at is that, you know,
they have done a lot of things on their own without having to
be mandated on it. And that is what I am really proud of and
really want to see us do. I hate for us in Washington, DC, to
be mandating everything that has to be done to increase
efficiency.
Mr. Felleman. Well, I appreciate that. I am sorry I missed
that point in the first part.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Mr. Felleman. The fact is that Washington State, and
probably you as well, are in attainment. Like, we are not
breaking the law yet, as in California they have to do this if
they want to stay in business.
Mr. Carter. Exactly.
Mr. Felleman. But our goal, elevated self-interest, we
don't want to fall out of attainment. So by taking these
initiatives proactively before the law requires it enables us
to grow responsibly.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. And I think in a much better way.
Mr. Felleman. Yes. So, some of these things need some
investments federally for innovation to get us to the next
level. But as long as we realize that, if our future is to
serve this greater growing market, we have to take these
initiatives before the hammer comes down.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
Well, thank you. And thank all of you very much for all
your initiatives. And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington.
Representative Rodgers is recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, want to
thank the panel for being here today as we look to reduce
emissions in the transportation sector. It is important we
pursue policies that reduce transportation-related emissions,
that are realistic, technology neutral, and make economic
sense.
Government mandates, as my previous colleague just
mentioned, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, can
often have drastic unintended consequences. In Washington State
right now some politicians and special interests, for example,
are threatening to breach the four Lower Snake River dams that
are in my district. Governor Inslee is currently spending
almost $1 million of taxpayer money to justify doing it.
Setting aside the significant negative impact on our clean,
renewable hydropower generation, breaching the dams would also
significantly increase light-duty vehicle emissions. Many
farmers and other businesses in eastern Washington rely on
barging on the Snake River and on the Columbia River to ship
their products west to the ports. Barging is one of the most
efficient, eco-friendly methods of cargo transportation. If the
dams were breached, farmers would have to look at other
shipping methods.
We export 90 percent of the wheat that is grown in my
district. We export 50 percent of the potatoes. We export peas,
lentils, garbanzo beans. It would have taken, in 2017 alone it
would have taken 135,000 semi trucks to move the cargo shipped
on the Snake River, additional. This would drastically increase
emissions in Washington State, not to mention the additional
congestion that we already face at the port.
I believe instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on an
expensive effort to increase carbon emissions and decrease
clean energy production, we should be encouraging the
development of new technologies and efficiencies that decrease
emissions in the transportation sector. One of the biggest
challenges in decreasing emissions from vehicles is turning
over fleets and getting older, less efficient vehicles off the
roads.
I am concerned about costly, government-imposed mandates
and policies that significantly increase the cost of new
vehicles. You can mandate the most fuel-efficient, green car or
truck in the world, but if no one can afford it, it is not
going to decrease carbon emissions. Right now the average car
in America costs $38,000. A lot of people cannot afford that,
even though we would especially want our teenagers to be
driving the most efficient and safe cars. But they can't do it
because they can't afford it.
So what are we doing? Our cars are getting older. Average
car in America is now 12 years old. In my district, it is 15
years old.
Mr. Blubaugh, approximately how much more does a new truck
cost today as the result of all the new emission reduction
technologies? And are there any barriers, for example, a 12
percent Federal excise tax, to purchasing newer, cleaner trucks
that Congress could address?
What are the risks if we impose even more costly emissions
requirements? If we were just able to fully turn over existing
medium- and heavy-duty fleets in the current and near term,
what would the emission reduction impact be?
Mr. Blubaugh. Thank you. As I said before, I think less
than 50 percent of the trucks on the road today are to the
latest emissions standards that went in place in 2010, almost
10 years ago, and we still haven't gotten 50 percent.
The benefits of turning the fleet over to those new
cleanest diesel engines would be tremendous. It is hard to
measure exactly what it would be. If it is a truck that was 30
years old, the benefits would be dramatic. If it was a truck
that was 15 years old, less dramatic but still a huge
improvement.
And one of the barriers that we see is, that you pointed
out on passenger cars, we see that on the heavy-truck world, we
call it a pre buy and a low buy. Before the 2007 emissions
standards went in place, truckers bought a lot of vehicles. We
ramped up production to sell the older vehicles. It is not an
efficient way to produce vehicles. It causes us to hire people
and then turn around and lay them off later. The pre-buy and
low-buy cycle is not advantageous, and it doesn't help the
environment before it increases the number before the standard.
So we think mechanisms like the FET that adds 12 percent to
the cost of this--it adds 12 percent to the cost of the
vehicle. So, if we add $20,000 to $40,000 worth of emissions
reduction equipment, that is $2,400 to $4,800 in tax on top of
that increased expense.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
I am really excited about the sustainable jet fuels program
also. And I didn't allow enough time for you to talk about it,
Mr. Felleman. I am sorry.
I yield. I ran out of time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
I have received a number of documents for the record. And
so we will ask, request unanimous consent to enter the
following into the record.
They include a letter from the Association of American
Railroads; a letter from Securing America's Future Energy, or
SAFE; a letter from the American Public Gas Association; a
letter from the Diesel Technology Forum; a letter from the
Advanced Engine Systems Institute, including the executive
summary of a June 2019 report from the Manufacturers of
Emission Controls Association. We have a letter from NGVAmerica
and, finally a chart provided by Mr. Fjeld-Hansen comparing
various truck engines.
So, I request unanimous consent to enter the following.
Without objection so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. I see we have been joined by our colleague from
Illinois, the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative
Schakowsky. Take a moment. When you are ready. Settle in. I
will recognize you for 5 minutes, please, a devoted member, I
would say, of Energy and Commerce.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to apologize to the
panel. It is just there are all these other hearings and
negotiations going on. So I thank you for being here. I thank
you for your testimony. I do have a few questions.
So, I am from Chicago. And Chicago area is home to five
airports, including two major ones, O'Hare and Midway. And last
year O'Hare International Airport was the busiest airport in
the world in terms of takeoffs and landings. And we know that
aircraft account for about 9 percent of transportation
emissions. And, you know, while that doesn't sound huge, it has
also increased more than any other subsector in 2017 in terms
of emissions.
Globally, passenger traffic increased about 6.4 percent
last year. With air traffic increasing, it is important that we
ensure that that aircrafts transition to clean energy and
renewable fuel.
So, Mr. Baines, and where are you? Mr. Baines, in your
testimony you mentioned the importance of sustainable aviation
fuel. So I am wondering if you could talk a little bit about
that. Where does the United States stand compared to other
countries in terms of the development and deployment of
sustainable aviation fuels?
And let me just ask a second question. In your opinion, why
has the United States been so slow in developing and using
sustainable aviation fuels?
Mr. Baines. Yes, good questions, actually. Sustainable
aviation fuel is a drop-in fuel. I think that is the big
advantage of the fuel today, so you just drop it into the
existing infrastructure.
I think one of the reasons why it hasn't been used very
much yet is it is really a nascent industry. There are a number
of players in the market today. Neste has the capability today
of being the largest producer of sustainable aviation fuels.
Different countries have adopted different policies. In
Europe they have taken more of a mandate approach. In the
United States there are different policy options, where it is
going to be maybe more incentive based. The point is to have
this comprehensive approach. That is the most important. And to
have the transparency of, what is the direction you would like
the industry to go?
I think it is fair to say that the aviation industry wants
to have sustainable aviation fuels. They are committed to
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. So this is really a
solution that can work today.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to go on to a different
issue.
Airport and air traffic systems also have massive impact on
the communities that are around them. Often these are
disadvantaged communities who are disproportionately affected
by noise and conventional pollution. So, Mr. Martinez and Mr.
Felleman, what steps can port authorities take to protect these
communities that are near airports?
Mr. Felleman. One of the things we found that, just within
the last few years, is the implementation of NexGen. And so,
what it has done is taken what was a diffuse impact and
concentrated it so that the planes are flying in a much more
singular route. And so this really makes for winners and
losers.
And so, the way in which FAA implements that is some
communities have it more diffuse, some communities have it
direct on. And we find that it doesn't seem to be necessarily
with a rhyme or reason, like why it is implemented and some
places they are not. There are efficiencies associated being
able to move planes, you know, in a quicker descent and/or
closer spacing. Because, like I said, there is tremendous
disproportionate impacts associated with that.
The flight patterns themselves, if we can put more over the
water for longer periods of time, Puget Sound is kind of an
unusual water body----
Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to cut you off with that, and
maybe we could get something in writing from you. But Mr.
Martinez, I want to give him a second to answer that.
Mr. Martinez. Yes. I would just point out that L.A. World
Airports is moving to zero emissions in all, in its buses and
other fleets, and then trying to figure out additional
aircraft. And I will provide some follow-up afterwards.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I appreciate that. It is an important
issue in the Chicago area, so we want to be able to help the
communities surrounding the airports.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. And we know you
appreciate it.
Mr. Shimkus. You should thank the ranking member, too.
Mr. Tonko. Did you want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois, too?
Ms. Schakowsky. I certainly do. I want to thank Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. I really do appreciate the opportunity to
participate here, a little bit anyway. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, we thought you might have been the
last person today, but we are also following by Dr. Ruiz,
Representative from California. You are recognized for 5
minutes, please.
Mr. Ruiz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member. Thank you. And thank you to all the witnesses here
today to discuss how we can decarbonize the American
transportation sector.
In the face of our current climate crisis, it is urgent and
imperative to drive our transportation system towards cleaner
fuels and technologies. We must also address the threat that
medium and heavy-duty transportation poses to clean air and our
public's health.
As an emergency medicine physician, I have seen the human
face of the public health consequences of air pollution. Air
pollution causes asthma, stunted lung development in children,
respiratory infection, heart attacks, strokes, premature death.
Mortality in polluted areas is higher than in other areas.
A study published in April of this year on the proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that over 100,000
Americans die each year of illnesses caused by human-caused
particulate matter pollution in the air. Particulate matter are
tiny particles, as you know, emitted from chemical factories
and transportation vehicles that can penetrate the lung-blood
barrier, entering the bloodstream directly and poisoning our
community members' lungs.
Ms. Wimberger, in addition to the personal suffering caused
by the health effects of air pollution,there are significant
monetary costs to individuals and society. Can you speak about
these costs and the burdens they impose on communities?
Dr. Wimberger. Yes. I think this is a really important
point. We talk a lot about the costs of taking action, and the
capital costs and the up-front costs of equipment and fuels and
vehicles. We don't talk about the cost of not taking action and
thinking about the health impacts that we are seeing, not only
from increased levels of criteria pollutants and toxics, but
also carbon emissions, and looking at the social costs of
carbon and the health impacts associated with it.
There are very dire consequences that we are already facing
in California. We are seeing exacerbated wildfires. We are
seeing nonattainment areas and increased cases of asthma and
premature mortality. So there are very real costs to not taking
action, which is the flip side of the coin, that I think we do
need to--as an economist, I think we do need to consider that.
It is a really important point.
Mr. Ruiz. Absolutely.
As we know, air pollution is particularly worse in low-
income communities and communities of color. Riverside County
where I am from, and now represent, ranks among the worst in
the Nation for ozone pollution. And the Inland Empire in
Southern California, of which Riverside County is a part of,
also has some of the country's highest level of particulate
matter. The fact is, respiratory illnesses caused by air
pollution are preventable if we commit to upholding proper
safeguards to achieve a 100 percent clean economy and
decarbonize areas of our economy like our transportation
sector.
Mr. Martinez, the Environmental Protection Agency's own
website acknowledges that low-income neighborhoods, Tribal
populations, and communities of color that live in urban areas
may be disproportionately exposed to air pollution, which is
barrier to economic opportunity and security. Do you think the
Federal Government is doing enough to protect these
disproportionately vulnerable communities?
Mr. Martinez. No. I think there is a lot more that needs to
happen.
Mr. Ruiz. Can you explain or expand on how Congress can
help address these environmental injustices as we consider
pathways to decarbonize our transportation sector?
Mr. Martinez. Yes. And Riverside is kind of the hotbed of
air pollution in California. They get the regional smog, the
fine particulate, and the localized health effects from
hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks operating in Riverside
each day.
There is a lot more that can be done to set additional
standards for trucks, locomotives, and other equipment that
would be beneficial. There is a lot of work----
Mr. Ruiz. But those are general, they don't really
specifically address the environmental injustices. In fact, I
recently introduced a bill, H.R. 3923, the Environmental
Justice Act of 2019, which requires agencies consider the
environmental justice implications of the programs, policies,
and activities, such as transportation programs, helping ensure
that we protect our communities and vulnerable populations.
So, I definitely look forward to working with you on the
committee, and everybody else here, toward a 100 percent clean
economy that protects our Nation's health and ensures all
individuals have clean air regardless of income, race, or ZIP
Code.
And let me just, since I have 40 seconds left, right now in
my district we are experiencing an extreme environmental
injustice where a company who had not had permits to function
had a fire on its mulch where there is other debris on there as
well. It has polluted the air with smoke for 8 days now, 4 days
of an entire school district shutting down, 25 students getting
sick enough to go to the hospital, 6 transported via ambulance.
In addition to the pollution that we are facing in
Riverside County, primarily because the 10 runs through there,
this is a rural, underserved community of farm workers of which
I am part of. I am a result of this community. I grew up in a
farm worker trailer park. I understand the environmental
hazards that lack of consideration of environmental justice
issues can have on the health, and the long-term viability,
outcome, wellness, education, and development of children who
have to breathe the pollution.
So, I look forward to working with you to getting this
done.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. I thank all of my
colleagues for participating today in what I think was a very
important hearing. And certainly and most importantly want to
thank all of our witnesses who have been a tremendous force on
behalf of innovation and change. And we thank you for joining
us at today's hearing.
I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask each
witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you may
receive.
And at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]