[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     DRIVING AFFORDABILITY: PRESERVING PEOPLE'S 
                      FREEDOM TO BUY AFFORDABLE VEHICLES AND 
                      FUEL

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 
                   MANUFACTURING, AND CRITICAL MATERIALS

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 22, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-53
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-716 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials

                           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
                                 Chairman
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    PAUL TONKO, New York
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama                Ranking Member
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    Chair                            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               RAUL RUIZ, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa           officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Ohio, opening statement........................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18

                               Witnesses

Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
  of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency..........    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   264
Chet Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.............................    66
    Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   269
Neil Caskey, Chief Executive Officer, National Corn Growers 
  Association....................................................    80
    Prepared statement...........................................    82
Genevieve Cullen, President, Electric Drive Transportation 
  Association....................................................    98
    Prepared statement...........................................   100
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   272
Scott Lambert, President, Minnesota Automobile Dealers 
  Association....................................................   104
    Prepared statement...........................................   106
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   274

                              Legislation

H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act........   132
H.R. 3337, the Fuels Parity Act..................................   135
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the No Fuel Credits for Batteries Act 
  of 2023........................................................   138
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales 
  Act of 2023....................................................   140

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record.......................   143
Press release of June 12, 2023, from the Clean Fuels Development 
  Coalition......................................................   145
Letter of June 21, 2023, from Doug Kantor, General Counsel, 
  National Association of Convenience Stores, to Mr. Johnson and 
  Mr. Tonko......................................................   149
Letter of June 22, 2023, from Garrick C. Francis, Vice President, 
  Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, to Mr. 
  Johnson and Mr. Tonko..........................................   155
Memo of April 6, 2023, from the Alliance for Automotive 
  Innovation.....................................................   169
Letter of June 22, 2023, from Emily Skor, Chief Executive 
  Officer, Growth Energy, to Mrs. Rodgers, et al.................   174
Blog post of June 12, 2023, ``EPA's EV Rules: What it Means for 
  China and the U.S. Auto Market,'' by John Bozzella, President 
  and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance for Automotive Innovation   177
Blog post of April 12, 2023, ``How to Think About EPA's New 
  Greenhouse Gas Rules...,'' by John Bozzella, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Alliance for Automotive Innovation....   181
Report of the American Lung Association, ``Zeroing in on Healthy 
  Air: A National Assessment of Health and Climate Benefits of 
  Zero-Emission Transportation and Electricity''.................   184
Report of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Greenlining 
  Institute, ``Cleaner Cars, Cleaner Air: Replacing California's 
  Oldest and Dirtiest Cars Will Save Money and Lives,'' by 
  Matthew Beyer, et al., June 2023...............................   203
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, ``Climate Change 
  and Children's Health and Well-Being in the United States,'' 
  April 2023 \1\
Report of the International Council on Clean Transportation, 
  ``Assessment of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer 
  Benefits in the United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame,'' by 
  Peter Slowik, et al., October 2022 \1\
Fact sheet of the International Council on Clean Transportation, 
  ``Benefits of Adopting California Advanced Clean Cars II 
  Regulations Under Clean Air Act Section 177,'' May 2023........   223
Report of the International Council on Clean Transportation and 
  the Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC, ``Analyzing the 
  Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle 
  Uptake in the United States,'' by Peter Slowik, et al., January 
  2023 \1\
Article of April 7, 2023, ``EV Popularity Driven by Range and 
  Cost Improvements--Study,'' by Lamar Johnson, Politico Pro.....   226
Letter of June 21, 2023, from Alyssa Tsuchiya, Senior Washington 
  Representative, Clean Transportation Program, Union of 
  Concerned Scientists, to Mrs. Rodgers, et al...................   228
Letter of June 22, 2023, from Senior Counsel, Sustainability 
  Policy, and Dr. Quinta Warren, Associate Director, 
  Sustainability Policy, Consumer Reports, to Mrs. Rodgers, et 
  al.............................................................   231
Report of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, 
  ``State Air Trends & Successes: The StATS Report, 2023 
  Edition,'' \1\
Letter from Affiliated Construction Trades Ohio Foundation to 
  Ohio House Transportation Committee Chairman Riordan McClain, 
  et al..........................................................   234
Statement of the Consumer Energy Alliance to Ohio House 
  Transportation Committee Chairman McClain, et al., June 20, 
  2023...........................................................   235
Statement of Scott Hayes, Midwest GR Director for PBF Energy.....   238
Letter of June 20, 2023, from Zach Doran, President, and Joe 
  Cannon, Vice President, Government Relations, Ohio Automobile 
  Dealers Association, to Ohio House Transportation Committee 
  Chairman McClain, et al........................................   240
Letter of June 20, 2023, from Don Thoren, Vice President, State 
  Government Affairs, American Fuel & Petrochemical 
  Manufacturers, to the Ohio House Transportation Committee......   241
Statement of Stephanie Kromer, Ohio Oil and Gas Association, to 
  the Ohio House Transportation Committee, June 20, 2022.........   243
Report of the Consumer Energy Alliance, ``Freedom to Fuel: 
  Consumer Choice in the Automotive Marketplace,'' 2023..........   245

----------

\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF18/20230622/116147/HHRG-118-IF18-20230622-SD040.pdf.

 
 DRIVING AFFORDABILITY: PRESERVING PEOPLE'S FREEDOM TO BUY AFFORDABLE 
                           VEHICLES AND FUEL

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and 
                                 Critical Minerals,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Bill Johnson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Johnson, Carter, Palmer, 
Crenshaw, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, Pfluger, 
Miller-Meeks, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex-officio), Tonko 
(subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, 
Peters, Barragan, and Pallone (ex-officio).
    Also present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg, 
Lesko, Pence, and Dingell.
    Staff present: Sarah Alexander, Professional Staff Member, 
Energy and Environment; Katie Arey, Digital Director; Sarah 
Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel 
for Environment; Sydney Greene, Director of Operations; Jack 
Heretik, Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara 
Hupman, Chief Counsel; Sean Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter 
Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member Services Director; 
Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Kaitlyn 
Peterson, Clerk, Energy and Environment; Karli Plucker, 
Director of Operations (shared staff); Carla Rafael, Senior 
Staff Assistant; Emma Schultheis, Staff Assistant; Olivia 
Shields, Communications Director; Peter Spencer, Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, Policy 
Director; Dray Thorne, Director of Information Technology; 
Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General 
Counsel; Anthony Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; 
Caitlin Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials; Mackenzie Kuhl, Minority 
Digital Manager; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Medha 
Surampudy, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Rebecca 
Tomilchik, Minority Junior Professional Staff Member.
    Mr. Johnson. The subcommittee will come to order.
    The Chair recognizes himself now for an opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Welcome to the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical 
Materials Subcommittee's hearing on four pieces of legislation 
intended to safeguard economic freedom and mobility for the 
American people.
    Our constituents across the country rely on their cars to 
commute to work, travel to and from school, check in on 
grandparents and loved ones, go to the grocery store, go to 
medical appointments, a host of things. According to the 
Department of Transportation, approximately 280 million 
vehicles were registered in the United States in 2021. In 
total, 92 percent of U.S. households have at least 1 vehicle, 
and more than half of U.S. households have 2 or more vehicles.
    The Biden administration continues to release regulation 
after regulation to dramatically change transportation and 
mobility for Americans on a timetable that defies reality. For 
many Americans, this is pushing them toward vehicles that they 
cannot afford and into vehicles that don't make sense, 
especially for rural Americans like those in my district.
    And who will pay for this so-called transition? It is the 
American taxpayer.
    Luckily, Republicans on our committee have some solutions. 
The four bills we are considering today stop the Biden 
administration's excessive overreach and enable Americans to 
continue to choose the cars they want and can afford.
    First, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act was 
introduced by our subcommittee members Dr. Joyce, Mr. Latta, 
Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Obernolte. This legislation limits the 
EPA's ability to unilaterally issue a waiver of national 
vehicle emission standards to California if the State's 
policies directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of new 
internal combustion vehicles. The intent of the Clean Air Act 
is clear: Congress never directed California to dictate 
America's vehicle emissions and also did not authorize the EPA 
to force vehicles that the agency does not like off the road.
    Next, we have the Fuels Parity Act introduced by Dr. 
Miller-Meeks, which allows ethanol derived from cornstarch to 
qualify as a renewable fuel and an advanced biofuel under the 
Renewable Fuel Standard. The bill also supports the use of the 
Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory GREET model 
to assess life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. We should 
prioritize nationally recognized standards rather than 
international standards that specifically disadvantage American 
fuels.
    We also have two discussion drafts we are considering 
today. The first addresses one of the most egregious examples 
of the Biden administration's regulatory overreach: the 
proposed creation of a program to introduce electricity into 
the Renewable Fuel Standard with eRINs. I am encouraged that 
the EPA decided to pull back on the eRINs program from the 
final set proposal, but any administration currently has the 
ability to reengage on eRINs at a later date. So we need to 
address this. Fortunately, the No Fuel Credits for Batteries 
Act would clarify that the EPA is not authorized to create an 
eRINs program.
    The second draft tackles another similarly disastrous 
proposal by the Biden and the EPA: the ``multi-pollutant 
emission standards for model years 2027 and later for light and 
medium-duty vehicles.''
    The Biden administration's intent with the proposed rule 
was to pave the way for two-thirds of new car sales and nearly 
half of new truck sales to be totally electric in the next 10 
years. To reach its goal, the EPA set emission standards that 
only electric vehicles could achieve. The Choice in Automobile 
Retail Sales Act, or the CARS Act, prohibits the EPA from 
moving forward with this proposed rule. The bill also prevents 
the EPA from issuing any regulations in the future that would 
mandate a specific technology or engine type.
    All Americans deserve the freedom to choose what car they 
drive, and to my Democratic colleagues I want to emphasize that 
none of the bills being considered today prevent electric cars 
or trucks from being driven on our roads if people want them. 
But forcing these vehicles on long-distance-driving rural 
Americans--and, for that matter, many urban-dwelling Americans 
who don't have garages and driveways to charge these cars--is 
simply wrong.
    Ultimately, this forced EV transition will 
disproportionately burden working-class Americans. The four 
pieces of legislation simply prevent the Biden administration 
from using the Federal Government to dictate how Americans 
travel and reach their desired destinations.
    I appreciate the witnesses for testifying today, and I look 
forward to our discussion on ensuring affordable and reliable 
transportation for the American people.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. And with that, I yield back and I recognize 
the ranking member, Mr. Tonko from New York, for his opening 
statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I begin by recognizing and 
thanking our witness, Mr. Goffman, as well as the EPA's staff, 
for continuing their work on a regulatory agenda that boldly 
addresses pollution from the transportation sector and upholds 
the agency's mission of protecting human health and our 
environment.
    Transportation remains the largest source of greenhouse gas 
pollution in our United States and is a major emitter of other 
harmful air pollution. Luckily, the Clean Air Act provides EPA 
with a wide range of authorities and tools to address their 
emissions, and I believe EPA is working to fulfill its 
obligation to protect public health in a manner consistent with 
both the latest science and the law.
    Unfortunately, the four bills under consideration today 
would undermine EPA's efforts, and I must oppose them.
    H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, 
would limit the Clean Air Act's so-called California waiver and 
requires previously issued waivers to be revoked. Given its 
history and extraordinary air quality challenges, California 
has the ability to request a preemption waiver for its vehicle 
emission standards, provided that they are at least as 
stringent as Federal standards and necessary to meet compelling 
and extraordinary conditions. This leadership by California has 
benefited so many Americans. My home State of New York is among 
the section 177 States that adopt these standards.
    The Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act prohibits EPA 
from finalizing its recently proposed medium-duty and light-
duty vehicle standards, blocking the ongoing effort to 
strengthen tailpipe emission standards for future model years.
    I would not have been surprised to see the majority use the 
Congressional Review Act on this rule, but they could not even 
wait for it to be finalized. This bill prevents EPA from 
carrying out its duties to protect the public from harmful air 
pollution, and it will deny Americans the significant economic 
and health benefits of the proposed rule.
    Ultimately, this bill will undermine private-sector 
investments, investments in cleaner vehicle technologies, by 
injecting even greater uncertainty into the standards and 
incentives that are resulting in this rapid adoption of zero-
emission vehicles. It will also stifle innovation, removing the 
push on automakers and suppliers to continue making cleaner, 
more efficient, and more affordable vehicles at every price 
point.
    The No Fuel Credits for Batteries Act would prevent EPA 
from allowing eligible biofuels used to make electricity that 
power EVs from earning eRINs under the RFS. There are currently 
several fuel pathways involving electricity approved under RFS, 
but these pathways have never been operationalized. EPA has 
recently considered adding eRINs to the RFS, and I hope the 
agency moves forward with this proposal in the near future. 
Failing to do so will keep otherwise eligible feedstocks from 
participating and receiving the benefits of the RFS.
    Finally, H.R. 3337, the Fuels Parity Act, changes the 
definition of advanced biofuel in the Clean Air Act to remove 
the bar on cornstarch. It also requires EPA to use the GREET 
model to assess carbon intensity for corn ethanol.
    I want to be clear that I do not necessarily have a problem 
with the GREET model, but this bill would give preferential 
treatment to only two types of biofuels while requiring other 
fuels to use other, less advantageous models.
    Ultimately, I believe these bills will continue the 
Republican trend of creating uncertainty for private sector, 
seeking to upend investments in the next generation of clean 
vehicle technologies.
    There is no denying the rapid adoption of EVs, which is 
only expected to increase in the years ahead. The consumers are 
realizing that these vehicles are not only good for the 
environment but also result in major cost savings over the life 
of the vehicle. And these vehicles and their components will 
increasingly be built in America, in large part due to the 
incentives included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Now, while I am very excited about the possibilities for 
widespread EV adoption, I also know liquid fuels will continue 
to play an important role in our fuel mix for many decades to 
come, and I want those fuels to continue to reduce their carbon 
intensity.
    Last year, under Democratic leadership, the House passed 
bipartisan legislation with the support of several Republicans 
on this committee that would have done just that by allowing 
E15 to be sold year-round. These higher biofuel blends not only 
reduce emissions but also give consumers another option to save 
at the pump. While that proposal is certainly not my preferred 
long-term solution to evolve Federal fuels policy toward a 
fuel-neutral, performance-based, carbon intensity program, I do 
believe it is a more legitimate attempt at bipartisan 
legislating than the bills before us today.
    So while I look forward to our witnesses' testimony, I 
remain unconvinced that we can work together to build broad 
bipartisan support for any of these bills.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. And with that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and yield 
back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 
Chair of the full committee, Chair Rodgers, for 5 minutes for 
the purposes of an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Since the invention of the Ford Model T, America has led 
the world in car manufacturing and technology. The combustion 
engine has allowed people from around the world to increase 
their mobility, raise their standard of living. For more than 
half a century, affordable transportation has helped drive 
America's economic success.
    The question we should be asking today is what do we want 
America to be--whether we want America to be leading the auto 
sector for the next 100 years.
    Nearly 20 years ago, China made the decision to fully 
electrify. Today, by some estimates, they are building an 
average of two coal-fired plants per day in order to meet their 
needs to fully electrify. I continue to hear from some of my 
colleagues, well, we just need to put more money into this 
system. That is money that is going to China. China dominates 
the supply chains. It is China's technology that is being used 
in electric vehicles and the batteries. Those supply chains 
include nickel from Russia, cobalt from Congo, lithium from 
China.
    Ladies and gentlemen, it has been the United States of 
America that has been leading in bringing down carbon 
emissions. We have led the world. It has been American 
technology and innovation that has resulted in us leading the 
world and bringing down carbon emissions. It is not China. 
China continues to increase their carbon emissions. China's 
carbon emissions are going to continue to increase until at 
least 2030, 2032.
    So today we are discussing a rule, a proposed rule by EPA, 
that would have us follow China's lead. It is just 1 of 151 
proposed rules by EPA, 151 rules right now at OMB, Office of 
Management and Budget, the White House by EPA. And this is a 
rule that would basically, in the next--by 2032 take away the 
choice from Americans. Ninety-five percent of the cars that 
Americans drive today would no longer be made available.
    Today's hearing is really, fundamentally about whether--you 
know, and if we are going to make this decision, if the United 
States is going to make this decision to fully electrify its 
transportation fleet, it should be the elected representatives 
of the people that are making that decision. That is a decision 
that belongs in this committee, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
    When it comes to protecting consumers' affordable 
transportation choices and preferences, that should be a debate 
in Congress. The cars we drive, how we fuel them, we need to 
make sure that it is practical, affordable. Top-down government 
mandates and subsidies will not reduce emissions or lower cost. 
Americans deserve to have the choice to decide what mode of 
transportation suits them best.
    So the proposed rule. The proposed rule suggests that--it 
proposed that two-thirds of the cars, nearly 70 percent of the 
cars, by 2032 must be 100 percent battery electric. Not 
hybrids, not plug-in hybrids, not hydrogen, not any other 
technology--100 percent battery electric. That is China's goal. 
That is China's agenda. Since when is the United States of 
America following China's lead?
    I have heard from many of my colleagues and I have heard 
from the Secretary of Energy that we need to be following 
China's lead. I don't agree. I don't agree for a moment, and 
this proposed rule is an affront to representative government. 
It is an affront to the elected representatives of the people, 
and it is affront, actually, to every American.
    So instead of forcing Americans to spend more money on 
vehicles that they don't want to buy, on vehicles that only 
advance a political agenda, let's get back to the work of 
making sure that people have access to affordable, reliable, 
functional means of transportation. Let's get focused on 
improving mobility, mobility choices. Let's get focused on 
American technology and innovation. Protecting people's way of 
life and the ability to provide, you know, for their families 
should be a bipartisan priority.
    You know, America has long celebrated that we trust people 
to make the best decisions for themselves, not a government 
that decides for them. And today we have the EPA wanting to 
decide for us, not even the elected representatives of the 
people.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize 
the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we are once again witnessing Republicans picking 
winners and losers in our Nation's transportation sector to put 
polluters over people. With the bills before the subcommittee, 
Republicans are actively fighting against innovation, lower 
energy bills for Americans, and the oil industry's ability to 
make manufacturing decisions based on what consumers want.
    Committee Republicans' efforts to continue propping up Big 
Oil corporations threatens a clean and prosperous future for 
all Americans. I reject this approach and am instead committed 
to clean-vehicle affordability and consumer choice, and that is 
exactly what Democrats delivered last Congress: real solutions 
for our transportation sector.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invested $7.5 billion in 
EV charging, 10 billion in clean transportation, and over 7 
billion in EV battery components, including critical minerals 
which have increasingly been manufactured overseas. These 
investments will help build the EV infrastructure needed across 
the Nation.
    The Inflation Reduction Act included rebates and tax 
credits to lower the cost of EVs for American families, 
including a tax credit up to $4,000 for a qualifying preowned 
or used EV.
    Electric vehicles are becoming more and more popular every 
day, and these tax credits are making them even more affordable 
for American families. And yet every Republican here today 
voted against both of these laws and all of these critical 
investments. Instead, they are deliberately misleading 
Americans about EVs and EPA proposals in order to do the 
bidding of Big Oil corporations.
    The truth is, EPA is not imposing any sort of EV mandate. 
It is also true that EVs provide significant public health and 
environmental benefits and deliver significant savings to 
Americans by decreasing fuel costs by 50 percent. They are 
also, overall, 25 percent less expensive to own than regular 
cars. As a result of these benefits, demand for EVs is already 
exceedingly outpacing supply.
    Unfortunately, the four Republican bills included in this 
hearing will move us backwards in cleaning up and modernizing 
the transportation sector. My Republican colleagues oppose EVs 
so much that they are trying to legislate away decades of 
innovation and cleaner transportation, are working against 
market trends, and will strip EPA of its authority to protect 
Americans from vehicle pollution. And they are doing all of 
this to protect large corporations while refusing to invest in 
American families.
    Now, H.R. 1435 flies in the face of 50 years of Congress 
and EPA recognizing California's authority to set more 
protective vehicle standards. It infringes on States' ability 
to voluntarily adopt these standards to protect their citizens 
from dangerous pollution and climate change. This bill is not 
just a direct attack on California but also on dozens of other 
States, including New Jersey, that frequently follow 
California's lead.
    Then there is a discussion draft that would block EPA from 
finalizing its proposed light and medium-duty vehicle emission 
standards. As drafted, it could also prevent EPA from ever 
finalizing new vehicle standards, hamstringing the agency's 
ability to fulfill its obligation to protect Americans from 
dangerous motor vehicle pollution.
    Another discussion draft, the No Fuel Credits for Batteries 
Act, would bar EPA from allowing credits to be generated under 
the Renewable Fuel Standard for renewable electricity for 
transportation fuel, also known as eRIN--like iPhones. EPA has 
been working in this area since 2010, as directed by Congress. 
The renewable electricity for eRINs would be produced by a 
variety of renewable biogas feedstocks such as landfills, 
farmers, municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and others. 
And this legislation would stifle biofuel production 
opportunities across the country.
    And finally, I have concerns with H.R. 3337, which would 
allow cornstarch ethanol to qualify as an advanced biofuel 
under the Renewable Fuel Standard. It would force EPA to rely 
solely on the Department of Energy's GREET model for 
determining life cycle emissions for biomass-based diesel and 
cornstarch ethanol. Picking winners and losers within the 
biofuels market under the RFS makes no sense. As drafted, the 
bill also weakens EPA's ability to administer the RFS 
responsibly and would replace science-based decision making 
with political preference.
    Now, if House Republicans are really interested in driving 
affordability, they should join us in supporting policies that 
will continue to promote innovation in our clean transportation 
sector, not undermine it. I invite them to join us in our 
efforts to lower energy costs for Americans, protect public 
health, address the worsening climate crisis, and grow our 
economy for the future.
    Unfortunately, the bills before us today are a step in the 
wrong direction. And for that reason, I oppose.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    And our first witness today, our only witness for the first 
panel, is Mr. Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Administrator 
for the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA.
    Mr. Goffman, thanks for being with us today. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GOFFMAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 
  OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Goffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair McMorris 
Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member 
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 
EPA to testify today.
    At this point, the administration does not have an official 
position on the bills or drafts before the subcommittee, but I 
would like to make a few points that I hope will assist the 
committee in the consideration of the bills before it.
    On April 12, 2023, EPA proposed vehicle standards that 
would significantly reduce CO2, hydrocarbons, NOx, 
and particulate matter and deliver widespread reductions in air 
pollution across the country. The Choice in Automobile Retail 
Sales Act of 2023, if enacted, would not allow EPA to finalize 
those standards.
    That legislation, if enacted, would prevent EPA from 
finalizing the proposed standards, and that would mean that 
harmful pollutants would continue to blight Americans' quality 
of life and health by subjecting them to more hospital visits, 
more respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, and more health 
impairments from nonfatal heart attacks, aggravated asthma, and 
decreased lung function. It means that drivers would be denied 
the chance to save fuel costs and that American society would 
not see the 850 billion to $1.6 trillion in net benefits these 
standards would achieve.
    The proposed standards align with commitments already made 
by automakers and U.S. States as they plan to accelerate clean 
vehicle technologies in the light- and medium-duty fleets, and 
they are aligned with the significant investments Congress 
itself made in clean vehicle technologies through the Inflation 
Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Moving on to the second bill, let me just observe a couple 
of things. The Clean Air Act explicitly requires the control of 
air pollution be primarily the responsibility of States and 
local governments. The regulation of new motor vehicle 
emissions is an exception to this design. The Clean Air Act 
gives that job to the EPA and preempts States from doing it.
    But even here, Congress made a move back toward the State 
role by expressly giving California authority to set separate 
standards. In fact, the Clean Air Act explicitly stipulates 
that the EPA Administrator shall waive the Federal preemption 
of State car and truck standards for California, unless one of 
three specified criteria are met. Thus, the Preserving Choice 
in Vehicle Purchases Act, if enacted, would preclude EPA from 
issuing State waivers that directly or indirectly limit the 
sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion 
engines.
    For perspective on this, I just want to note that the 
authority that Congress granted to California and the 
obligation to grant a waiver in--unless certain criteria are 
met--when Congress set this system up, it did so 50 years ago 
and continually reenacted that structure through a series of 
reauthorizations of the Clean Air Act.
    The third bill before this committee, the No Fuel Credits 
for Batteries Act of 2023, would prohibit the EPA from 
requiring or otherwise promoting the generation, use, or 
transfer of RINs for the creation of electricity for use as a 
transportation fuel.
    I just want to note, as the Chair and others did, that 
while we proposed an eRIN program, we got such an overwhelming 
level of interest and such an extensive comment record that we 
thought that what we really needed to do was to continue to 
engage with stakeholders to explore the issues that they 
raised.
    Finally, the Fuels Parity Act would revise the statute to 
no longer preclude cornstarch ethanol as an advanced biofuel 
and would specify the life cycle analysis modeling that we 
should use. As a general matter, the EPA relies on multiple 
models and relies on the expertise of our technical staff and 
our scientists to continually oversee the models that are used 
because our experience is that, from the perspective of 
scientific integrity, they are in the best position to continue 
to collect information, observe the advancements in science, 
and update our modeling repertoire, if you will, as they see 
fit.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goffman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Goffman.
    The gentleman has yielded back, and we will now begin our 
questioning, and I recognize myself. I will begin.
    Mr. Goffman, in late April our subcommittee held a hearing 
titled ``Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National 
Security Risks of the Biden Administration's Rush-to-Green 
Policies.'' During the hearing, witnesses emphasized that EV 
adoption faces significant cost barriers, which would 
disproportionately impact low-income Americans. The average 
price of an EV is $17,000 more than the average price of an 
internal combustion engine vehicle.
    So, Mr. Goffman, are you concerned that pursuing such a 
policy that clearly makes vehicles unaffordable would eliminate 
reliable transportation options for low-income Americans?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman, 
because that is actually of--it is an essential objective of 
the rulemaking process we----
    Mr. Johnson. So are you concerned?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, and we are----
    Mr. Johnson. OK, great.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Focusing on affordability because 
of that concern.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. All witnesses--also, witnesses at 
that hearing highlighted the negative global environmental 
impact of mining, processing, and refining the critical 
minerals necessary for EV batteries and motors, as it has been 
pointed out. We are tremendously dependent upon China for those 
materials today.
    Would you agree we need to significantly increase the 
production and refining of critical minerals necessary to meet 
the Biden administration's EV and green energy goals?
    Mr. Goffman. My understanding is that the Inflation 
Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law put that in 
motion, which is to bring----
    Mr. Johnson. So you agree that we need to significantly 
increase?
    Mr. Goffman. And I believe the authors of those two bills--
--
    Mr. Johnson. No, I am asking you. Do you agree?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, OK. Are you concerned that the EPA is 
ignoring the environmental, human rights, and national security 
risks associated with the skyrocketing demand for these 
critical minerals, though?
    I mean, we are more dependent upon critical minerals from 
China than we have ever been on oil from OPEC, for example, 
right now. And they hold the corner market in the world. Are 
you concerned about the skyrocketing demand for these minerals?
    Mr. Goffman. And I believe the IRA was----
    Mr. Johnson. No, I am asking you. Are you concerned about 
that skyrocketing demand?
    Mr. Goffman. I am--we are----
    Mr. Johnson. The EPA. I am not asking you what the law did. 
I am asking you, is the EPA concerned?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, we are----
    Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Focused on that issue.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Goffman, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, I appreciate that the EPA decided not to finalize 
the eRINs proposal. What do you mean when you say that EPA is 
not moving forward with eRINs ``at this time''? Is that leaving 
the door open for EPA to issue an eRINs rulemaking in the 
future?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Will you commit to briefing this committee 
on any work that the agency does on an eRINs program?
    Mr. Goffman. Of course. When we have something to brief you 
on, we----
    Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. And quickly, given the 
information that we have seen coming from PJM, the RTO, the 
grid operator, and others, I do have questions on how--if we 
shut down reliable, dispatchable power at an accelerating rate 
in the next decade, there are concerns there will even be 
enough electricity, whether or not there will be enough 
electricity for this so-called EV transition.
    So, Mr. Goffman, will you commit to returning to this 
committee to brief us on your new Source Performance Standards 
Rule for Coal and Natural Gas-Fired Power, better known as the 
Clean Power Plan 2.0? Will you return to discuss this with us?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. OK, great. Mr. Goffman, if EPA grants 
California's waiver of vehicle standards, 17 States are poised 
to adopt the low-emission vehicle criteria. Along with 
California, these States represent 40 percent of the market for 
new vehicles.
    Ohio, however, is leading the charge in litigation with 17 
States against EPA's reinstatement of the California waiver. It 
is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit.
    Your testimony mentions three conditions under which the 
EPA Administrator cannot grant a waiver. If EPA's proposed 
tailpipe emission standards go into effect, the national 
standard would not be significantly different than California's 
standards, nullifying one of the statutory criteria for 
granting the waiver.
    So has the EPA considered how the two policies would 
interact, and whether they conflict?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Johnson. My time is expired. If you could, just respond 
to that quickly.
    Mr. Goffman. Sorry, sorry.
    Mr. Johnson. Have you considered how they interact?
    Mr. Goffman. We haven't reached the stage in reviewing 
the--with the current pending waiver requests to get to that 
question.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I mean, would California need a waiver 
if the national standard accomplished the same goal 
effectively?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know.
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. Goffman. We just haven't gotten there yet.
    Mr. Johnson. I will come back with some future questions, 
perhaps, if I get yielded some additional time.
    With that, I yield back and I recognize the ranking member, 
Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for your testimony. Let's start by 
focusing on the eRINs legislation.
    Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act uses the terms 
``renewable fuel'' and ``transportation fuel.'' Transportation 
fuel is defined as, and I quote, ``a fuel for use in motor 
vehicles, motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, or nonroad 
engines, except for oceangoing vessels.''
    So with that, Mr. Goffman, is there anywhere in the Clean 
Air Act that indicates that a transportation fuel must be a 
liquid fuel?
    Mr. Goffman. That is not how we interpreted it.
    Mr. Tonko. So do you believe EPA has the authority to allow 
fuels produced from eligible biofeedstocks used to make 
electricity to power electric vehicles to participate in the 
RFS?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Tonko. And that would be consistent with EPA's 
longstanding view. Mr. Goffman, is it correct that there have 
been approved fuel pathways involving electricity since 2010?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, there have been.
    Mr. Tonko. And since then, there has also been 
appropriations language directing EPA to operationalize these 
pathways. So I am not sure what additional clarity is needed 
now that hasn't been afforded over the past 13 years.
    Mr. Goffman, I want to make certain everyone understands 
that, to receive an hypothetical eRIN, electricity must be 
produced from a feedstock eligible under the RFS such as biogas 
from digesters at landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, 
and other waste digesters. Is that correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. So am I correct that today a digester that 
captures biogas, processes it into renewable natural gas, and 
puts it into a pipeline to power a natural gas bus qualifies 
for RINs, but that same digester that captures that same 
biogas, turns it into electricity to power an electric bus does 
not?
    Mr. Goffman. You know, I am sorry, I am a little bit 
confused by the question.
    Mr. Tonko. Sure. So if a digester that captures biogas----
    Mr. Goffman. Right.
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Processes it into a renewable 
natural gas and puts it into a pipeline to power a natural gas 
bus qualifies for RINs, but----
    Mr. Goffman. Ah, OK.
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. That same digester that captures 
that same biogas turns it into electricity to power an electric 
bus, it does not.
    Mr. Goffman. At the moment, it does not. But I believe our 
proposal would be consistent with authorizing or--the creation 
of RINs in the second example.
    Mr. Tonko. And I thank you, because I think it is clear 
that we should be allowing every eligible feedstock into the 
program, regardless of what type of vehicle it fuels.
    Now, I know EPA's recent eRIN proposal has been put on 
hold, and I appreciate it is more complicated than other fuels. 
But I encourage EPA to move forward to operationalize these 
pathways and to distribute credits in a manner that promotes 
the most equitable buildout of EV charging infrastructure.
    Now, finally, on H.R. 3337, the GREET bill, I want to be 
clear that I am not opposed to GREET as a method for 
calculating life cycle assessments, but I do think all fuels 
need to be assessed on a level playing field. So, Mr. Goffman, 
do you have concerns with EPA being required to use GREET for 
only two fuel categories under the RFS?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, our concern is--in the vein of 
maintaining scientific integrity, is being limited to just 
certain of our analytic tools when we know that not just the 
GREET model but other models provide valuable information. And 
so that is why we have long since come to rely on multiple 
models and the flexibility to update them, change them, and at 
times put differential weight on different models.
    This is an area of work in the scientific and technical 
community that is fairly dynamic, and we want to--we always 
prefer to be able to have the flexibility to respond to that 
dynamism, as the science and understanding of the world and of 
our modeling tools changes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I certainly agree that we need to 
constantly revisit rules, regs, and laws that would give us 
more opportunity and more flexibility. So with that, I thank 
you for your participation today.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in another 
hearing again in which our colleagues in the Biden 
administration are pushing dangerous socialist propaganda 
policies over people.
    And I was struck by your comments about the air quality 
issues and how it impacts people with respiratory illnesses, 
cardiovascular illnesses. Are you aware that, because of the 
move to renewables in Europe, that the increase in utility cost 
has resulted in 68,000 people dying just last winter because 
people who had respiratory issues, cardiovascular issues--
because they couldn't afford to adequately heat their homes?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not familiar with those specific----
    Mr. Palmer. I am not surprised, because you are on your own 
agenda that will deprive people of their rights in this 
country. And that is where this is heading with this 
administration. You are going to--you guys are pushing policies 
that are literally going to derive--deprive people of their 
rights to choose whether they want to cook their food on a gas 
range top or drive a vehicle of their choice.
    Are you also aware that the head of the National 
Transportation Safety Board warned of the risk posed by heavy 
electric vehicles colliding with lighter cars? Are you aware 
that the weight differentials impact injury rates and fatality 
rates? Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Goffman. We looked at that issue explicitly----
    Mr. Palmer. And you didn't care?
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. The analysis----
    Mr. Palmer. You apparently didn't care.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Our proposal.
    Mr. Palmer. You apparently don't care.
    Mr. Goffman. Oh, not--we do care, and we addressed----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, it is like----
    Mr. Goffman. We addressed that issue in our proposal.
    Mr. Palmer. Let me point out to you that--you take the Ford 
Mustang Mach 4 or 5, I believe it is. It is the Mach-E. It is 
approximately 33 percent heavier than its gasoline counterpart. 
Are you--do you have any understanding of physics, mass and 
velocity and things like that, and the impact of a heavier 
vehicle colliding with another vehicle at the same speed, what 
the damage can be from the heavier vehicle?
    Mr. Goffman. We looked explicitly at----
    Mr. Palmer. And you didn't care.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. That issue in our proposal, and--
--
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, but you really didn't care.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, on the contrary----
    Mr. Palmer. You--no, you are----
    Mr. Goffman. We care----
    Mr. Palmer. Listen, I am so tired of listening to the 
propaganda coming in these hearings. I am so tired of putting 
our national security at risk because there is no way that we 
are going to catch up with China in battery production, because 
we can't even get the permits to do the mining for the 
materials you need to make batteries.
    And what this administration is doing is putting the 
country at risk by making us more dependent on China. And 
people need to wake up to this. This is past politics. I am not 
interested in the politics of it. I am focused on the policy. I 
am focused on the risk that it imposes on people. And we are 
going to see that here if we go headlong into EVs, into full-
bore renewables. We are going to see people die because of the 
propaganda coming out of this administration.
    So don't come in here and tell us that you are concerned 
about the air quality and how it is going to impact people. We 
have done a remarkable job of improving our air quality, which 
I have yet to hear a single witness from this administration 
admit to. We reduced the 6 criteria pollutants over the last 50 
years by 86 percent, even though our--the vehicle miles have 
doubled almost in terms of vehicle miles driven, and the number 
of vehicles on the road have gone up.
    So what you are proposing, I just want the American people 
to wake up to this. This is an assault on freedom, and it is 
dangerous. It is not only a threat to people's personal safety, 
it is a threat to our national security. It is a threat to our 
economy. And people need to understand this.
    And you can call us climate deniers, whatever crap you want 
to come up with. That is not the case. We understand climate, 
we understand science, but we also understand safety, we also 
understand freedom. And that is what is at stake here.
    And I will reiterate: You people are so beholden to an 
agenda that you would literally tell families around the 
country they can't even use a gas range top.
    And I am--you know, I am going to continue to focus on the 
science. I am going to continue to focus on the physics, the 
economics, but also on our national security.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. It is not 
my usual line of questions, but I yield back.
    Mr. Joyce [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, for her 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
our Ranking Member Tonko for holding today's hearing. I would 
also like to thank our witness for being here to testify on 
these bills.
    Through my line of questioning this morning, I want to use 
my limited time to remind this committee, in contrast to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, of the consequences 
of inaction and what it would mean for our constituents if the 
EPA does not finalize the strongest feasible standard proposed 
under its light day vehicle emission standards.
    In your testimony, Mr. Goffman, you note the health impacts 
associated with vehicle pollution and how communities of color 
and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods are 
disproportionately exposed to air pollution from vehicles. If 
this rule does not go into place, what does this mean for the 
health of our communities?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question.
    When we analyzed our proposal, we looked at one of the 
projected years of implementation. We saw that the premature 
deaths avoided in that analytic year would range between 730 
and 1,700 in that year. We projected that hundreds if not 
thousands of respiratory ailments and illnesses, including 
aggravated asthma attacks requiring hospital visits, could be 
prevented if we--if this proposal was fully implemented. And of 
course, those illnesses affect the entire cardiovascular 
system. And so often people who suffer from those illnesses 
have adjacent or related health problems, which means that 
their--they experience health suffering.
    And I think, as one of your colleagues said recently, 
getting sick isn't free. And that is why, when we take those 
benefits and we look at what the avoided oil costs would be 
under this rule and we sort of add them together, you know, we 
are confident that there would be about a $1 trillion net 
benefit to American society if these proposals were adopted and 
implemented.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, let me just thank you for that. For 
environmental justice communities where pollution from peaker 
power plants, chemical facilities, and dirty diesel trucks are 
compounded, pollution is a matter of life and death. There is 
no doubt about that.
    A recent report by the American Lung Association found that 
if we transition to 100 percent sales of zero-emission 
passenger vehicles by 2035, over 100,000 deaths would be 
prevented, 2.2 million asthma attacks would be avoided, and 
over 10.7 million days of work would not be lost. So I would 
like to ask for unanimous consent to submit this report from 
the American Lung Association entitled, ``Zeroing in on Healthy 
Air'' into the record.
    Mr. Johnson [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    I also want to note that communities of color, low-income 
communities, seniors, and disabled populations are especially 
vulnerable to the harmful impacts associated with climate 
change. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation 
sector is one of the most critical steps we must take to meet 
our climate goals and limit the harm of climate change on our 
most vulnerable populations.
    Mr. Goffman, can you provide an estimate of the magnitude 
of greenhouse gas emissions that would be avoided by finalizing 
the proposed standards?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes. And again, thank you for that question.
    We estimate more than 7 billion tons of CO2 
would be reduced by the light-duty vehicle standards and 
other--1.8 would be reduced, about 9 billion tons of 
CO2 reduced by the heavy-duty and the light-duty 
standards. That is double our emissions in 2020.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    My Republican colleagues have continued to bring up costs 
during this hearing. Mr. Goffman, can you tell us how much 
money would be saved by reducing this climate--these climate 
emissions by finalizing the proposed standards?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, we project for an individual driver or 
customer, that driver would save $12,000 over the lifetime of a 
vehicle that met these standards, mostly in fuel savings as 
well as in lower maintenance costs.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. With that, I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank 
Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Tonko for holding today's 
important legislative hearing.
    Over the past year, we have seen draconian actions by the 
Biden administration and Democrats to force Americans to buy 
electric vehicles. One of the clearest and most radical actions 
are California's new Advanced Clean Car II Regulations. These 
regulations would require 35 percent of new cars to be electric 
vehicles in 2026, and fully 100 percent to be EVs by 2035.
    Thankfully, these regulations have yet to go into effect 
and require a waiver from the EPA under the Clean Air Act to be 
implemented. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1435, the 
Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, to prevent the EPA 
Administrator from granting a waiver allowing California's ban 
on internal combustion engine sales by 2035.
    Although starting in California, section 177 of the Clean 
Air Act will ensure that, once adopted, this regulation will 
spread across the Nation, disrupting the entire American auto 
market and ultimately limit what my constituents are able to 
buy. Seventeen States, including my home State of Pennsylvania, 
have already adopted California's clean air regulations. These 
States represent over 40 percent of the American auto market--
over 40 percent--and any electric vehicle mandate at that large 
of scale is a de facto mandate on the entire market and 
represents a decisive shift in national policy.
    Let's be clear. This legislation is not anti-EVs. Those who 
can afford and those who want an electric vehicle should be 
able to buy one. But to put it bluntly, in my district EVs 
simply cannot fulfill the needs of my constituents. They can't 
drive the distances needed, they can't maintain the charge at 
extreme temperatures, they can't recharge fast enough to keep 
hard-working Pennsylvanians on the move.
    An EV mandate is an abandonment of the free market 
principles that have enabled Americans to have the most 
mobility of any nation in the world. This policy will harm 
working- and middle-class families by making cars more 
expensive and less capable. Only by taking government's thumb 
off of the scale and letting free market decide will Americans 
get the efficient and the affordable transportation that they 
need and that they want.
    Mr. Goffman, do you agree that a ban on internal combustion 
engines affecting 17 States and over 40 percent of our domestic 
market would be a de facto national policy?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not sure. And that--and I----
    Mr. Joyce. I am sure. I think it would guide market forces 
with that 40 percent domestic market. The automakers have let 
us know that that is part of their decision of how they will 
roll out new vehicles.
    Mr. Goffman, do you think it is appropriate for a policy 
tool that was meant to address local pollution concerns in 
California in the 1960s and 1970s be used to create a national 
ban on internal combustion engines?
    Mr. Goffman. If you will indulge me, I want to be a little 
bit circumspect, since we do have that issue in front of us, 
thanks to California petitioning for a waiver. That is like an 
adjudication process, so I hesitate to answer your question 
because it is a decision that we may have to make, or will have 
to make to respond to the petition.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Goffman, on May 10, Administrator Regan 
testified in front of this subcommittee. When I posed the 
question to him if he supported banning internal combustion 
engines, he responded--and I am quoting--``No, not at all.'' 
When asked if he supported consumer choice in vehicles, his 
response was--again, quoting--``I don't see a near-term future 
where we don't have a fuel supply that complements electric 
vehicles and provides customer choice.''
    So I am going to ask you the same question: Do you support 
a ban on internal combustion engines or consumer choice in 
vehicles?
    Mr. Goffman. No.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. Wouldn't granting a waiver for the 
California regulations be a ban on internal combustion engines?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know yet, and----
    Mr. Joyce. I think the ramifications are clear to all of us 
that that and the 40 percent market share would be a national 
ban.
    Do you think that automakers will produce one set of 
vehicles for California, another set for New York, maybe a set 
for West Virginia? Do you think there is a capability in 
production to have different vehicles for different parts of 
the United States?
    Mr. Goffman. My understanding is that, historically, auto 
manufacturers have striven to avoid making more than just one 
national fleet.
    Mr. Joyce. But yet 40 percent of the market would be 
affected--again, a de facto mandate of making EVs the only 
vehicle that Americans could choose to drive. Do you really 
think that the refining capacity----
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Mr. Johnson. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of 
the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have significant concerns with the intent, execution, and 
desired outcomes of the bills before us today. And as I said in 
my opening statement, Republicans' opposition to EVs is an 
attack, in my opinion, on innovation, public health, and lower 
energy bills for American drivers.
    But I am particularly concerned about H.R. 1435. In my 
opinion, this bill runs counter to the intent of the Clean Air 
Act, which is a model of cooperative federalism, with decades 
of successful partnership between EPA and States, to protect 
Americans from dangerous air pollution. And this is especially 
true when it comes to controlling vehicle emissions.
    Congress directed EPA to take the lead but also included 
language to recognize the authority of California to set 
separate and more protective standards. But the bill would 
ignore this well-established structure. So, Mr. Goffman, how 
would blocking more protective State vehicle standards 
undermine the Clean Air Act's partnership between States and 
the Federal Government to control air pollution?
    Mr. Goffman. It could limit California's--or more 
precisely, EPA's--authority to grant a waiver to California. 
And I think, as you know, States like New Jersey have 
voluntarily--have voluntarily chosen over the history of the 
Clean Air Act to exercise the option that the Clean Air Act 
gives them to adopt California's standards after EPA has 
granted California a waiver to implement its standards.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks. And I am committed to defending 
States' authority to protect the health of their citizens and 
the environment from dangerous air pollution in the 
transportation sector. And that is why Senator Carper and I 
filed an amicus brief earlier this year defending EPA's 
decision to grant a Clean Air Act waiver for California's 
Advanced Clean Cars program.
    Now, H.R. 1435 would reverse EPA's decision and revoke this 
waiver. And this would be especially problematic, as you said, 
for New Jersey, since we often follow California's lead on 
vehicle standards. So, again, Mr. Goffman, how would revoking 
existing waivers impact the ability of States like New Jersey 
to control pollution from their transportation sectors?
    Mr. Goffman. States like New Jersey who have exercised 
their option of adopting California's standards have depended 
on section 177 of the Clean Air Act. Section 177 is contingent 
on California's being granted a waiver by the EPA for its 
standards.
    There have been waiver grants we have done in the last year 
or so where we determined that the--California's implied 
entitlement under the Clean Air Act was not negated by any of 
the facts that were presented to us in the record, and so that 
would take away not only California's ability to implement its 
vehicle regulations, but it would completely erase the option 
of States like New Jersey that have exercised that option in 
the past to adopt their--California standards.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you again. Let me just say that 
the transportation sector is currently the largest source of 
climate pollution in the United States. So it is critical, in 
my opinion, that States and EPA have every tool available to 
help cut these emissions. And with these bills, it is clear 
that my Republican colleagues are not interested in addressing 
this dangerous air pollution and are just continuing to promote 
handouts for their polluting friends over the American people.
    But I do want to thank Mr. Goffman for being here today. I 
do think this hearing is important.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Chair Rodgers----
    Mrs. Rodgers. All right.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. For the purpose of 5 minutes for 
her questions.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Well, when the EPA Administrator was here 
for our committee's EPA budget hearing--Mr. Regan--like you he 
rejected the idea that EPA was trying to ban internal 
combustion engine cars. He stated that EPA's proposed 
regulations are ``technology standards that guide the future.'' 
In contrast, your testimony claims that the proposed rule for 
light- and medium-duty vehicle emissions is a ``performance-
based emission standard.''
    So is it a technology standard or is it a performance-based 
standard?
    Mr. Goffman. It is a performance-based standard, but we 
calculate the emission standard based on what we assess to be 
the available technologies on which to base the standard.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, OK, thank you. Your testimony states that 
the car companies can choose the mix of technologies used in 
the vehicle to comply with your proposed standards. EPA's 
analysis, though, assumes virtually no hybrids or plug-in 
hybrids will be in the market when the rule is fully 
implemented. Hybrids use far less critical minerals than 
battery electric vehicles, they don't require new 
infrastructure to be built, they are more affordable, 
convenient for most consumers.
    My question: Why does EPA's rule basically force 
manufacturers away from providing hybrid and plug-in hybrid 
options?
    Mr. Goffman. What we projected is that up to a certain 
percentage, depending on which of the alternatives we looked 
at, of EV technology would be available, and based our 
standards on that calculus, or that assessment. But we 
expressed the obligation to--that manufacturers must meet in 
terms of grams per mile, in order to give them the option, 
individual companies the option of using whatever mix of 
technologies that they choose.
    One of the issues that we expect to get feedback on--and, 
in fact, we are working actively to collect information from 
the manufacturers while this proposal is pending--is whether we 
do succeed in giving them options like adopting hybrids----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me. By 2032, what percentage of 
vehicles do you project will be battery electric?
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. What is the percentage?
    Mr. Johnson. Microphone.
    Mr. Goffman. Sorry, thanks. It is somewhere between 62 
percent and 67 or 68 percent, depending on the alternative.
    Mr. Johnson. Excuse me, Mr. Goffman, can you pull your 
microphone just a little closer to you?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Did you say 2 percent to 68 percent----
    Mr. Goffman. Sure, I am sorry.
    Mrs. Rodgers [continuing]. By 2032?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, I apologize. I don't have the figures----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Two percent to 68 percent?
    Mr. Goffman. No, no, no, 62.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Sixty-two to 68, I am sorry. OK, so 68 
percent, 68 percent will be battery electric. That is the 
projection, battery electric----
    Mr. Goffman. That is a projection----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Not hybrid, not plug-in hybrid.
    So how can the Administrator say it is technology neutral 
if hybrids don't qualify?
    And I want to highlight for everyone that you can build--
for one--for the raw materials for one battery-electric 
vehicle, you can build 90 plug-in hybrids. Ninety for the same 
raw materials. And over the lifetime, 70--37 times, it will 
have 37 times the carbon reduction as a single battery electric 
vehicle. Yet EPA is taking us down this path.
    So on April 12 of this year, 2023, EPA released a press 
release about the proposed regulations, and it proclaimed that 
the proposed standards are projected to accelerate the 
transition to electric vehicles in the next 10 years. In 
addition, using your numbers, it states that the sales of 
internal combustion engines will drop in 2032 to a level that 
is 12.5 percent of what they were allowed in 2032.
    I am going to be running out of time here shortly. I just 
want to highlight that 1 percent of Americans today drive 
battery electric vehicles. One percent. And one of my concerns 
is that EPA is driving us down a road where we are going to be 
dependent upon Chinese cars--not just the minerals, not just 
the raw materials, not just the processing, but also the cars 
themselves. China is building manufacturing--car manufacturing 
plants in Mexico today. And by 2032 our future could very well 
be one where it is only the Chinese cars that fulfill the 
requirements that are being handed--mandated to us by EPA.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Mr. Goffman, for being here. And I want to get back to first 
principles, the authority that EPA has in this critical role of 
protecting our air quality.
    Congress gave EPA this role more than 50 years ago under 
the Clean Air Act and reaffirmed that responsibility in 2005 
under the Energy Policy Act. And I don't want us to lose sight 
of that today as we discuss the bills that are being put forth 
by my Republican colleagues, each of which--each of which--
would hamper EPA's ability to regulate air pollution and, 
unfortunately, continues this Republican agenda of putting Big 
Oil interests over the interests of the public.
    For example, one of the draft bills we are discussing today 
would preemptively bar EPA from finalizing, implementing, or 
enforcing its light and medium-duty vehicle proposed rule, as 
we have been talking about here, and it would preclude EPA from 
issuing any emission standards that mandate the use of any 
specific technology or result in limited availability of 
internal combustion engine vehicles.
    It is important to be clear that EPA's proposed standards 
are reasonable, performance-based emissions standards and 
constitute neither a national electric vehicle mandate nor an 
internal combustion ban.
    Mr. Goffman, Republicans like to accuse the agency, your 
agency, of ``legislating.'' Can you explain what statutory 
authority EPA is using to promulgate vehicle emission 
standards, making it clear that we are the ones that legislate?
    We give you authority, and then you act responsibly within 
that authority. So could you talk about the statutory authority 
that you have with respect to these standards?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question, Congressman 
Sarbanes.
    We have longstanding authority under section 202 of the 
Clean Air Act to set vehicle emission standards based on 
available technology, taking account of a variety of factors. 
We have used that authority, I guess I would say, for decades 
now to set pollution standards for a variety of pollutants, 
including greenhouse gases as well as air quality pollutants. 
And we are using exactly the same authority in this proposal 
and applying the same basic analysis in terms of technological 
availability, feasibility, manufacture, lead time, cost, market 
uptake, et cetera.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Right.
    Mr. Goffman. So it is a traditional authority that we are 
applying in our----
    Mr. Sarbanes. Yes, I mean, you are playing it straight, 
based on the authority that you have. They are operating inside 
the lines of the authority that Congress has given you, and you 
are doing it in order to protect the health of the American 
people.
    And would you say that the model year 2027 emission 
standards proposal is outside the scope of EPA's authority or 
inside the scope?
    Mr. Goffman. I would say it is well within the scope. And 
if you will allow me, I will want to observe that what is 
different this time is not the use of our authority, it is 
everything that is going on from the automobile companies' own 
commitment to advance EVs in their new car fleets.
    I think, as you know, 2 years ago a number of companies 
stood up with President Biden and committed to a 50 percent EV 
goal for 2030, and at least one of those companies then adopted 
a set of principles to reach 100 percent EVs by 2035. And while 
they are doing that, Congress itself has made a significant 
investment, or a significant menu of investments, in supporting 
electric vehicle technology, supporting the supply chain from, 
if you will, mine mouth to battery production to vehicles in a 
way that both creates more jobs here, brings these operations 
onshore here, and ultimately makes these vehicles affordable to 
produce and affordable to buy.
    Mr. Sarbanes. That is an excellent point, I appreciate you 
making it. We are making--we are trying to make investments 
here that align with the deployment of the regulatory authority 
you have, which aligns in turn with where industry is headed, 
all for the benefit of the health of the American people and 
energy efficiency. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Goffman, roughly 70 percent of cobalt, a raw material 
needed in lithium ion cells that power most EVs, comes from 
DRC. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe, yes.
    Mr. Weber. OK. And unfortunately, the DRC has a high volume 
of artisanal--I believe it is how you say that--mines where 
kids, children are working in inhumane conditions to extract 
this resource. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. In a separate vein, Chile is home to the driest 
nonpolar desert on Earth. The lithium mining industry there is 
consuming large amounts of groundwater, destroying the local 
ecosystem, and literally drying up the resources needed for 
their very own local farmers and herders. Are you aware of 
that?
    Mr. Goffman. I wasn't aware of that specific set of facts.
    Mr. Weber. But you know it is dry, and they are using a lot 
of water, so it makes sense--bad sense, but it does make sense.
    On an average, the water required for producing EV 
batteries is 50 percent more water-intensive than a traditional 
internal combustion engine. Were you aware of that?
    Mr. Goffman. I wasn't aware specifically of that fact.
    Mr. Weber. But you knew it was a lot.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. How can the human and environmental impacts of 
the growing EV market be measured against the impacts of the 
production of combustion engine vehicles?
    And the answer is they can't. But when you look at those 
facts, and you--then you merge them with what our great 
chairwoman was saying, that Americans deserve a choice--what 
Dr. John Joyce was saying, Americans deserve a choice, doesn't 
it seem a little out of kilter that we would try to force the 
lack of choices on them?
    Mr. Goffman. I agree. And I think our proposal is 
consistent with that, that Americans will still have a choice. 
In fact, they will have more choices.
    If the auto companies continue with their plans to market 
EVs on a massive scale, and our proposals are adopted, also----
    Mr. Weber. That sounds like pie in the sky. Forgive me for 
interrupting, but I remember when Henry Ford created the Model 
T, you know, he said you could have any color you want as long 
as it is black.
    We are going to reduce their choices. And with the facts 
that we just laid out about the mines and the deserts and the 
waters and all of this stuff--we didn't even really talk about 
the child labor all that much--but how can one really say that 
EVs are truly a clean vehicle? It just doesn't make sense to 
me.
    In the time remaining, I want to jump over to--in your 
written testimony you state, ``The proposal is not a national 
electric vehicle mandate or an internal combustion engine 
ban.'' But, in essence, that is the slope that we are going 
down.
    And I saw--tongue in cheek, saw a survey the other day 
about electric vehicles. It said 90 percent of electric 
vehicles were still on the road today; the other 10 percent 
made it home safely. We just don't have the charging capacity 
in our current grid. I am from Texas. We have our own grid. I 
owned an air-conditioning company for 35 years. We dealt with 
power requirements all the time. I know how much electric power 
is needed, and we don't have it. And we have got to race down a 
slope, a slippery slope, to make all these laws and rules--that 
Americans don't get the choice, the vehicle is really not all 
that green, it comes from sources that are anti our own values, 
harming people in the process--and we want to go down this 
slope.
    So you also go on to say, ``We know that Americans need and 
want flexibility in the type of vehicles they drive, and our 
proposed light and medium vehicles rule will help consumers 
have more choices, not fewer.'' That dog don't hunt in Texas. 
That statement is just not true. I agree with you that 
Americans want more choices when they look to purchase a 
vehicle, but you and I both know--and our colleagues across the 
aisle should know--that that won't be the case if and when this 
rule were to go into effect.
    This proposal--they like to say that Republicans like to 
pick winners and losers. ``Polluters over people'' is the name-
calling they resorted to. You know, kindergarten kids did that. 
I remember that from kindergarten, calling names. This proposed 
rule picks winners and losers in the market and inherently goes 
against consumer choice, which you claim is important to the 
EPA.
    True or false--I am out of time--is it true or false, a 
good thing for Americans to have more choices?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Weber. I yield back.
    Mr. Goffman. And this proposal will give them more choice.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Deputy 
Principal Administrator, for being with us this morning.
    Just for the record, I have a dear friend who is a--who was 
a Cadillac dealer in my district, and he is no longer a 
Cadillac dealer. Cadillac decided to go total electric. And he, 
along with 400 other Cadillac dealerships, are nonexistent in 
this Nation today.
    So what is the problem here? The problem here is the EPA 
drove them out of business, the Government. A huge economic 
engine is no longer in my district.
    Sir, this country is about market-driven, not government-
driven.
    I grew up a while back. In fact, I graduated from college 
and my mother and dad finally put air-conditioning in our home. 
I went to a school that wasn't air-conditioned. And what I 
would like you all to do is a study on how much carbon we could 
save if everybody did away with air-conditioning like I grew 
up. And then let's see who gets elected to office after you do 
away with all air-conditioning in this country. And I use that 
as an example because what you are doing is you are 
incrementally moving this ball along and convincing people that 
you are on the right path, yet the market and the people say 
otherwise.
    You know, there is an aggressive approach. I have got EMCs 
who put in all the scrubbers and met all the requirements under 
the Clean Air Act. And then, under the Obama administration, 
they were told, ``You got to do away with coal.'' There was a 
war on coal.
    As far as manufacturers are concerned, do you have 
commitments from the manufacturers?
    You had said that--before a subcommittee hearing yesterday, 
a House Oversight and Accountability Committee, you testified 
that provisions from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
and the Inflation Reduction Act were intended to make 
manufacturing of these electric vehicles less expensive, 
therefore give the car companies the opportunity to sell 
vehicles they are planning to market at affordable prices. 
However, Kelley Blue Book reported that the average price of 
electric vehicles increased by $313 in just 1 month, from 
February to March of 2023.
    Do you have commitments from the manufacturers that they 
are going to lower their price on electric vehicles they sell?
    Mr. Goffman. Our expectation is, given their plans--and we 
are in conversations as part of the rulemaking process, 
gathering information from manufacturers--that they do intend 
to sell a significant--more than 50 percent--EV fleet.
    What we are doing, Congressman, is making sure that what--
that our final rules support or are consistent with their 
business strategies to market----
    Mr. Allen. Well----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. A substantial amount of EVs.
    Mr. Allen. Right. Not to interrupt, but it seems to me that 
when you eliminate 400 dealerships across this country--you 
know, cost can only be reduced by competition. That is what has 
made--that is the American way, is competition. We love to 
compete. You get rid of 400 dealerships and then, of course, 
God knows how many more that aren't going to be able to sell 
these things.
    I mean, I asked my friend, ``What in the world were you 
thinking?'' He said, ``Do you know how much demand I have for 
electric vehicles? Zero. And yet they want me to spend $20 
million to build this new electric dealership? You got to be 
kidding.''
    And I will tell you this. This Government is not going to 
bail out General Motors when they come asking for us--asking to 
us for help because of what this Government has done to General 
Motors.
    Let me ask you this. If you are relying on manufacturers to 
lower prices, are you envisioning a direct-to-consumer 
marketplace for vehicles? Americans like Scott Lambert in our 
second panel today is out of business. So how are you going to 
do this?
    Mr. Goffman. I am sorry, sir. I didn't quite follow the 
question.
    Mr. Allen. How are you going to lower prices?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, our job is to collect information from 
the auto industry----
    Mr. Allen. OK.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. To make sure that our final 
standards are consistent with their business strategy.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. Well, the market controls prices, sir.
    I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairman.
    Since the mid-1980s, the Coachella Valley in California has 
welcomed all of its visitors with the iconic view of the San 
Gorgonio Pass wind farm, right off of the 10 Freeway heading in 
from the west. It is that wind farm that you see in movies when 
people are driving their Harleys into Palm Springs in the 
desert. Usually, it is filmed in that area.
    My home State of California has been on the forefront of 
renewable energy by investing in solar, wind, and battery 
energy storage decades before the Inflation Reduction Act and 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act were passed into 
law. In fact, my district produces the most renewable energy 
than any district on Federal land, than any district in the 
country. And Democrats are making unprecedented investments 
that make this possible. It is my district's competitive 
advantage.
    However, air pollution has serious negative impacts on 
human health. And as a physician, I have seen the effects of 
air pollution firsthand. Children, the elderly, communities of 
color are disproportionately impacted by poor air quality. In 
fact, in April the EPA released a report entitled ``Climate 
Change and Children's Health and Well-Being in the United 
States.''
    And I ask unanimous consent to enter the report into the 
record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. And this report found that climate 
change is expected to increase the incidence of asthma in 
children. Specifically, climate-driven changes in air quality 
are estimated to increase annual cases of asthma between 4 and 
11 percent, respectively. Children's health is a very serious 
issue, and it is unfortunate that we are discussing rolling 
back regulations to help clean up our air.
    Mr. Goffman, how does the EPA's vehicle emission standards 
protect public health, especially the health of our most 
vulnerable populations?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question, 
Congressman.
    Our standards would reduce a broad range of pollutants, not 
just greenhouse gases but a number of air quality pollutants 
like fine particles, NOx, and hydrocarbons. Those are the 
pollutants that contribute to smog and soot. And those--that 
bad air quality contributes massively to a range of health 
effects, including----
    Mr. Ruiz. You know, those health effects are documented. 
There is a recent study that came out that, on average, people 
who live near high or at high air-polluted areas live, on 
average, 10 years less than people who don't. So there is an 
association, of course, with length of life due to poor air 
quality.
    California has air quality challenges--which is my home 
State, of course--and they have taken a lead role in pollution 
controls for vehicles, which is one of the highest source. This 
bill that we are considering, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle 
Purchase Act, would prevent the EPA Administrator from granting 
a waiver to California from setting their own vehicle emission 
standards. This bill would have detrimental impacts on the 
EPA's longstanding statutory authority to grant California 
waivers on the Clean Air Act.
    California leads the way in ensuring a clean air for its 
population. The California waiver is vital for my home State, 
for my district to tackle air quality and greenhouse gas 
emissions, which is one of the worst in the Nation due to the 
10 corridor from Long Beach to Phoenix that runs right through 
my district, and all those semis.
    So can you explain why EPA's authority to grant the 
California waiver to protect vehicle emission standards at the 
Federal level is an important tool for tackling air pollution?
    Mr. Goffman. Again, thank you for that question. It is a 
tool that Congress has long recognized and re-ratified, if you 
will, over 50 years, and that is because California has 
historically had a range of very particular air quality and, in 
recent years, climate challenges.
    And California has used its authority to ensure that on-
road transportation really is--the air quality problems can be 
addressed through new technology----
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. The Preserving Choice in Vehicle 
Purchase Act is punishing a State that has proactively looked 
to clean up the air for its residents. This bill shouldn't even 
be discussed, let alone seriously considered.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
holding this important hearing.
    Mr. Goffman, this EPA just cannot help themselves. It is 
one thing after another, attacking Americans' way of life in 
pursuit of some pointless agenda that actually benefits no one, 
and I mean no one--and we are going to go through the numbers, 
and I will explain why--because we always got to tackle policy 
this way.
    What are the costs? What are the benefits? Policy is about 
trade-offs. By EPA's admission, this tailpipe emissions rule is 
designed to increase EV sales. Is that correct?
    Mr. Goffman. It is designed to improve air quality.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK. So the EPA website states, ``The proposed 
standards are also projected to accelerate the transition to 
electric vehicles.'' This is just from the website. I don't 
know, maybe you guys are on a different page. ``Depending on 
the compliance pathways manufacturers select to meet the 
standards, EPA projects that EVs could account for 67 percent 
of new light-duty vehicles,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
    OK, so right now, EVs account for 1 percent of cars 
registered to U.S. drivers, and about 4.5 percent of new 
vehicle sales. So that is quite a leap.
    Here is another thing: EVs are expensive--on average, 
$20,000 more than a similarly sized internal combustion engine 
vehicle.
    Here is another thing: The price of a new EV has risen by 
over 50 percent in the last 10 years, despite a concurrent 
increase in sales and obvious scalability. So what evidence 
does the EPA have that EVs will become more affordable for 
American consumers, or is that even part of your consideration?
    Mr. Goffman. Affordability is a major part of our 
consideration, and we are fortunate, as we do this, as we put 
this proposal out and consider finalizing it, to have a number 
of factors----
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK. So they have increased by 50 percent. How 
are they going to start decreasing? How is that going to 
happen? Does the EPA even care? How do you analyze that?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, one of the things we are doing is--and 
one of the things we observed even before we put the proposal 
out--is that a number of American manufacturers committed to 
the goal by 2030 of marketing 50 percent of their new car fleet 
as EVs, and at least 1 American company has followed that up 
by----
    Mr. Crenshaw. None of that speaks to costs. You guys have 
no idea, do you? And you don't take it into account. EVs are 
more expensive. This is just a fact. It is the way they are 
built, it is the way they are processed.
    So the question is--they are going to be more costly, 
continuously more costly, as they always will be. So the 
question is, what benefit do we get from that? Are we saving 
people's lives by making them spend more on cars? No.
    You know, does the EPA--when you assess, you know, the 
benefits from emissions from EV vehicles, do you assess the 
life cycle emissions? Do you take those into account from 
production of everything that goes into it through the sale?
    Mr. Goffman. We do look at that.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK.
    Mr. Goffman. Under the Clean Air Act authority, we look 
primarily and base our standards on----
    Mr. Crenshaw. I mean, I know you guys don't, you don't have 
any reports that do that. But luckily, others do. The 
International Energy Agency did a critical minerals report. 
They found that, when you count all emissions of production, on 
average, a single battery for an EV, you have to dig up 500,000 
pounds of Earth. That involves heavy machinery, oil, gas. And 
let's not forget, 85 percent of critical mineral processing is 
in China. I am pretty sure their environmental standards are 
not very high.
    According to other studies by the manufacturers 
themselves--like Volvo, like Volkswagen--manufacturing an EV 
generates 70 percent more emissions than manufacturing an 
internal combustion engine. You need to drive 70,000 miles to 
even break even with an internal combustion engine. Even at 
100,000 miles, you are only getting a 20 to 30 percent 
reduction in carbon emissions. So it will do nothing for 
climate change. It will do nothing to reduce overall global 
emissions.
    And by the way, the EV owner already drives less, so it is 
unlikely that most of them have even reached the break-even 
point. So just by the math, in the short term EVs increase 
emissions globally. That is just the math.
    Now, if you are concerned about air pollution, which--you 
have stated that--on the EPA website it says this: ``The graph 
below shows that between 1980 and 2022 gross domestic product 
increased almost 200 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 
over 100 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and 
the U.S. population grew by 47 percent. But during that same 
time period, total emissions of the 6 principal air pollutants 
dropped by 73 percent.'' It is like we are making all this 
progress.
    So I just want to know where is the evidence that we are 
all of a sudden in an air quality crisis in America and that we 
need to impose these enormous costs on the American people? 
Where is the evidence for that?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe there is extensive evidence and, as 
it happens, it is reflected in a proposal we issued 
addressing----
    Mr. Crenshaw. There is----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Ambient air quality----
    Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Extensive evidence that we have 
decreased our problems with air quality, that we have increased 
air quality in America. There is extensive evidence on your own 
website--it took me 5 seconds to Google it--that those 
pollutants have decreased by 73 percent. That is what your 
evidence says, and you want to impose these massive costs on 
the American people. That is why these bills are up for 
consideration today.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, my colleague, my neighbor, 
Mr. Balderson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Goffman, for being here today. There are 
three regulations that are currently under development by your 
office that will have a significant impact on the electric 
grid, which I am sure you are hearing a lot about today. Two of 
these proposals, the light-duty and the heavy-duty vehicle 
proposals, will greatly increase demand for electricity. The 
third ruling related to power plants will force the premature 
retirement of flexible, dispatchable resources.
    Additionally, California and several other States are 
seeking waivers to essentially ban the sale of new internal 
combustion engine cars and light trucks by 2035. Even the EPA 
admits in their regulatory impact analysis for light-duty 
vehicles that an enormous amount of electricity will be needed 
in 2035 just to support this EV rule.
    Due to the increased demand of these rules and the impact 
of EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0, I would expect FERC to have a 
significant interest in all of these rules. When you were 
working on the original Clean Power Plan in President Obama's 
administration, FERC had a series of technical conferences 
between the proposed and final rules to ensure grid reliability 
if the Clean Power Plan went into effect. In fact, I believe 
you spoke at one of those conferences.
    FERC has not stated that they will have any technical 
conferences or any of the rules I previously mentioned. Do you 
believe that FERC should hold technical conferences to ensure 
that the grid can be maintained if these rules get finalized?
    Mr. Goffman. I am really not in a position to speak for 
FERC, but I can speak for the EPA to tell you that we have 
spent, ourselves, time talking to FERC Commissioners and FERC 
expert staff precisely about the issues related to reliability 
that we want to make sure that we are addressing as we finalize 
these power sector rules.
    Mr. Balderson. So you would agree to--I mean, want FERC to 
be part of this discussion.
    Mr. Goffman. For our purposes, we have already----
    Mr. Balderson. For your purposes. I understand you can't 
answer for FERC, but for your purposes.
    Mr. Goffman. We have had discussions with them even before 
we, if you will, put pen to paper on some of these proposals.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. Have you tried to coordinate 
with FERC to facilitate these conferences occurring? Obviously, 
you have not done that.
    My last question is, did you consult in any way with the 
Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway 
Administration on the tailpipe emissions proposal?
    Mr. Goffman. We--as part of the interagency process, we 
benefited from the contributions and engagement with NHTSA and 
DOT on the vehicle--on our vehicle rules, and we--on our power 
sector rules we have been in discussions with DOE as part of 
the interagency process, and we even entered into an MOU with 
DoE to continue to address--or at least monitor--reliability 
issues in the process of finalizing our rules and their 
ultimate implementation.
    Mr. Balderson. Did the Department of Transportation provide 
you any feedback on this, whether it was good, bad, 
indifferent, anything?
    Mr. Goffman. In the interagency process NHTSA provided us 
with significant technical advice.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Well, it is concerning to me. And I know 
car manufacturers, auto dealers have been brought up. I am a 
former auto dealer, so I am just ad-libbing here a little bit. 
And I heard some of Mr. Allen's testimony and some of his 
questions.
    I sat with a friend yesterday that is going to lose his 
dealership because the manufacturer that he sells--he is a 
single point store, like we were, and our family business was 
shut down back in 2008 during the bailout with the auto 
manufacturers. And I shouldn't say it was caused by that, but 
it led up to that taking place. But I have two friends as of 
yesterday that are going to lose their agencies because the 
manufacturer has committed not to do any more fossil fuel 
vehicles, combustion engines, however you want to look at it.
    I mean, do you have any insight into that? I know that you 
don't deal with the manufacturers, but these rules being 
implemented the way that they are, I mean, they--are you 
looking at the bigger picture of who it is impacting, and what 
it does?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, we are in the process of taking in 
comment and feedback and engagement with--we hope to be--all 
stakeholders who have equities in these rules.
    Mr. Balderson. What would you advise my friend that is 
losing his agency potentially here in 2030 because his 
manufacturers--what would be his comment to the EPA?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, the--we would certainly be eager to get 
some analysis, some background on what his experience--what 
your constituent's experience was.
    Mr. Balderson. OK, I am out of time.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger----
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. I want to push back, Mr. Goffman, on some 
things that have been said in this hearing.
    The number-one cause of death in this world is lack of 
energy. And there are many studies that suggest that the higher 
the CO2 emissions in a country, the higher the GDP 
and the higher the life expectancy. And for us to be having an 
all-out assault from the EPA with rule after rule and 
weaponization after weaponization on liquid fuels and on 
primary sources of energy and on all the things that have made 
this country the richest, most powerful country in the world 
are just unbelievable.
    What is the range on your electric vehicle? What is the 
range on your electric vehicle?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Pfluger. Two hundred and fifty?
    Mr. Johnson. Microphone.
    Mr. Pfluger. Two hundred and fifty miles?
    Mr. Goffman. Anecdotally, in my personal experience----
    Mr. Pfluger. OK, which is the exact same range on one of 
the manufacturer's pickup trucks, except for when you add load 
to it and when temperature starts to drop.
    So a pickup truck, an electric vehicle pickup truck, is now 
40 percent less, which at 240 miles is about 100 miles less. 
That is 140 miles. It is not reasonable. It doesn't work.
    I assume you support the President and his initiatives.
    Mr. Goffman. Of course, yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. Do you support his desire to kill fossil 
fuels?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not aware that he has a desire to kill 
fossil fuels.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Goffman, that was a clear message that he 
said when he was being elected to President of the United 
States.
    Do you support killing fossil fuels?
    Mr. Goffman. In my role as implementing the Clean Air Act, 
no.
    Mr. Pfluger. Is it your goal to kill liquid fuels?
    Mr. Goffman. My goal is to improve air quality and address 
climate----
    Mr. Pfluger. Which we have----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. And implement the Clean Air Act, 
which----
    Mr. Pfluger. Which we have done.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. The last time I looked, does not 
authorize EPA to, if you--as you put it, to kill fossil fuels.
    Mr. Pfluger. That is right. It doesn't. But your policies 
are doing that, and they are actually going to decrease our 
quality of life here, and they are going to put the most 
vulnerable in our world in jeopardy. And they are going to kill 
the dealerships that my colleagues just mentioned.
    I want to follow up on your response to my colleague that 
the EPA is still looking at California's waiver request for the 
Advanced Clean Cars II regulation. You claim that you have not 
looked at this yet, and you have not looked at light-duty 
vehicles at the same time. But in the recent LDV proposal that 
your office wrote, ACC II and section 177 are used as a 
justification as to why EPA should introduce and move forward 
with such stringent standards. This sounds like the EPA is 
using ACC II and a waiver that has not yet been granted or 
reviewed as justification for their light-duty vehicles rules.
    Is the agency making decisions before a waiver has been 
granted?
    Mr. Goffman. Congressman, let me check on that, because----
    Mr. Pfluger. This is a response in this hearing that you 
said to one of my colleagues.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, my understanding--let me check to make 
sure that we--my experience is that we do not rely on 
regulations from California where we haven't granted the 
waiver----
    Mr. Pfluger. So the waiver has not yet been granted?
    Mr. Goffman. It has not been----
    Mr. Pfluger. So would it be used as justification?
    Mr. Goffman. Let me check to--let me check on that. My 
experience is----
    Mr. Pfluger. Is it standard practice for the EPA to use a 
waiver that has not been granted as justification?
    Mr. Goffman. In my experience, we have not. But your 
question makes me a little nervous. I would like to get back to 
you----
    Mr. Pfluger. It makes me nervous, as well, Mr. Goffman.
    Mr. Goffman. I would like to get back to you with a----
    Mr. Pfluger. It makes our country nervous.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. A well-founded answer.
    Mr. Pfluger. How much electricity does the United States 
demand each year?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know that number off the top of my 
head.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. It is 4 terawatts, annually. So the 
Secretary of Energy didn't know it, the EPA doesn't know it, 
FERC probably doesn't know it. Who else doesn't know it in this 
country, and we are mandating electric vehicles?
    What is the percentage increase in electricity demand if we 
get to the 2030 and 2035 mandates that your agency is pushing 
for and the administration is pushing for? What is the 
percentage increase that we will need?
    Mr. Goffman. Four-tenths of a percent in 2030, and 4 
percent in 2050.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So the Secretary of Energy sat right there 
2 weeks ago, and she said it is going to double our electricity 
demand, and you are giving me a much more accurate--or at least 
specific--answer. You guys have no idea how much demand is 
going to be there. Where is that electricity going to come 
from?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, first of all, we did analyze the demand 
that the implementation of these proposals----
    Mr. Pfluger. EPA analyzed it, or the Department----
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK.
    Mr. Goffman. We analyzed it as part of our----
    Mr. Pfluger. Where is the electricity----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Analysis.
    Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. Going to come from?
    Mr. Goffman. It will come from a diverse grid.
    Mr. Pfluger. It is 110 degrees in my hometown today. The 
wind is not blowing, the sun is shining. And after 4 hours of 
darkness, there will be no batteries on this planet that can 
produce a reliable source of baseload dispatchable power. We 
have no plan for this.
    So please get back to me on the question that I asked you. 
And if waivers are being used that have not been granted for 
justification, this is complete--this is overreach to a point 
that we couldn't even imagine.
    Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa, Dr. Miller-Meeks, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad Energy 
and Commerce is focusing today's hearing on several bills 
related to preserving choice in America for vehicles and fuel, 
including my bill, the Fuels Parity Act.
    The Fuels Parity Act, which I introduced with 
Representatives Hunt, Bice, Budzinski, and Sorensen, is a 
bipartisan bill with geographically diverse cosponsorship 
ranging from Texas oil and gas members to Midwestern biofuels 
members.
    As the Biden administration continues its war on liquid 
fuels, biofuels and gasoline included, this bill makes it 
abundantly clear that establishing a partnership between 
biofuels and oil is more important than ever.
    The Fuels Parity Act would allow ethanol from cornstarch to 
qualify as an advanced biofuel, and require EPA to use DOE's 
Argonne GREET model to determine the carbon content of biofuels 
under the Renewable Fuel Standard, rather than an outdated 
predictive model. Allowing corn to qualify as an advanced 
biofuel allows internal combustion engine vehicles to compete 
with EVs by incentivizing lower emissions from ethanol 
production, making the fuel that powers on-road vehicles 
cleaner.
    Here is a list of biomass types that are allowed to be 
advanced fiber fuels: Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, the fibrous 
outer shell of a kernel of corn known as corn kernel fiber 
sorghum, soybeans, wheat, and barley. All of these crops can be 
advanced biofuels so long as they meet 50 percent requirement 
for carbon reductions. Literally, the only feedstock that 
cannot qualify is cornstarch. Even other parts of the corn 
kernel can qualify. As long as cornstarch ethanol can achieve a 
50 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction, it should be 
afforded the same opportunity to be an advanced biofuel like 
every other feedstock.
    And Ranking Member Tonko, I would be open to a discussion 
prior to subcommittee markup with you and others about making 
DOE's Argonne GREET model applicable to all fuels.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter 
into the record which expresses support for the Fuel Parity 
Act. The letter also includes support for year-round E15 and 
outlines concerns about the EPA's final RVOs from 2023 to 2025, 
which limit the growth of low-carbon fuels.
    Mr. Goffman, the Refuelable Fuel Standard, RFS, program is 
integral to reducing carbon emissions and adding value to 
agricultural commodities. While opportunities may exist to 
improve the program, any statutory reforms should be careful 
and thoughtful. The Fuels Parity Act would remove the 
prohibition on cornstarch ethanol as an advanced biofuel. I 
realize this is not a perfect piece of legislation, and I am 
committed to working with all stakeholders moving forward.
    Can you speak to the EPA's ability to consider new Clean 
Air Act proposals, including pilot programs, when setting post-
2022 volumes?
    Does the EPA have authority to consider criteria not 
explicitly stated and contained in section 211(o)?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    I don't believe we have the authority to consider criteria 
that aren't in the statute, especially now that we are in--we 
are past 2022, and the statute doesn't include presumptive 
volumes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mr. Goffman, under the Clean Air Act EPA 
is required to set annual increasing volume requirements for 
the amount of renewable fuel to be blended into our 
transportation fuel supply. EPA fulfilled this obligation and 
increased volume requirements for 2023 to 2025. In contrast, 
however, EPA has also proposed several rulemaking, including 
the latest tailpipe emission standards that would drastically 
reduce all supply of all liquid fuels in favor of an all-EV 
approach.
    How can EPA simultaneously implement the RFS, where the 
goals are to increase biofuels and liquid fuels usage, and at 
the same time propose a tailpipe rule which would dramatically 
curb liquid fuels? Your agency's tailpipe proposal appears 
completely contradictory to RFS goals.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, in both cases, Congresswoman, we were 
responding to what we understand to be the imperatives of the 
Clean Air Act, which requires us to set or--authorizes us to 
set tailpipe emission standards, as well as to set volume 
obligations under the RFS.
    Our approach has been to maintain, ultimately, a diversity 
of energy sources for transportation, consistent with both 202, 
which is our tailpipe emission standard authority, and 211, 
which is our RFS authority.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Which is why it seems contradictory that 
cornstarch would not be classified as an advanced biofuel, and 
we wouldn't have--we don't have year-round E15, and also that 
the volumes are not set at the level where we can certainly 
produce.
    A Des Moines Register article just today indicates some 
studies show that ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
by 46 percent and biodiesel by 69 percent. So if, in fact, we 
are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the 
volume production of all biofuels would be complementary to 
that goal.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back, and without 
objection the letters requested by the gentlelady will be 
included in the record.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and 
thank you, Mr. Goffman.
    In your testimony you talked about the California Air 
Resources Board a little bit. They have issued a request that 
the EPA approve a waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement 
new rules in California that would set yearly rising zero-
emission vehicles starting in 2026 and would end completely the 
sale of vehicles that are powered by gasoline by the year 2035.
    So one of the bills that we are hearing today is my bill, 
H.R. 1435, that would restrict the EPA from issuing a waiver 
for any new regulations that would completely ban the sale of 
internal combustion motor vehicles, and I will talk about the 
reasons for that in a moment.
    My question for you is, has the EPA reviewed that request 
by CARB? And if so, has any consideration been made on whether 
or not it will be approved?
    Mr. Goffman. We have only just begun the review process, 
which has at least three steps.
    Step one is to publish a notice to the public that the 
petition is under review, and ask the public and stakeholders 
for input on specific issues.
    Once that step is completed, by creating a record based on 
all the public comment we received, we review the record and 
then make what we think of as an adjudication as to whether or 
not, based on the record, California's--the mandate to the 
Administrator to grant the waiver can be met, or whether one of 
three criteria has actually been triggered that would negate 
California's entitlement to the waiver.
    And I am sorry, it is a very--very much an adjudicatory 
process that involves creating a public record. We have only 
just begun that.
    Mr. Obernolte. And what would you say the timeframe for 
issuing that decision is?
    Mr. Goffman. I measure it in months. But since we haven't 
actually published, formally published the notice inviting 
comment, set a comment deadline, or even, obviously, seen what 
kind of record we are going to have to work with, we haven't 
established a precise timeline yet.
    Mr. Obernolte. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would keep 
my office informed as you work through that process.
    Mr. Goffman. Of course.
    Mr. Obernolte. My motivation for introducing my bill to 
prevent the EPA from granting that request and requests like it 
is twofold.
    First of all, I am deeply skeptical that California's 
electric grid can be in a position to support a 100 percent new 
electric vehicle fleet by the deadline that CARB has set.
    I also represent a very economically disadvantaged portion 
of California, and my constituents can't afford to buy new EVs, 
even if they were available. And I have deep skepticism that by 
that time we will have the mineral resources necessary to even 
convert the current year's production vehicle fleet to 
electric.
    So those are some of my concerns. And although we are all--
we all want to be good stewards of the environment, we have to 
live here too. And we have to keep the needs of the 
economically disadvantaged in mind when we make these 
decisions. Do any of those factors--are any of those factors 
considered when the EPA makes decisions about whether or not to 
grant that waiver request?
    Mr. Goffman. Just to observe that when we set standards, we 
take those into consideration. What the statute, what the Clean 
Air Act tells us to do when California submits its waiver is--
the statute basically says the EPA Administrator shall grant 
the waiver unless one of three conditions is met. So Congress 
itself narrowly circumscribed what we can consider when a 
waiver petition comes in.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. So you are saying that this--these 
factor into the EPA's standards but not necessarily the 
decision about whether or not to approve California's waiver 
request?
    Mr. Goffman. The Clean Air Act does not clearly authorize 
us to take that breadth of considerations in mind. Congress, 
when it drafted those provisions and reauthorized them, 
contemplated California as sort of something that resembles an 
entitlement.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, that is why I think there is a 
need for the bill that I have authored. But I thank you for 
your testimony today.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you for being here, Mr. Goffman. Mr. 
Goffman, in looking at EPA's proposed tailpipe rule with its 
timeline and its scale, it is hard to say that it intends to do 
anything more than just ban internal combustion engines. I 
mean, I have to be quite honest with you. This is one of the 
most egregious rules that I have ever seen the Federal 
Government come out with. And it is totally inappropriate.
    And I am not saying that because I am not a fan of EVs. I 
am a fan of EVs. But this is ridiculous. In fact, I am so much 
a fan that the largest economic development project in the 
history of the State of Georgia is going to be in my district. 
It is under construction right now, an EV manufacturer bringing 
in a $5.5 billion investment to bring 8,100 jobs and probably 
that many more in ancillary businesses. We are excited about 
it. Georgia has embraced this. We have embraced the battery 
plants, EV manufacturers, all of that.
    But we are not going to enact a tailpipe rule, not in the 
State of Georgia. That would be ridiculous. Just like 
California and other policies that have more or less mandated 
EVs, there is no better example of the Federal Government 
picking winners and losers than what we are witnessing right 
here. No better example. And that is the last thing the Federal 
Government should be doing. I just don't--I don't agree with it 
at all. Again, I feel like it is totally inappropriate.
    Why is this rule necessary? Explain to me why it is 
necessary, especially in the scale and the timeline that you 
have set out.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question and thank 
you for articulating the concerns you raised.
    If I can just start with one point that we observed as part 
of our analysis, is that we project that even--that under this 
proposal, if it were finalized, we project north of 40 million 
internal combustion engine vehicles continuing to be sold in 
the new car fleet over the course of the 6 model years covered 
by this rule. So we obviously don't see this as either--
certainly not explicitly, and not even effectively--a ban on 
internal combustion engines.
    What this rule does is, in many ways, complement what the 
private sector and Congress have already begun to make 
substantial investments in, which is diversifying the on-road 
fleet so that it is not just internal combustion engines that 
relies on, in part, imported oil, but also domestic 
electricity.
    And in fact, as you know, Congress less than a year ago 
made substantial investments in the components and the raw 
materials to manufacture electric vehicles here in the United 
States----
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Goffman, with all due respect, I understand 
the point you are trying to make, but I beg to differ.
    And you used the word ``diversify.'' To me, this does more 
than diversify. To me, this mandates. And there is a big 
difference between diversification and mandating.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, our intent with this rule is not to 
create a mandate. We don't see the Clean Air Act as doing 
anything different from what we did in this proposal, which is 
to set grams per mile emissions performance standards, which 
we, based on what we see, is available, affordable technology, 
and then----
    Mr. Carter. Do you feel like the internal combustible 
engines would be able to meet those, though?
    Mr. Goffman. We think of--we project that fleets that 
include both EVs and internal combustion engines will be able--
--
    Mr. Carter. So the hybrids.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Wide level to meet these 
standards.
    Mr. Carter. Well, now I want to follow up on what my 
colleague from California just asked you about. Did you take 
into consideration any of the low-income families that rely on 
internal combustion engines to get to work, to get to school, 
to get to groceries, any--all of those things?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, we did take--we took into consideration 
the affordability of meeting these standards.
    Mr. Carter. Well, look. I represent south Georgia. It is a 
vast area, and a lot of traveling. And it--I mean, we need 
internal combustion engines in south Georgia. And we have got a 
lot of low-income families. And this is going to have a major, 
major impact.
    And again, I just--I want to reiterate that I feel like 
this is one of the most inappropriate and blatant examples of 
picking--of the Government picking winners and losers that I 
have ever witnessed. And--but I do appreciate you being here, 
and I appreciate your work.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Dingell from Michigan for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think today's 
legislative hearing is very important, and it is very important 
to the industry that I represent. I do want to say that we are 
considering four bills that I believe could have potential 
harmful effects on the future of the automotive industry and 
would fail to help consumers truly afford the clean vehicles, 
the future that Detroit is building.
    Collectively, these bills could undo the good progress we 
have made on reducing harmful vehicle emissions and would 
stymie future automotive innovation. And these bills are 
clearly disconnected right now from the market reality. Right 
now every major automotive company in the United States and 
around the globe is in a race to manufacture and ship greater 
and greater numbers of clean vehicles, including hybrids, 
battery electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
    So with due respect to my colleagues on the other side, I 
oppose each of your bills at this time, but I do share many of 
the concerns my Republican colleagues have raised here today. 
If we are to successfully make the needed transition to 
electrification, we have to do so in a comprehensive way and 
build on all the meaningful bills from last Congress, and we 
need to do it together.
    So, Mr. Goffman--and I am going to ask you to be concise, 
because I have a lot of questions--thank you for being here. I 
would like to start with the real concerns I am hearing and 
that I share as it relates to the EPA's recently proposed rule 
on multipollutant emission standards for light- and medium-duty 
vehicles beginning in model year 2027.
    First off, in your testimony you say the proposed standards 
align with commitments already made by automakers in the U.S. 
States as they plan to accelerate clean vehicle technologies in 
the light- and medium-duty fleets in the next 10 to 15 years. I 
will be honest, I don't think this is consistent with what the 
industry or labor has committed to. So, Mr. Goffman, can you 
expand on what you mean, and how this proposal aligns with 
commitments made by the automakers?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thanks for that question. I am glad to 
be able to address it. What I was referring to was a couple of 
things.
    One, in August of 2021, 3 companies----
    Mrs. Dingell. Three companies joined with the 
environmentalists and labor to a 50 percent goal.
    Mr. Goffman. That is right. And then, in the fall of last 
year, at least one American company announced principles to--
what they called principles to set as a goal of 100 percent EVs 
by 2035----
    Mrs. Dingell. Goals, if the underlying foundation is there.
    Mr. Goffman. And that is exactly why part of the process we 
are engaged in now is collecting information from the companies 
about how these rules ultimately will interact with their 
business plans.
    We are at a technical level, Congresswoman, spending time 
really talking to the companies, collecting information, and 
making sure that what our rules do work together----
    Mrs. Dingell. I have a lot more questions, and you know the 
companies have expressed their reservations to you.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mrs. Dingell. While Administrator Regan has stipulated the 
emissions proposal does not require a particular propulsion 
technology, it is clear that battery electric vehicles would 
need to account for 67 percent of new vehicle sales by 2032, up 
from under 6 percent as of last year.
    Mr. Goffman, can you explain how EPA measures success in 
terms of a nearly 10 times increase in light-duty 
electrification compared to new vehicle sales in 2022? Quickly, 
please.
    Mr. Goffman. Again, the way we ultimately define the 
success of this program is if it supports the goals that 
companies like, say, GM have announced to----
    Mrs. Dingell. But what if they can't get there because what 
needs to be in place isn't there?
    What if people can't afford to buy the vehicles?
    What if the charging stations aren't there?
    What happens if the assumptions and forecasting that EPA 
relies upon aren't viable?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, our first line--we have three lines of 
defense to answer that.
    One is we have run a number of different analytic cases to 
see how and at what rate these emissions standards could be 
achieved. We have asked for public comment on that. We are also 
getting input and information from the companies.
    And then, as you know, there is at least the precedent of--
from a previous rulemaking--of mid-term review. Now, the 
companies have not raised that with us, but what they are doing 
is working with us----
    Mrs. Dingell. I believe they have raised it----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. On the four----
    Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. And you are going to be getting 
comments.
    Mr. Goffman. OK.
    Mrs. Dingell. I have 34 seconds----
    Mr. Goffman. OK.
    Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. And a lot more questions. I am 
going to ask you for the record to talk about whether the new 
proposed EPA GHG rules are factoring into other fuel economy 
regulations. Based on my conversations I have had with 
industry, labor, and my own constituents, it is clear we still 
need additional EV charging solutions and investments if we are 
going to be able to assure every family in America who wants an 
electric vehicle can reliably access charging.
    I also am going to ask you to give us what analysis you did 
to evaluate the charging infrastructure necessary.
    But I have a UAW question. I would like to know more about 
the work EPA has done to study the impact this proposal will 
have on autoworkers. Mr. Goffman, what are the proposed 
standards projected to do--impact on employment?
    Has the EPA evaluated the impact on the union workforce 
that produces light- and medium-duty ICE vehicles?
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Goffman, I am going to ask you to take 
that question for the record.
    Mr. Goffman. OK.
    Mr. Johnson. And if you would get back, I would appreciate 
it.
    The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
today's legislative hearing, and also for allowing me to waive 
on to the subcommittee today. I appreciate it.
    Along with the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, California, and 
Florida, I am proud to colead the Preserving Consumer Choice 
and Vehicle Purchases Act, and I thank the subcommittee chair 
and the full committee chair for working with us to get to this 
point today.
    This legislation builds on the previous work that we did 
last fall, which included a letter with over 150 House Members 
to President Biden advocating for the rights of our 
constituents to purchase whatever vehicles they so choose. 
Unfortunately, we never received a response from the 
administration. To me, this signals that the administration is 
not prioritizing the rights of consumers in their 
deliberations.
    Without repeating the same points as my coleaders on this 
legislation, I cannot emphasize enough that California's 
efforts to ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles 
will have national implications. It will, as stated by others, 
will increase costs for Americans and add to greater 
instability for an already strained electric grid.
    Mr. Deputy Administrator, since the President did not 
respond to our concerns that we outlined in our letter last 
year and your written testimony doesn't indicate any specific 
stance on the bill, do you know, is the administration opposed 
to this legislation?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know, because we have--the 
administration has not taken a position yet on the legislation.
    Mr. Latta. Did the administration forward the letter on to 
the EPA?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know. I just--I am not calling up to 
mind that particular letter, so I just don't know about----
    Mr. Latta. If you could, if you would get back to me on 
that, I would like to know if the EPA, you know, received that 
letter from the President then to work on.
    When Congress first wrote title 2 of the Clean Air Act, do 
you believe it was the Congress' intent to allow one State to 
have the ability to implement a de facto national mandate on 
what specific vehicle consumers could purchase?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe what Congress intended to do was to 
give States the option of adopting California's standards if 
EPA granted a waiver for those standards. And, of course----
    Mr. Latta. I am sorry, could you speak into the microphone? 
It is--there we go.
    Mr. Goffman. I am sorry.
    Mr. Latta. But you said that you believe it was what?
    Mr. Goffman. I believe that the intent--I don't--I believe 
the intention of Congress was to give States the option after 
EPA granted waivers--a waiver to California--to adopt 
California's standards as appropriate to address the air 
quality problems within their States.
    Mr. Latta. But--and again, though, in this situation, could 
it be a de facto national mandate when you look at the size of 
California, especially the States around it, what it could do 
to other States having to then adhere to what California is 
doing?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, sir, the mechanism under the Clean Air 
Act is for States to exercise their option to choose to adopt 
California standards.
    Mr. Latta. Well, and--because our time is short here--but 
again, if California would do it, it could be in a situation 
that would be almost a de facto mandate on the other States.
    Let me move on, because I am running out of time here. You 
know, and again, as you have already heard, in order to move on 
to an all-EV fleet, which is what California wants to impose on 
the entire country, the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
has stated that the United States will need to generate at 
least 50 percent more electricity.
    Now, again, when EPA starts reviewing things, do you look 
at what EIA says, that we are going to have to have 50 percent 
more energy generation by that point in time? Because I know, 
when I have talked to the electric co-op associations, they are 
saying that the amount is over 50 percent.
    So--and also, as has also been pointed out by other 
Members, how much does EPA look at, then, that--on generation 
alone? Do you look at the statistics out there that, you know, 
we could be having brownouts, blackouts across the country?
    And even last September, when the Governor of California 
just recently said they wanted to go to this EV mandate that--
that almost following weekend they had a heat wave, where 
everyone was supposed to turn up their air-conditioners, and 
then not plug in their cars.
    So how much does EPA look at on the energy production in 
this country that we would have to have just to meet the 
requirements of having an EV fleet?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, when we issued this proposal for these--
this set of standards, we did do an analysis of the net 
increase in demand. And what we project for 2030 is that these 
standards would increase demand by 4/10 of a percent, and then 
go up to 4 percent in 2050.
    Mr. Latta. I am sorry, when you say the--pardon me, Mr. 
Chairman.
    When you say 4 percent, are you talking about we need 4 
percent more energy?
    Mr. Goffman. Four percent more energy to----
    Mr. Latta. Well, how--I am kind of confused, then. How does 
EIA come up with 50 percent?
    Mr. Goffman. I am not--I know we considered--we work with 
the EIA. I don't know. I would need to go back and look at the 
particulars----
    Mr. Latta. What I would like you to do----
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. Of the EIA's analysis.
    Mr. Latta. I will make sure that we get the EIA information 
to you all.
    Mr. Goffman. OK.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
allowing me to waive on. This is a very important hearing.
    Briefly, I just wanted to identify with the comments of 
Representatives Joyce, Obernolte, of course, my good friend, 
Mr. Latta, my colleagues on the Preserving People's Freedom to 
Buy Affordable Vehicles and Fuel Act.
    I just wanted to emphasize the national effect this new 
California regulation would have. California has 17 other 
States bound to follow its air quality standards. Therefore, 
this standard would have an effect on 40 percent of the market, 
making it a de facto national impacting policy, as my good 
friend Mr. Latta said. This means that the residents in my 
State will most likely see an increase in vehicle costs and a 
decrease in choice.
    That also means that automakers, convenience store owners, 
farmers, and car dealerships nationwide will also be negatively 
affected by this California policy.
    We can't let California and the Biden administration ban 
combustion engines, and Preserving People's Freedom to Buy 
Affordable Vehicles and Fuel Act is the way to stop it. This is 
a priority for us, and we really appreciate you giving me the 
time, Mr. Chairman.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for letting me 
waive on, as well.
    Michiganders care about cars, as you might expect, and care 
about trucks, pickup trucks especially.
    I want to better understand the Biden administration's 
thinking on vehicles. So, Mr. Goffman, just to kind of lay the 
foundational consideration here, I would like a yes or no on 
whether or not you believe that all Americans should have 
access to reliable, available, functional, and affordable cars 
and trucks.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Do you believe any rules you are 
issuing should make cars less available, less affordable, and 
less functional for consumers and their needs?
    Mr. Goffman. No.
    Mr. Walberg. Then let me move on. Your testimony discusses 
new vehicle sales numbers. Could you tell me roughly what new 
car sales were 5 years ago and 10 years ago?
    Mr. Goffman. Off the top of my head, I can't.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, let me add to it, because being a car 
guy from Michigan, I have to know these type of things.
    Ten years ago, it was 15 million in sales. Five years ago, 
it was 17.1 million in sales vehicles themselves. Total sales 
peaked at 18.665 million in April of 2021.
    Your testimony claims that, under your proposed rule, the 
number of new ICE vehicles will be slashed by close to half 
between 2027 and 2032. How many new EVs does EPA expect to be 
available and affordable for consumers to replace that cut?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, the--we expect there to be enough EVs to 
meet demand and meet the performance standard. But the----
    Mr. Walberg. Well, and I appreciate you saying ``we expect 
that,'' because it is certainly a guess and, by golly, what in 
the world it is going to be, based upon what we are seeing so 
far and based upon, you know, the Michiganians, Michiganders, 
whatever we call ourselves in any given time, expect and what 
we need.
    Under your proposed rule, will there be more cars on the 
road in 15 years or less when your rule is entirely 
implemented?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't know the total, offhand. I----
    Mr. Walberg. But more or less, what would we expect?
    Mr. Goffman. More or less--we don't expect these rules--we 
didn't assume or premise these rules on any kind of reduction 
in demand for vehicles.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, between State and EPA requirements on 
the auto sector over the last 10 years, it is hard to say there 
has been no impact on the price of compliance. And that has got 
to have an impact on the number of cars that will be on the 
road.
    Can you tell me what the average price of a vehicle over 
the last couple of years--or how it has changed?
    Mr. Goffman. Over the last couple of years, no, I don't 
know that.
    Mr. Walberg. I set you up so I could answer that again, and 
let me tell you, the answer is that back in 2021 the reported 
estimated average transaction price for a light-duty vehicle in 
the United States was $37,876. According to Kelley Blue Book 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average new car price 
at the beginning of 2023 is $49,388.
    Will you commit--and that of the EPA--will you commit that 
this proposed rule is not going to directly or indirectly raise 
the price of new vehicles for consumers?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, what I can commit to is that between now 
and the time we finalize this rule, this--these proposals, we 
will be focusing on that issue and addressing it.
    Mr. Walberg. Oh, I hope you are, because my constituents 
need to know that. They need to understand that they are not 
going to experience what California has experienced. They don't 
want to have to leave--well, if we do it all, there is no place 
to go to, there is no place to flee like Californians.
    Let me get to this question: Will your proposed rule reduce 
the number of affordable SUVs and small trucks?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't believe so. And certainly, we will 
again address that issue, because one of the objectives of this 
rule is to ensure that vehicles that--or fleets that meet these 
standards are affordable.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I hope that is the case. But just to be 
sure this proposal doesn't cause problems for consumers, will 
you commit to inserting a regulatory off-ramp into the rule, 
light- and medium-duty rule, if new vehicles either become more 
expensive or unreliable, auto choice or functionality is 
limited, or those cars are unavailable to American consumers?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, we anticipate ideas like that being 
raised in the comment record and we will, of course, will 
consider them.
    Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, and I hope it comes to 
fruition. Because if it doesn't, my constituents' way of life 
is altered irretrievably.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Goffman, thank you for your tireless work at EPA to 
advance critical clean air regulations that are critical for 
our--for the health of our planet and our communities.
    Mr. Goffman, since Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction 
Act the private sector has committed over $120 billion in 
domestic electric vehicle manufacturing and battery 
investments. Do these investments give the EPA confidence that 
its proposed light- and medium-duty vehicle emission standards 
can be reached?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes. Yes, they do. In fact, we are finalizing 
these proposals in the coming months in a context in which 
Congress has made substantial investments and the auto industry 
itself has made substantial investments in producing exactly 
the results that these proposals are intended to produce.
    Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you. EPA estimates the benefits 
of its proposed light- and medium-duty vehicle emission 
standards will exceed costs by at least $850 billion. Can you 
tell us about some of the benefits for our communities?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, these rules will have substantial impact 
on improving air quality in communities, and that means they 
will have substantial impact on public health. We project that 
in one of the years we--one of the single years we analyzed, 
these proposals would reduce up to 1,700 premature deaths 
related to air pollution. And that is just in one year.
    We determined that there would be a substantial reduction 
in hospital visits, aggravated asthma attacks, nonfatal heart 
attacks, and all of the health costs in human terms and in 
financial terms that are associated with those impacts.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for bringing those up. Often 
when I go across the country, and certainly in my district, it 
is parents talking about their children, their health, the 
health impacts. So often overlooked is the amount of money we 
save in healthcare costs, and you can't put a dollar figure 
on--when somebody is sick and in the hospital, you as a parent, 
as a loved one, you say to yourself, ``I don't care what it 
would cost to make my loved one better.'' So thank you.
    As you noted in your testimony, EPA's notice of proposed 
rulemaking offered different options that EPA could take for a 
final rule. I want to just urge the EPA to choose the most 
ambitious option that will result in the greatest number of 
zero-emissions vehicles sales over the life of the rule that 
will maximize the benefits that you just outlined.
    Mr. Goffman, EPA has proposed a rule to strengthen our 
national air quality standards for particulate matter, a 
pollutant--a toxic pollutant estimated to cost tens of 
thousands of excess deaths each year. Public health groups 
argue the proposed standard should be stronger and follow the 
recommendations of EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee, and many Democrats agree.
    This spring, 85 Members of Congress, led by myself and 
Representative Blunt Rochester, wrote the EPA requesting a 
final rule that follows a recommendation of your advisory 
committee. Will EPA finalize a rule that follows the 
recommendations of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Goffman. Thank you for that question. We are right now 
in the process of deliberating on the record that we got back 
from the proposal that we issued at the end of last year. And 
we are certainly taking--we are putting a lot of weight on what 
the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee, as well as other 
experts who submitted comments, as--we are putting great weight 
on all of that as we finalize our decision.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. I urge, again, EPA to set 
stronger particulate matter standards that protect our 
communities. It would make sense, given the positive steps EPA 
is taking to reduce particulate matter from cars, trucks, and 
power plants.
    Mr. Goffman, my last question is, has the Renewable Fuel 
Standard reduced greenhouse gas emissions?
    Mr. Goffman. As part of the rulemaking we announced 
yesterday, we analyzed that question, and we determined that 
there would be about a 50-billion-ton-per-year--did I say 50 
billion? I meant 50-million-ton-per-year net reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions under the standards we--or the 
renewable volume obligations we finalized yesterday.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you so much.
    With that, my time has run. I will yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from--I am sorry, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me waive on 
here.
    And thank you, Mr. Goffman, for being here. Let's talk 
eRINs for a minute, OK?
    I am an individual that actually created and traded them in 
my former life. I understand that if EPA creates a new eRINs 
program in the future that is substantially similar to the 
eRINs program that the agency proposed at the end of 2022, the 
program could go straight to a final rule and eliminate the 
opportunity for public comment. True?
    Mr. Goffman. One of the reasons that we didn't finalize the 
proposal is that we wanted to have more engagement with the 
many----
    Mr. Pence. Sure, and I kind of want to get to that. But do 
you have to get more public comment?
    Mr. Goffman. You know----
    Mr. Pence. Or can you go right to issuing?
    Mr. Goffman. We may be able to go right to issuing, I just 
don't----
    Mr. Pence. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Goffman. I just don't know.
    Mr. Pence. So I would encourage you not to do that, right? 
I noted in the executive summary some stakeholders are strongly 
supportive, some sought significant modifications, and others 
opposed. So let's kind of talk about the impact that eRINs 
would have.
    First and foremost, what would the impact of eRINs be on 
RINs?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, when we proposed it, we proposed that in 
2025, if we had--if we were going to finalize eRINs now, that 
it would increase the volume obligation for 2025 for cellulosic 
fuel or for cellulosic volume obligations.
    Mr. Pence. So not being technically up to speed on that 
language, does that mean RINs would reduce and eRIN use would 
increase, or eRIN requirement would increase?
    Mr. Goffman. We would--we projected at the time we proposed 
this that the total volume of the program would go up to match 
the availability of eRINs.
    Mr. Pence. So what I said is incorrect. It wouldn't be--
eRIN increase wouldn't be at the expense of RINs. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Goffman. That is correct.
    Mr. Pence. OK.
    Mr. Goffman. But of course, that is one of the issues that 
some stakeholders----
    Mr. Pence. Sure.
    Mr. Goffman [continuing]. That we want to go back and----
    Mr. Pence. Well, sure. I mean, liquid fuel fuels, the 
ethanol industry, the ag industry all are very--would be very 
concerned about something like that, right?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, that is----
    Mr. Pence. Who is going to need eRINs, going forward? Who 
would be the buyers of eRINs, in your opinion?
    Mr. Goffman. I think, to the extent that eRINs were sort of 
fungible with other RINs, it would be other parties with volume 
obligations.
    Mr. Pence. So would that go beyond the transportation 
industry or the production industry?
    So let's say the car manufacturer would generate a need----
    Mr. Goffman. That is----
    Mr. Pence. Whomever generates an eRIN, who would need those 
eRINs to comply?
    Mr. Goffman. Refiners with volume obligations.
    Mr. Pence. Refiners with----
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Pence. Would any other manufacturing type industries 
have to look at eRINs?
    Mr. Goffman. I don't think so.
    Mr. Pence. OK. So----
    Mr. Goffman. It would stay within the sort of four corners 
of the obligated party.
    Mr. Pence. So certain refiners buy RINs.
    Mr. Goffman. Right.
    Mr. Pence. And now those same refiners, I would assume, 
because of their production capabilities and emissions, they 
would have to buy more RINs by buying more eRINs. Correct?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mr. Pence. So that would increase their cost of production, 
which would have a negative impact on their profitability, or 
their ability to generate profits and be competitive.
    Mr. Goffman. Well, we----
    Mr. Pence. Is that correct?
    Mr. Goffman. We certainly got comments to the effect that 
that would be the effect, and there were certainly stakeholders 
that objected to that.
    Mr. Pence. Yes. So--and my concern about that is, while you 
are looking for expanding choice, as you were saying, and you 
are pushing against winners and losers, but over here on the 
liquid fuel side you would be in a sense penalizing liquid 
fuels by creating additional expenses for them which would make 
them more or--that would make them less competitive----
    Mr. Goffman. We----
    Mr. Pence. And I have run out of time, and that is 
something we will keep an eye on.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good news. I think 
I am the last person. So only 5 minutes to go.
    I want to clarify something I think I heard you say 
earlier. Did you say that the EPA has estimated that the extra 
amount of electricity you will need on the grid for the switch 
to electric vehicles is only 4 percent by 2050? Is that what 
you said?
    Mr. Goffman. Yes, 4/10 of a percent in 2030, and then going 
up to 4 percent in 2050.
    Mrs. Lesko. And do you have math on this that you could 
give to the committee? Because I would be really curious how 
you came up with 4 percent.
    Mr. Goffman. Sure.
    Mrs. Lesko. OK.
    Mr. Goffman. It is in the regulatory impact analysis, which 
I can----
    Mrs. Lesko. Yes, if you could----
    Mr. Goffman. It is a page-turner, but I will get you the--
--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Goffman. I will get you the specific----
    Mrs. Lesko. Yes, if you could get me a link with the page 
number, that would be great.
    Mr. Goffman. Yes.
    Mrs. Lesko. I would like to see it.
    I am going to switch. I am from Phoenix, Arizona. I 
represent Phoenix, Arizona, and some suburbs. I have the Taiwan 
Semiconductor Plant in my district that is newly being built.
    Mr. Goffman, Maricopa County, Arizona, which is the Phoenix 
area, has developed 2 proposed emission reduction credit rules, 
rule 204 and 205. These rules have languished before region 9 
for approval for years. In fact, rule 204 was submitted 3 years 
ago and is still awaiting a response. Do you have a timeline on 
the approval of rule 204 and/or 205?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, thank you for that question. This has 
recently been brought to my attention by others in the 
delegation, as well. And our--EPA's region 9 understands the 
importance of getting to a resolution on those rules. And I 
know from conversations I had with my colleagues in region 9 in 
the last few weeks that they are working with the State and 
with the county to resolve some issues and try to get a 
decision across the finish line.
    I think we have a very acute and vivid understanding of how 
important these rules are to economic development and air 
quality in Maricopa County.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you very much for that answer. 
Hopefully, it will get done pretty soon.
    The administration and this Congress has made it a priority 
to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States 
through the CHIPS Act. Unfortunately, without a strong 
industrial history, Arizona is limited in its option to 
generate credits to meet the Clean Air Act offset requirements. 
Without a long-term solution, The Federal requirements will cap 
the growth of these very manufacturing facilities which are key 
to the future technology to reduce ozone.
    So my question is, is the EPA dedicated to finding long-
term alternatives for new ways to create emission reduction 
credits to enable States like Arizona to continue to attract 
investment and grow into the clean, innovative technology 
manufacturing hub?
    Mr. Goffman. Well, I am glad you asked that question. I 
know that recently Maricopa County, working with the State 
Department, the Arizona DEP, and with region 9, came up with an 
innovative approach to using offsets from the transportation 
sector, from a fleet, to help a facility meet its offset 
requirements.
    And so what we are learning is that there is a very 
important supportive role that we can play in working with 
States and air quality districts as they come up with 
innovative strategies for addressing the offset needs of new or 
reinvested facilities, which is one of the reasons that we know 
that Arizona is looking at 204 and 205, and really needs us to 
be responsive on that.
    So what I am saying is that, at the State and air quality 
district level, we are seeing increasing leadership in 
innovation, and we are committed to supporting that.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. That would be very helpful. You 
know, we are just doing a lot of great things in Arizona. And 
so sometimes regulations--quite frankly, the EPA--kind of hold 
us back from doing what we need to do. And so any help in that 
aspect would be greatly appreciated.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back.
    I think, if it is--Mr. Goffman, first of all, thank you for 
taking the time out of your busy schedule to be with us today. 
These are very serious questions. And, you know, your rules 
coming out of the EPA are very serious, and I understand that. 
So thanks for joining us today to have this discussion over 
these pieces of legislation.
    With that, I will excuse you, and we will ask our other 
panelists to please take your seats. And while we get arranged, 
we will take a quick 5-minute break and then come back and get 
started.
    The subcommittee stands in recess for 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Johnson. The subcommittee will again come to order. I 
thank our guests for the second panel for taking your seats.
    Our witnesses for the second panel are Mr. Chet Thompson, 
president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers; Mr. Neil Caskey--have I got that right, Caskey--
CEO of the National Corn Growers Association; Ms. Genevieve 
Cullen, president of the Electric Drive Transportation 
Association; and Mr. Scott Lambert, president of the Minnesota 
Auto Dealers Association.
    Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF CHET THOMPSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
  OFFICER, AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS; NEIL 
    CASKEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS 
   ASSOCIATION; GENEVIEVE CULLEN, PRESIDENT, ELECTRIC DRIVE 
   TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND SCOTT LAMBERT, PRESIDENT, 
               MINNESOTA AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION

                   STATEMENT OF CHET THOMPSON

    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you and good afternoon, Chairman 
Johnson, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. It 
is a real honor to be here this afternoon. I have the great 
privilege of representing the American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers. Our members lead the world in the manufacturing 
of gasoline, diesel, jet, and renewable fuel.
    Our refineries and the products we produce every day are 
critical assets to the United States. This was made abundantly 
clear most recently when Russia invaded Ukraine last year. In 
fact, it was around that time when President Biden called our 
industry to reopen refineries and make more, not less, fuel. 
That is because we supply reliable and affordable fuel not only 
to the United States but to our allies all around the world, 
and we do so cleaner, safer, and more efficiently than any 
other country in the world.
    Our energy security is a national strength. That is why 
AFPM supports the legislation under consideration today. Here 
are just a few key points from my written testimony.
    First, and importantly, AFPM is fully committed to 
improving vehicle efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity 
of transportation. Today's fleet, as you know, is bigger, 
heavier, and more powerful than ever before. Yet it is also the 
highest in fuel economy and the lowest CO2 emission 
rate on record. We also are committed to lowering the carbon 
intensity of fuels. In fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, I have 
testified multiple times before this very committee in support 
of a national octane standard that would lower carbon emissions 
from cars and trucks.
    Second, and very importantly for the subject matter today, 
California's ban of the new internal combustion engine and 
EPA's proposal to effectively do the same are clearly unlawful. 
Eliminating consumer choice is not the American way. Ingenuity 
is. Congress, this is the only body in this country, in this 
town that has the authority to develop our Nation's energy and 
transportation policies, not EPA, and surely not one State that 
fancies itself a super State.
    Now, to be clear, AFPm is not anti-electric vehicle. My 
members produce a lot of plastics that go into electric 
vehicles. But we are anti-bans.
    Third, our transportation policies should be realistic, and 
they should reflect the full life cycle of fuels and batteries. 
Right now EPA and California want to measure emissions 
exclusively at the tailpipe. This means that emissions 
generated upstream, places like battery production, mining, 
during EV charging, they are not even accounted for at all. 
This gives consumers the false impression that there is such a 
thing called a zero-emitting vehicle. There is no such thing.
    A tailpipe-only approach ignores the investments refiners 
and biofuel producers are making in reducing emissions 
throughout--through carbon capture, lower carbon hydrogen, and 
alternate feedstocks, just to name a few of the technologies we 
are invested in. Liquid fuels like renewable diesel and 
sustainable aviation fuel can reduce emissions by 80 percent. 
And guess what? We can do that today without overhauling our 
fuel and our vehicle infrastructure. Yet they are not even 
considered under a tailpipe-only approach. This makes 
absolutely no sense.
    In addition to being unlawful, mandating EVs and banning 
gasoline and diesel cars and trucks is bad for consumers. It is 
bad for our national security. It would trade our hard-won 
energy security for mineral dependance on countries that simply 
don't have our best interests at heart, countries like China. 
Last year, 85 percent--85 percent--of all the crude that ran 
through U.S. refineries were sourced from right here in North 
America. Let's contrast that to China, which owns 80 percent of 
global battery manufacturing capacity. Forced electrification 
would make us less secure as a country, not more.
    The world is growing, and we need more energy, not less. We 
need all options to remain on the table to meet this demand, to 
maintain our energy security, and to continue to reduce 
emissions from the transportation sector.
    Finally, AFPM supports both of the RFS bills under 
consideration today. EPA did the right thing yesterday by 
abandoning--it is a theme here--its unlawful attempt to turn 
the RFS into yet another subsidy for electric vehicles.
    We also support allowing cornstarch ethanol to qualify as 
an advanced biofuel. This might surprise some, but the RFS no 
doubt has been a challenging--has a challenging history. But we 
hope that the diverse support for this bill is a model for ways 
for us to work together going forward. A modernized RFS would 
promote competition, reduce costs, and achieve better emission 
reductions.
    In closing, we support these bills for a very important 
reason: because they foster innovation and competition, which 
is how we as a country have tackled every single challenge we 
have ever faced.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Caskey for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF NEIL CASKEY

    Mr. Caskey. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Tonko, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify. I am Neil Caskey, the CEO 
of the National Corn Growers Association, and we appreciate the 
subcommittee asking for our input on increasing consumer 
choices for affordable fuels and vehicles.
    As producers of the sustainable primary feedstock for low-
carbon ethanol, America's corn farmers stand behind 
agriculture's contributions to low-cost, cleaner domestic 
energy. Farmers' higher yields using fewer resources enable 
them to meet food, feed, and fuel needs, and their production 
improvements will help achieve biofuels with net-zero emissions 
and higher ethanol blends cost less. Cleaner liquid fuels are 
imperative. Consumers will benefit from greater choices and 
affordability without sacrificing climate progress and energy 
security.
    NCGA shares concerns regarding California's advanced Clean 
Cars II Standard reflected in H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice 
in Vehicle Purchase Act. We support uniform vehicle standards 
for both fuel economy and GHG emissions, relying on a full life 
cycle analysis to ensure a level playing field.
    California should not limit its vision of a zero-emissions 
future based on one technology but should instead focus on 
setting achievable targets and allowing innovation to maximize 
emissions reductions and improve equity.
    We also support the Fuels Parity Act, introduced by 
Congresswoman Miller-Meeks. This legislation ensures EPA uses 
the most accurate life cycle emissions assessment for biofuels: 
the Department of Energy Argonne National Labs GREET model. 
According to Argonne, today's corn ethanol is up to 52 percent 
lower in carbon intensity than gasoline, due to increased crop 
yields, reduced fertilizer intensity, and improved ethanol 
production efficiency.
    The Fuels Parity Act recognizes progress made under the 
RFS, allowing all fuels that meet the 50 percent lower 
greenhouse gas standard to qualify as an advanced biofuel. NCGA 
has a long--has long followed the principle of do no harm for 
the RFS. Therefore, we caution that any efforts to update the 
RFS must unite supporters of this successful policy and protect 
it.
    Regarding the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, NCGA 
supports policies to further reduce emissions from vehicles. 
However, we have serious concerns with the EPA's proposed rule. 
EPA's proposed rule envisions only one solution to meet new 
standards, electric vehicles, without accounting for their full 
life cycle emissions. Rather than endorse a single technology, 
we are urging EPA to focus on outcomes and open pathways for 
all low-carbon fuels and technologies, as well as advance a 
needed rulemaking to improve fuels.
    NCGA also strongly urges EPA to separate its proposal for 
renewable biomass electricity, or eRINs, from the RFS volumes 
during the RFS rulemaking process because the eRIN proposal was 
inconsistent with the way the RFS functions for other renewable 
fuels. We appreciate that EPA did not finalize the eRIN 
proposal with the RFS volume rule from yesterday.
    We also agree with the Chairs that we need to increase 
choices and access to reliable, affordable fuels and vehicles. 
Two additional bipartisan bills referred to this subcommittee 
would help deliver on the Chairs' commitment, and we urge 
consideration of these measures, as well.
    Last June, the House passed legislation that included the 
Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. We ask the House to pass 
H.R. 1608 again this Congress. H.R. 1608 would permanently 
remove outdated barriers to full market access for E15, a 
lower-cost and lower-emissions choice. More than 95 percent of 
vehicles on the road can use E15, often marketed as unleaded 
88.
    The Biden administration used emergency authority to 
prevent a disruption in E15 availability last year and again 
this year. Biofuel, retail, agriculture, and even oil 
stakeholders now support Congress permanently removing this red 
tape.
    Consumers need more choices and affordability in addition 
to EVs. Led by bipartisan committee members Representative 
Miller-Meeks and Representative Craig and 21 cosponsors, the 
Next Generation Fuels Act provides another choice. NCGA 
supports H.R. 2434 and urges the subcommittee to advance this 
bill, as well. The Next Generation Fuels Act considers fuels 
and vehicles as a system, improving our Nation's liquid fuel 
supply and transitioning new combustion vehicles to use 
advanced engines that take advantage of better fuels. This 
transition to updated fuels and vehicles would cut fuel costs, 
reduce greenhouse gases and other transportation emissions, 
while also increasing fuel efficiency.
    For consumers, these advanced vehicles and fuels mean 
additional clean choices that are affordable. For automakers, a 
better fuel allows deployment of advanced combustion engine 
technologies.
    With that, I thank you for considering our input, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Caskey follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Cullen, you are 
now recognized for 5 minutes for your statement.

                 STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE CULLEN

    Ms. Cullen. Thank you, Chair McMorris Rodgers, Chair 
Johnson, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member Tonko, and 
members of the subcommittee.
    The Electric Drive Transportation Association is the cross-
industry trade association promoting the advancement of 
electric drive transportation. EDTA's members represent the 
entire value chain of electric drive, including vehicle 
manufacturers, materials and component manufacturers, electric 
utilities, and infrastructure developers. Collectively, these 
companies are building the electric transportation ecosystem, 
which is enabling U.S. competitiveness and creating jobs while 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating transportation 
options that families, businesses, and communities want.
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee 
to talk about the electric transportation opportunity in the 
United States.
    First, a quick picture of the market. EVs are projected to 
rise to 30 percent of global new car sales by 2026, and in the 
United States that number will be 28 percent of new car sales. 
This market is accompanied by investment in building out the 
entire ecosystem, from supply chains to chargers. And what it 
all points to is that the future of transportation is 
electrified. Our choice now is simply whether we are going to 
lead in this market or follow.
    For consumers, an electric future means more transportation 
options, fuel and maintenance savings, and healthier 
communities. Consumers have 87 models to choose from today at 
all price points and sizes, and that number will increase to at 
least 150 models by 2027. The used EV market is poised to 
follow this rapid growth in the new EV market. Both the new and 
used vehicle sales are reinforced by Federal and State purchase 
incentives that accelerate price parity, putting some vehicles 
at or below the cost of their conventional counterparts today.
    Domestically produced electricity, on average, costs the 
equivalent of $1.20 a gallon of gasoline. This price is stable 
and insulated from the volatility of global oil markets. 
Drivers of battery electric cars save roughly 60 percent in 
energy costs. Owning an EV is also cheaper. Plug-in cars incur 
only half the repair and maintenance costs of conventional 
cars.
    Electrifying the transportation sector is also an essential 
tool in combating climate change and reducing air pollution, 
which accounts for one in five premature deaths in the United 
States. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, no 
matter where you plug in in the U.S., an EV has fewer emissions 
than the average internal combustion engine vehicle.
    For the United States, an electric future means growing 
U.S. leadership in the global EV race. It has already created 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and more than $210 billion in 
private EV manufacturing and battery investments since 2021.
    As many analysts have noted, the EV industry is at an 
inflection point. What policymakers do next can help cement 
U.S. leadership, get us to full scale in the next decade, and 
secure the economic and environmental benefits of e-mobility 
for consumers and for the country. And from that perspective, 
we offer the following thoughts on the legislation before the 
committee.
    H.R. 1435's proposed changes to the EPA's Clean Air Act 
waiver program could create substantial disruption in the U.S. 
vehicle market, extending beyond California to the section 177 
States, which combined represent more than 40 percent of new 
vehicle sales.
    In addition, the legislation would hinder the States' 
ability to address their unique environmental conditions, as 
waivers are designed to do.
    The CARS Act would prohibit the EPA from finalizing its 
proposed rule for 2027 to 2032 and potentially invalidate 
previous emissions regulations. At this inflection point for 
the market, the disruption and uncertainty created by the 
changes proposed in these bills will work against U.S. market 
leadership and consumers' access to choices. Vehicle 
manufacturers and the complex supply chains that support them 
and the EV ecosystem have made substantial investments in 
reliance on the current regulatory regimes.
    EDTA supports a coherent national regulatory regime that 
promotes investment in greenhouse gas-reducing technology, and 
provides manufacturers with the support they need to achieve 
aggressive goals. We believe that informed regulators and 
engaged stakeholders working together to finalize standards is 
the way to ensure effective regulation and reward innovation in 
the vehicle market.
    Regarding the No Fuel Credits for Batteries Act, EDTA 
supports establishing an RFS pathway for renewable electricity 
used in transportation. We believe that renewable electricity 
is logically within the ambit of the program and want to work 
with the administration and stakeholders to take this important 
next step in the expansion of EV infrastructure.
    And finally, EDTA has no position on the Fuels Parity Act.
    I thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Cullen. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    Mr. Lambert, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your 
statement.

                   STATEMENT OF SCOTT LAMBERT

    Mr. Lambert. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Tonko. My name is Scott Lambert, and I am president of 
the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association.
    We represent 365 franchised new car and truck dealers in 
the great State of Minnesota. Combined, my members employ over 
20,000 people and have a sales of over $14 billion. And we are 
a truck State. Our customers purchase pickups and SUVs at an 
impressive rate of 89 percent.
    To be clear at the outset, we are not opposed to electric 
vehicles. In fact, our dealerships are making millions of 
dollars in investments for chargers, new hoists, forklifts, and 
other equipment necessary to sell and service electric 
vehicles. When consumers are ready to purchase these vehicles, 
we are very anxious to sell them. Currently, however, new EVs 
compose only 5 percent of the retail market in Minnesota. What 
we are opposed to are mandates that will force dealers to stock 
vehicles that may not appeal to consumers.
    For over 100 years, manufacturers have built and dealers 
have sold vehicles based on consumer demand. In the last few 
years that basic economic model has been replaced by one that 
now has vehicles being produced and offered for sale based 
instead on public policy. And it is a public policy that is 
impatient.
    Minnesota recently adopted the California car rules. 
Unfortunately, these rules are one-size-fits-all and, equally 
unfortunately, Minnesota does not have a southern California 
climate. The average low temperature in February in Minnesota 
is 10 degrees, while the average low temperature in Los Angeles 
for the same time period is 48 degrees. This is important, 
because the colder temperatures and need to defrost and heat a 
vehicle can reduce the battery range by as much as 40 percent, 
causing an already limited vehicle range to become even lower.
    The other significant drawback to EVs currently is their 
limited towing capability. Towing anything with any weight to 
it dramatically reduces the potential vehicle range, even in 
ideal weather conditions. This is a significant problem for 
contractors, farmers, loggers, miners who rely on their 
vehicles, just to name a few, for their livelihood. In 
Minnesota the ability to tow a boat to one of our 10,000 lakes 
is just as important.
    Another barrier to EV adoption at the moment is the lack of 
dependable EV charging. Urban consumers who don't have a garage 
to charge their vehicle overnight will find charging difficult, 
especially when there is 2 feet of snow on the ground. Rural 
consumers who drive longer distances for basic goods want to 
know that they can easily find a fast charger at their 
destination. But there are large areas of Minnesota where we 
can drive for 3 hours with no access to a fast charger.
    In Minnesota, 80 percent of the State's almost 35,000 
registered EVs reside in the Twin Cities area, where only 55 
percent of the population lives. It is simply not convenient to 
own an EV in vast stretches of farmland or northern lakes 
areas.
    The California mandate forces dealers to stock EVs at an 
increasing rate until it bans the sale of internal combustion 
vehicles by 2035. The EPA's proposed rules on mileage standards 
basically accomplishes the same goal by simply strangling the 
manufacturers with ever-increasing mileage standards. Both 
regulations distort the marketplace and fail to acknowledge the 
basic economic principles of supply and demand.
    Currently, the average electric vehicle costs approximately 
$14,000 more than the average equal gas-powered vehicle. The 
upfront price differential is a deterrent to consumers' uptake 
of EVs. For dealers being forced to stock vehicles that do not 
enjoy widespread consumer demand is a recipe for economic 
chaos.
    Over the past 100 years, the Federal Government has been 
very good at nudging the industry forward to build and sell 
more efficient and safer vehicles. I fear these new mandates 
are not nudges forward but instead are a shove off the cliff. 
When manufacturers can build an affordable truck that can go 
over 400 miles on a single charge and can tow heavier cargo, 
that will be, in my opinion, a game changer and will speed up 
the new era of mass sale of EVs, and we won't need a mandate. 
But that vehicle does not presently exist.
    We all understand the concerns about climate change, but I 
believe we should slow down and let technology get caught up in 
this sector. Violating the principles of consumer choice and 
mandating the supply of vehicles that do not work in every 
situation is folly.
    Our organization supports H.R. 1435, and hopes that 
Congress will do the right thing for consumers.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lambert, for yielding back, and 
we will now begin questioning, and I will start once again. And 
I will go directly to you, Mr. Lambert.
    My constituents in Appalachian Ohio, I think, are much like 
rural Minnesotans. They actually need to use their trucks, 
their vehicles for work. Now, Ohio doesn't get quite as cold as 
Minnesota does, but I am concerned--and you mentioned this in 
your testimony--that in real-life scenarios, while EVs have 
their place, they may be good for a quick run out to run an 
errand or to jaunt around town, that kind of thing, but the 
challenges for other uses start to compound depending on where 
you live, and in climates and geography like we live in. And 
that makes the elimination of a choice very problematic for the 
American people.
    What happens if, say, you need to tow or haul heavy 
equipment or building materials 60 to 80 miles or more, and it 
happens to be below freezing outside, and you could be hours 
from an EV charging station--that is, if there is even one in 
the direction or close by the job that you are going to?
    I mean, these are practical questions that you have to ask. 
It is like, you don't cut your grass if you don't have gas in 
your lawnmower, for crying out loud. If you can't charge your 
vehicle, you got a problem if all you have got is an electric 
vehicle.
    Mr. Thompson, in your testimony you mentioned--oh, I am 
sorry.
    So back to you, Mr. Lambert. Is that a problem, in your 
view, that you can't get to a charging station and you got 
these long distances to drive?
    Mr. Lambert. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is definitely a problem.
    Remember, it gets cold in Minnesota. And currently the 
truck on the market has a towing capability range of 80 miles. 
That is the current pickup truck. If it gets cold, that reduces 
by 40 percent. If you are planning to take your ice fishing 
house onto the lake in cold weather, you better plan your day 
pretty carefully. That is just the reality of the market right 
now.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Thompson, in your testimony you 
mentioned multiple times the dangers of this multipronged 
effort by the administration to force us into EVs, which would 
eventually lead to significant shutdowns of America's refining 
capacity. America's refining capacity is one of our strengths 
and ways we can project geopolitical power.
    I mean, I was just--I was thinking during our first panel, 
some of them--some of the questioning, you know, the 
skyrocketing costs that will result in refined fuels as they 
become in less demand, making it more costly to produce them 
and make them available.
    But our adversaries are watching, you know. We can use our 
refining capacity to project geopolitical power. China is 
rapidly building its own refining capacity. Can you speak to us 
about the national security implications of China taking over 
America's global market share in refining if we shut ours down 
and, on the West Coast, the possible effects on our military 
readiness?
    Mr. Thompson. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that 
question. Let me start off and say proudly we have the best 
refining kit in all the world right now. We are the cleanest, 
the most efficient. But we should not take it for granted.
    One thing that has happened over the last 3 years, we 
actually lost the world's leading capacity, refining capacity. 
We have now been overtaken by China. During COVID we lost over 
a million barrels per day of refining capacity in this country, 
in part due to bad policies that could indeed get worse with 
these policies if they were to proceed because this would, you 
know, create a significant dent in demand, and some refineries 
might not be able to survive in that--under that economic 
model, and we could lose more refining capacity. It is a real, 
real concern, as we felt, all of us, last year when we were 
coming out of COVID.
    But China right now is, in essence, going to become the 
world's swing refiner capacity. They have exceeded us. They 
have plans to get up to 20 million barrels a day. And so that 
takes away further leverage from us right now, as the world's 
leading producer of oil and gas and refined products.
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. Thompson. Now, you mentioned the West Coast. I will say 
we provide 750 million gallons a year of fuel to--on the West 
Coast for the military. It is a real national security--if we 
lose more West Coast refining, it would be a real, you know, a 
real impediment to our national security, something we should 
avoid.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Caskey, a key component of the Fuels 
Parity Act is requiring the use of Department of Energy's 
Argonne GREET model to measure life cycle greenhouse gas 
emission. Is the GREET model considered to be scientifically 
sound?
    And secondarily, how does the GREET model benefit domestic 
biofuels as opposed to international standards?
    And I am already out of time, so if you could answer 
quickly.
    Mr. Caskey. I would just answer that it is absolutely the 
gold standard, and it does--it is the most robust and 
transparent model that exists in measuring the carbon intensity 
of biofuels, and that is why we stand behind it.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Well, thank you very much.
    I yield back, and now I recognize the gentleman from New 
York, the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Thompson's testimony 
included a phrase that I like, ``Competing for emissions 
reductions.'' I think that is part of the ethos that our 
Republican colleagues claim to support--all-of-the-above, 
market-based approaches--while supporting the emissions 
reductions that Democratic Members are expecting in our 
transportation system.
    That is why, instead of these messaging bills, we should be 
working together on legislation to transition our Federal fuels 
policy towards a technology-neutral, performance-based policy 
that incentivizes emissions reductions. A clean fuel standard 
would directly reward a refiner that makes those investments to 
be able to produce those lower-emission fuels. It could also 
support a biofuels producer that continues to drive down the 
carbon intensity of their product. And if an electric vehicle 
doesn't use clean electricity, such a program would penalize it 
accordingly.
    This can all happen if we transition to a performance-based 
standard that cares first and foremost about emission 
reductions. So I encourage the witnesses and other Members to 
work with us on finding consensus on such a policy. I know 
reaching agreement won't be easy, but it does seem like it 
could address much of the dissatisfaction with the current RFS.
    Ms. Cullen, I want to ask you about how EDTA's members are 
responding to the incentives of the Inflation Reduction Act and 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Are you seeing a great deal 
of private-sector investments across the supply chain to 
support zero-emission vehicles?
    Ms. Cullen. Thank you. We are, indeed. In fact, we, along 
with Atlas Organization, has documented $210 billion in EV 
supply chain investments since 2021, but there is $190 billion 
of investment that started in 2016.
    So the Federal policies in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law and the Infrastructure Reduction Act are reinforcing where 
the market is going, and they are helping to drive down costs. 
In fact, as you know, as been--we have talked a lot about costs 
here today. And the fact is, even in the tumult and the 
inflation and then the global supply chain disruptions of the 
last couple of years, battery costs have gone down 6 percent in 
year-over-year--between 2021 and 2022. So these investments are 
already paying off through the supply chain.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And if Congress continues to inject 
uncertainty into the market, whether that is by repealing 
incentives or blocking EPA's regulatory agenda, how would that 
affect your members?
    Ms. Cullen. Well, they, in fact, have--if you read any of 
the papers, you have seen they have made substantial promises 
to their shareholders, to their customers, and to their 
workforces about building the fleet of the future that 
customers want. They are investing heavily. They are making 
decisions today for the fleets that will be on the road 5 years 
from now and 10 years from now.
    So all uncertainty undermines investment, and it certainly 
doesn't accelerate our movement towards a cleaner fleet.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And do you believe the bills before 
us today could undermine the private sector's efforts to 
develop resilient domestic supply chains, build charging and 
hydrogen refueling infrastructure, and plan for a modernized 
electric grid that can integrate these new loads?
    Ms. Cullen. I absolutely do. A confused market signal does 
not provide the certainty that businesses and even consumers 
need to make the substantial investments in technology and 
supply chains. And I would have to say I think a red-light/
green-light policy is just not the way forward for plotting our 
transportation and our economic future.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Again, Ms. Cullen, I asked Mr. 
Goffman earlier about one of the bills to prevent eligible 
feedstocks from participating in the RFS just because they are 
used to power an EV. Do you believe that it would be fair to 
close off the program to eligible renewable fuels based on the 
type of vehicle they would be powering?
    Ms. Cullen. It doesn't make sense to me. We believe that 
renewable fuel used in transportation, you know, that 
electricity, if it is renewable, falls within the ambit of that 
program.
    And that--we certainly would like to work with the 
administration and participate--they said they had a lot of 
interesting comments, pro and con--and be part of that process.
    Mr. Tonko. And I would just ask a question, and you can 
perhaps respond on record. And can you discuss how eRINs might 
contribute to a more resilient grid with more distributed 
energy resources?
    Ms. Cullen. Creating more stakeholders and more 
participants in a renewable electricity market in fact creates 
more opportunities for expanding EV charging, and even in 
particular--in places--say, remote farm areas where folks have 
assets that might be generating renewable natural gas, that we 
are--we create more opportunities to create charging that is--
that reinforces the grid or, in fact, is distributed from the 
grid.
    So more resources is better for the electricity supply, 
overall.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Chair of the whole committee, Mrs. Rodgers, for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    In prior committee hearings, we have heard testimony about 
how the United States is not ready to practically make the 
transition at the pace and the scale that is called for in many 
of these rules, 147 proposed rules from EPA, and that we will 
be more reliant on Chinese and the Russians to make these 
changes in the short term.
    So, Mr. Thompson, would you speak to the concerns? What 
concerns should we have about Chinese and Russian influence in 
the marketplace, and especially at a time when we see these 
countries and their leaders being more and more adversarial 
towards American security and prosperity?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, it seems--thank you for the question, 
Chairman. It seems we should be quite concerned.
    Let me tell you what happens this year. This year 85 
percent of all the crude that we run through domestic 
refineries comes from North America. So here in the United 
States or Canada, under an EV transition, a forced EV 
transition, we are going to be at the hands of China, who 
presently controls the--all the mining of the minerals required 
for EVs, the processing of these same minerals, and more than 
80 percent of the battery capacity. So it seems that we would 
be trading what we have today, which is energy security, in 
order for dependance upon China. I would think we would be very 
concerned, and it doesn't seem like this is in the best 
interests of consumers.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    You know, we heard the EPA witness this morning say that 
they estimated a 4 percent increase in electricity demand. Mr. 
Lambert, do you have any thoughts on what the proposed increase 
in electricity demand may be, given the goal of two-thirds of 
the new vehicles being sold in the United States in 2032 being 
100 percent battery electric?
    Mr. Lambert. Madam Chair, I am the car guy and not the 
power grid guy, necessarily. But I can tell you that my 365 
dealers that I represent are served by 63 different power 
providers, everything from IOUs to municipals and co-ops. They 
are all in different states of readiness. And I--a week doesn't 
go by I don't get a call from one of my dealers where they say, 
``I have got to do all this upgrade for my store, my 
manufacturer is requiring me to get all this done, but my power 
provider has no idea how to do this. I have got no specs, they 
can't tell me cost. We have got to get the power increased to 
my store. What do I do?''
    And we have actually hired an EV program director to try 
and help liaison between these different power providers and 
the stores to give them a leg up, because the mandates are 
coming.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    I am a big believer in free markets. I am a big believer in 
the power of innovation as what has set America apart. It is 
why we have led the world. It is why we have led the world in 
reducing carbon emissions. It is why we have dominated the car 
sector and new technology in cars over the last 100 years. And 
I am very concerned about an agenda right now being driven by 
the Biden administration and the EPA that is benefiting China. 
It is an agenda that benefits China. I am concerned about 
government intervention in markets that remove consumer choice 
for Americans, limit affordable options, and ultimately give 
China control of the cars and the trucks that we are going to 
have on the roads.
    So, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Thompson, would you speak to the 
impact of these--this approach, the proposed rule that EPA has 
on tailpipe emissions for consumers making their best 
decisions, and just how government is tipping the scale of the 
market to control vehicle and fuel outcomes, and how that is 
going to impact people and potentially create hardships in 
America?
    Mr. Lambert. Madam Chair, I can say simply we are for 
consumer choice, and we believe this limits consumer choice and 
gives consumers less to take home.
    If we want to try and get EVs into people's driveways, we 
should let the market happen organically and let this 
technology develop. The mandates speeding this up only allow 
people to hang on to their cars longer.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Thompson. I will just echo we certainly agree in 
consumer choice. Only a family can decide what meets their 
budget and what meets their family needs.
    The other point that should be stressed is this rule is 
unlawful. This rule is unlawful. EPA does not have the 
authority to have this transformative of a rule. The Supreme 
Court recently spoke to this, when an agency is going to make a 
rule that has massive consequences, and this--there is nothing 
more transformative. I have worked at EPA for 3 years. There is 
no bigger rule they have ever done than this one. They do not 
have the authority buried in this statute to move the society 
and our economy this way. They know it. And I appreciate what 
this legislation does to call them out on it.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I will just highlight Americans 
have chosen today--1 percent of Americans today have chosen to 
have a battery electric vehicle. One percent. And this rule is 
completely a mandate by the Federal Government to tell 
Americans what they think is best--by the EPA, not the elected 
representatives of the people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There has been lots of talk about the people and consumers. 
We have had dangerous levels of wildfire smoke from Canada 
causing air alerts in Washington, DC, and along the East Coast. 
We have had--State Farm and Allstate have stopped offering home 
insurance in California because of extreme weather driven by 
the climate crisis. And brutal heat waves that have hit Texas 
this week. Last week in--more than 40 million people in the 
South were under excessive heat warnings and heat advisories.
    These extreme weather events threaten public health and 
property costs on all Americans. These aren't just happening to 
random folks. I mean, these are Americans. These are the same 
people that we are talking about need choice. When the heat is 
extreme or they don't have the ability to keep the lights on, 
they are not given a choice.
    We really need to continue to do all we can to address the 
climate impacts. Despite these extreme weather events, 
Republicans in Energy and Commerce have another hearing to try 
to block efforts by EPA to address climate change and reduce 
air pollution.
    Ms. Cullen, for over 50 years the EPA has granted 
California waivers under the Clean Air Act to set vehicle 
emission standards stronger than the Federal Government. How 
has California's waiver authority led to a vehicle emission 
standard that improves public health and drives innovation?
    Ms. Cullen. Well, I don't think there is any disputing the 
fact that California has been a leading adopter of EV policy 
and of electric transportation. It is the largest EV sales 
market in the country. In fact, it is the largest car market in 
the country, so--but there are over a million EVs on the road 
in California today, and they are laying down a template of 
how, in fact, to answer these questions about transition, about 
how do you make these vehicles a grid asset, how do you plan 
for that increased demand, how do you build out infrastructure 
that serves inner-city and rural and highway needs?
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. I mean, one of the things 
that we have definitely seen is a reduction in emissions. We 
have seen health outcomes become a little bit better, but there 
is a lot of work to do. And in many communities, you are seeing 
increased asthma rates. In my very community you see asthma 
inhalers there.
    And the talk about the 1 percent who has gotten EVs, there 
is a shortage of them. People can't get their hands on electric 
vehicles, at least in California. There is a huge shortage of 
them. And so it is that--1 percent number, I think, also could 
attribute to the fact that the supply is not keeping up with 
the demand.
    Ms. Cullen, a bill on the hearing today--on the hearing 
agenda today would limit these EPA Clean Air Act waivers and 
even revoke recent ones for any California standard that would 
limit the sales of cars. Let me start again.
    A bill on the hearing agenda today would limit these EPA 
Clean Air Act waivers and even revoke recent ones for any 
California standard that would limit the sales of cars, would 
an internal--with an internal combustion engine. What would be 
the impact of these restrictions on innovation and clean 
vehicle options for consumers?
    Ms. Cullen. As we testified, we do not support upending the 
current rulemaking process. Our members are participating in 
it, and we--you know, we are going to be working with the 
regulators to come to a workable and effective rule, but to 
freeze the ability of EPA to move forward and to work with 
stakeholders to take the next steps in setting emissions--
performance-based emission standards undermines U.S. 
competitiveness.
    We are in a global race for--to win the EV race. There is 
just simply no option. If we do nothing, we give the market to 
China.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that.
    Other witnesses have made claims today that electric 
vehicles are not cleaner than internal combustion engines when 
you factor in the carbon footprint of the grid. Are those 
claims accurate?
    Ms. Cullen. No, they are not. It has been well documented 
by multiple sources. No matter where you plug in an EV in the 
United States, on a well-to-wheels basis it is cleaner than the 
average combustion engine. That is even in places where the 
grid is entirely grid-fired.
    Ms. Barragan. And also between the clean energy investments 
in the Inflation Reduction Act, the proposed EPA power plant 
rule, and the recent growth of clean energy resources, we know 
the grid will continue to get cleaner, right?
    Ms. Cullen. That is absolutely true. An electrified car is 
the one car that gets cleaner as it gets older, because the 
grid will get cleaner.
    Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with a 
correction here.
    It is absolutely not true, what you just said. It is not 
true. Every study has shown about 70,000 miles are required to 
break even. That is from the manufacturers themselves who want 
to sell their EVs. These are accurate studies. Now, if you 
don't take into account the entire production line and what it 
takes to actually extract the critical minerals to make the 
batteries, which are extremely complex machines, then yes, you 
might come up with different numbers. But if you do the 
calculations the right way, you come up with those numbers, 
which is really--it is interesting, because what it actually 
shows is in the short term you will actually get an increase in 
global emissions from doing EVs, because it takes so long to 
actually even break even.
    It is 70 percent more emissions required to build an 
electric vehicle versus an internal combustion engine. That is 
what the math and the studies show from the people who want to 
sell EVs. It is just not correct.
    Again, we have to ask ourselves cost/benefit, cost/benefit. 
So there is not very much benefit, it seems, but we seem, like, 
obsessed with this idea that we have to just--we have to get to 
electrification, we have to get to EVs because it will save us.
    From what? What does that even mean? I mean, what would be 
the decrease in emissions, even? And then what would the effect 
be on the climate? Those are the questions you have to ask when 
you are willing to impose massive costs on people and their way 
of life. These are very objective questions.
    So--and then I also want to talk about who are we relying 
on to build these things. So maybe, Mr. Thompson, you could 
make some remarks on this. You know, our refining capacity is 
damaged, as you said, because of COVID and because of certain 
policies and lack of investment in additional refining capacity 
because of those policies. But at least, you know, we are not 
importing it necessarily from China.
    But, you know, when 85 percent of critical mineral 
processing occurs in China, aren't EVs already--aren't the 
batteries, the battery manufacturing, isn't that already a 
Chinese product? Are we going to be more reliant on China if we 
transition drastically to electric vehicles?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, it certainly would seem that way, based 
on the data now.
    And again, to be clear, we are certainly not anti electric 
vehicles. We are anti these rules, which simply go about 
banning the internal combustion engine. That is the point.
    But yes, Congressman, you are correct that China owns--
dominates the supply chains. I saw a stat the other day that 
says, even if the United States increases its investment in 
minerals and mining by tenfold over the next 5 years, we will 
still be dwarfed. We will only have 10 percent of the supply 
chain. So think about that. Ten times.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes.
    Mr. Thompson. We will still have only 10 percent of the 
supply chain. And having worked at EPA, I know that we are not 
going to be able to permit mines in this timeframe.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Yes. I mean, what is interesting is, you 
know, the EPA suggests that these new emission standards will 
help us get to 70 percent EV usage by, whatever, 2032. You 
know, that--I don't think that is taking into account the 
actual material required to build that many EVs, right? So you 
are going to have a supply constriction there, very obviously, 
just because of the supply chain issue. So what does that do to 
cost?
    And this is what I was getting at, you know, in the last 
panel. So Mr. Lambert, you might be a good person to ask about 
this. Are costs of electric vehicles going down in the short, 
medium, or long term? Because I have data that says they have 
been going up, actually, despite them, you know, increasing in 
sales.
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, there is no indication from our 
viewpoint that costs are going down.
    Mr. Crenshaw. And how could--well, how could they go down? 
Is there anything--I mean, obviously, they are subsidized, so 
that--you know, it is a way to make them go down. Of course, 
that subsidy generally goes to wealthier folks.
    And is what I just said even accurate? Because my theory 
here is that the supply chains will constrict the supply of--
even an ability to even produce these vehicles, which means 
there is not enough of them. But the tailpipe emission 
standards are going to make it way too expensive to buy 
anything else. So when there is less supply and higher demand, 
what happens to prices?
    Mr. Thompson. Congressman, when there is less supply and 
more demand, obviously, prices go up. But understand, supply 
chain has been disrupted in a big way from the pandemic years. 
And we are still--that is still rippling through at least the 
new car economy.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Right.
    Mr. Thompson. So supplies are hard right now.
    Mr. Crenshaw. So there is no way to see the cost going 
down, right, without massive government subsidies. I mean, the 
costs are what they are just because of the market. And then 
there is the cost to the taxpayer. So you have to add in those 
costs, as well.
    So this is a massive cost to our society. And if we are 
going to impose a massive cost to our society, I want to see 
clear benefits. This is the point I always make on this 
committee, whether we are--whatever issue we are talking about. 
Whenever we are imposing a cost on Americans, you have to 
directly link it to a benefit, and that benefit is very clearly 
not there in this case.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes my colleague from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce, vice 
chair of this committee.
    Mr. Joyce. First I want to thank you, Chairman Johnson and 
Ranking Member Tonko, for holding the second panel on today's 
important hearing.
    This is important to all of Pennsylvania. This is important 
to all of America. It is great to hear from people in the real 
world, our witnesses here today who can speak to how hard-
working Americans are going to be affected by these radical 
actions taken by the Biden administration and Democrats to 
force Americans to buy electric vehicles.
    I was disappointed by the lack of foresight and wishful 
thinking by the EPA on the effects of granting the California 
waiver and implementing the tailpipe emissions regulations. It 
seems that the EPA is looking to mandate electric vehicles and 
remove the American freedom to choose the car, the truck, the 
SUV that the individual American wants to purchase.
    The facts is my constituents want to choose on their own. 
They don't want the EPA, they don't want government making 
those decisions for them. That is why I, along with 
Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, and Obernolte introduced H.R. 
1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, to 
prevent the EPA Administrator from granting a waiver allowing 
California's ban on internal combustion engines.
    As I have said before, this legislation is not anti-EVs. 
Those who can afford and who want an electric vehicle should be 
able to buy one. There is a laundry list of reasons why an 
electric vehicle mandate is bad policy.
    First, and for the most, EVs simply cannot fulfill the 
needs of my constituents. They can't drive the distances 
needed. I am in a rural district. I am in a mountainous 
terrain. In places like Pennsylvania with winters, or 
Minnesota, electric vehicles can lose a third of their range.
    Our grid is also simply not ready for the added demand, and 
we cannot build transmission or chargers fast enough.
    Lastly, this policy will harm working- and middle-class 
families by making vehicles cost thousands of dollars more for 
people who can afford it the least.
    Again, only by taking government's thumb off of the scale 
and letting the free market decide will Americans get the 
efficient and affordable transportation that they need and that 
they want.
    Mr. Thompson, our Nation is already losing refining 
capacity at a rapid rate. How would granting California a 
waiver for a ban on internal combustion engines affect 17 
States and over 40 percent of our domestic market?
    How would that hurt American energy independence and 
American energy dominance?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    And let me just say again we support--and listen, this is 
what we want, we want EPA to follow the law, we want EPA to 
recognize consumer choice, and to take into account life cycle.
    Now, this--you are right. If the California waiver is 
granted, that is 40 percent of the new car market. That is a 
substantial share of liquid fuel demand, and certainly that 
could undermine the viability of some U.S. refining capacity in 
this country. We lost over a million barrels a day of capacity 
already. And if, you know, we certainly continue to go down 
this road, it is a real threat that we would lose more, and 
that will hurt consumers, lack of supply--you know what it does 
for, you know, demand and prices. So that would not be a good 
thing.
    We don't have to do it this way.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Lambert, the Federal Government has been 
putting significant pressure on automakers to produce more 
electric cars. You talked to us about that. How is this 
pressure felt at the dealer level? And what are the real-world 
implications on your members?
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, it is a mandate to produce. It is 
not a mandate for consumers to buy. So we are stuck, the 
dealers are stuck in the middle. We will have to take on these 
vehicles.
    And remember, we purchase the vehicles from the 
manufacturers. We go to a bank, get a loan, and service that 
loan. So the dealers will be stuck with a supply of vehicles 
that they may not be able to sell, servicing the loan, losing 
money. The resulting economic chaos could be significant.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Lambert, in my district I have spoken with 
dealers who talk about just what you said: being stuck, having 
the loans, carrying the notes on these vehicles. And they are 
happy to sell EVs to those who want them, but they are seeing 
the demand wane.
    In places, as I mentioned earlier, with winters, severe 
winters like Pennsylvania and Minnesota, can EVs meet the 
demand of every customer, rural or urban?
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, no, they cannot. There is a place 
for EVs in the marketplace, but at--currently, at the current 
technology, they cannot meet everybody's need.
    Mr. Joyce. I think, as I said earlier, we need to remove 
our thumb from the scale. That place exists, but the consumer, 
the purchaser should make that decision.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. And seeing that 
votes have been called, and we are getting kind of low on the 
number, we are going to recess, and then we will reconvene 
after votes.
    So with that, the subcommittee stands in recess until after 
votes.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Johnson. The subcommittee will come to order. We are 
going to continue with our 5-minute questionings. Now the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I appreciate the opportunity to have our 
witnesses here, and thank you for coming.
    One of the things that I think I expressed rather 
passionately in the--with our previous witness is my concerns 
about this effort to transition so rapidly from gasoline-
powered vehicles to electric-powered vehicles, and how that 
impacts consumer choice. I personally drive a light-duty 
pickup. It is not a status symbol, it is my everyday vehicle. 
It is also a work vehicle. And I don't have a whole lot of hope 
that I would be able to use an electric vehicle for the things 
that I need my pickup for.
    The other thing, though, that concerns me is how this rapid 
transition to electric vehicles are going to impact safety, 
automobile safety. And what we have seen over the years as we 
have pushed these corporate auto fuel economy standards is the 
technology for increasing fuel efficiency has been good, but it 
hasn't been good enough. And so what we have had to do is 
lighten vehicles, and particularly where you are dealing with 
smaller cars and light-duty trucks or other SUVs. In those 
situations where accidents occur, the heavier vehicles--the 
consequences of getting hit by a heavier vehicle are pretty 
severe.
    And I brought this up in the previous panel. The head of 
the National Transportation Safety Board warns of these risks. 
And I would just like to get some feedback from some of you. I 
know that you are very interested in different types of fuel, 
but is this a concern to you, Mr. Thompson?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, certainly, safety is a concern, and we 
want all drivers to be as safe as possible. I am not in a 
position to speak to the physics of light versus heavy, but 
what I can say is one concern would be, you know, the average 
EV is going to be between 14 and 16 thousand dollars more 
expensive than its ICE counterpart, which, for some consumers, 
means they are going to have to delay buying new vehicles, and 
they are going to have to rely on their current vehicles for 
longer. And that would mean that some of the new modern safety 
benefits of a newer car is going to have to be foregone. And 
that certainly is something that folks should be concerned 
about.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I understand the economic consequences, 
but I am talking about the safety. And I think we all 
understand the physics well enough to know if you are in a 
boxing match with a guy that is 6-foot-4 and weighs 240 pounds, 
a heavyweight, and you are 5-11 and weigh 175 pounds, the 
impact of the blow to the 175-pounder is going to be a good bit 
more severe than the other way around. That is basic physics, 
mass versus--mass and velocity. The consequences pile up for 
the heavier object.
    Mr. Caskey, I know you are here to talk about the benefits 
of ethanol. But again, does the safety concern impact your 
decision making if you were to buy a vehicle?
    Mr. Caskey. Sure. Safety is, obviously, a concern in all 
things farming. And I can't really speak to the physical 
physics of that, either. But I can say from a clean air 
standpoint that ethanol has an incredible track record of 
cleaning the air, and it is--and helping in climate change. So 
if we talk about safety in that respect, ethanol is a wonderful 
product that can help solve some of those problems.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you for working that into the 
answer. And apparently--I hope you know enough about physics to 
know the problems with heavier vehicles.
    And Ms. Cullen, I know you are all for the electric 
vehicles, so I can anticipate that you are not concerned, but 
maybe you should be.
    Ms. Cullen. Well, I think everyone is concerned with 
safety, and no one wants to be creating more hazard. And I 
believe it is the function and the mission of NHTSA to regulate 
the safety of vehicles on the road. And the mismatch between 
smaller and bigger, heavier and lighter cars has been happening 
since cars were invented and, in fact, was exacerbated when the 
fleet transitioned to SUVs. And it was the weight of SUVs and 
how they were constructed that was such a menace to smaller 
cars. So there----
    Mr. Palmer. Well, I will just point out----
    Ms. Cullen. So we, in fact, created safety regulations to 
mitigate those risks, and I would assume NHTSA would do the 
same----
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, if I may continue this just for a 
minute longer, because I think the thing that you need to know 
is, if you take the electric Mustang, which is a Mach 2, I 
believe, it is a third heavier than its gas-powered 
counterpart. We are talking a disproportionate increase in 
weight, as opposed to--I mean, if you choose to drive a Prius 
and you get hit by a light-duty truck, that is an issue, 
obviously.
    But--and then, Mr. Lambert, I will just let you close this 
out.
    And I will yield back after his answer. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and--for holding 
this important hearing.
    Mr. Lambert, I will let you answer that question because I 
got another question for you. You can answer both of them for 
my friend Mr. Palmer.
    Early in the first panel I highlighted the impact that 
regulations proposed by the Biden administration would have on 
rural communities--and of course, we have just talked about 
light-duty trucks--and middle-income families, which--these are 
my constituents.
    This push to electrify our vehicle sector will have severe 
impacts on the reliability of the grid--many States are already 
having brownouts--and the affordability of vehicles that our 
constituents need to perform everyday tasks. It is critical 
that consumers are provided with choice.
    And Mr. Thompson, you noted in your testimony how the State 
of California is utilizing a waiver from the Environmental 
Protection Agency to adopt a standard which will essentially 
ban traditional gasoline and diesel vehicles in California. 
Should this waiver be approved by EPA, it could have negative 
impacts for vehicles across the Nation. Can you elaborate on 
the impacts that approval of this Clean Air Act waiver could 
have on other States like my home State of Georgia, and for 
citizens across this country?
    Mr. Thompson. Yes, thank you for that question. Again, let 
me start off by saying we think that California's--or EPA's 
approval of the California waiver would be unlawful. We don't 
believe that California is meeting the intent of the Clean Air 
Act that gave California that ability to get a waiver. And what 
is happening now is that, as you say, if it is granted, it will 
be 40 percent of the new car market, which means every consumer 
in this country is going to be subsidizing the price of these 
EVs.
    You can see it, and it is in the news every day. I think 
Ford had some commentary on this recently. They are losing lots 
of money on every car they sell. So what ends up happening is 
all cars, including gas- and diesel-powered trucks, have to be 
more expensive to make up for that.
    Mr. Allen. Exactly.
    Mr. Lambert. So that is going to impact--and then, of 
course, if we lose any more refining capability, that is going 
to jeopardize fuel supplies for everyone in the country.
    Mr. Allen. Exactly. And I--of course, my colleague 
Congressman Joyce earlier mentioned his bill, H.R. 1435, which 
I am a cosponsor of, the Preserving Choice Vehicles Act, so 
that the Federal Government could deal with this issue between 
States.
    As mentioned in this hearing, this bill would prevent a 
State from getting an EPA waiver, and if--their directive would 
directly or indirectly limit the sale or use of a new motor 
vehicle with an internal combustion engine.
    I told this in the early hearing. A dear friend of mine was 
a long-time--three-generation Cadillac dealer in my district. 
Cadillac made the determination to go all electric, came to the 
dealers and said, ``We are going all electric, and we want you 
to build this new modernized dealership.'' And he sold his 
dealership to Cadillac, as did 400 dealers throughout the 
country, 400 dealers, a huge economic impact across this 
country.
    And he said--I had asked him, I said, ``Why did you do 
that?''
    He said--and, of course he was also a GMC dealer. But he 
said, ``I have zero demand for electric vehicles.''
    And, you know, and it is what--Mr. Lambert, it cost 20, 25 
million dollars to build a dealership at this day and time, a 
new dealership?
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, yes. To build a new dealership, 
it would probably be $20 million.
    Mr. Allen. Yes. So EPA is forcing this. It has got to be 
free market. So--and of course, I have said, you know, General 
Motors better not come back to us, Congress, and ask for help, 
financial help, when they are--when they go upside down 
because, again--and they are going to blame it on the 
Government. ``Well, the Government said we had to do this.''
    So, Mr. Lambert, can you speak to this rush to electric 
vehicles perpetrated by the Federal Government and an agency of 
this Federal Government, and what it is going to do to 
dealerships across this country?
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, we used to--15 years ago we had 
41 Cadillac dealers in Minnesota, and now we have 11. They are 
selling a third of the amount of Cadillacs. I have dealers who 
are investing a million, a million and a half dollars to 
upgrade their facilities. And they have told me it might be the 
worst money they ever spent. They do not see the ROI right now, 
because they don't have demand for these vehicles. There is a 
place for electric vehicles.
    Mr. Allen. And let me tell you what this Federal Government 
does, and it is doing the same thing to automobile 
manufacturers and dealers. The Obama administration, when they 
took office, the State of West Virginia was the tenth-best 
economy in this country. At the end of that administration, 
they were third from last. We have got to stop this Federal 
Government from perpetrating the disaster of our economy.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just earlier this 
week, the Transportation Committee in the Ohio House of 
Representatives held a hearing on legislation that would 
prohibit the State of Ohio or a State agency from adopting 
California's ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine 
vehicles.
    Given that we are discussing the Preserving Choice in 
Vehicle Purchases Act, I would like to submit several documents 
from that hearing into the record, including statements and 
testimony supporting the Ohio State's efforts from the Ohio 
Auto Dealers Association--Zach said to tell you, hi, Mr. 
Lambert; the Ohio Oil and Gas Association--my father was a 25-
year board member; Act Ohio; PBF Energy; Consumer Energy 
Alliance; and the American Fuel and Petrochemical 
Manufacturers.
    I would like to add that to the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Lambert. Thank you for being 
here today. And you have noted about the dealerships. And 
having been one myself, but--Mr. Allen has been advocating for 
automobile dealerships also--are not opposed to electric 
vehicles. And I have friends that have dealerships to this day 
that aren't opposed to it. But you are opposed--they are 
opposed to the mandates that force dealers to stock vehicles 
that may not appeal to their community.
    Would you consider the EPA's proposed regulations on 
tailpipe emissions for medium- and light-duty vehicles as a 
mandate?
    Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir, I would.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. While the waiver has not been 
accepted yet, we know that Minnesota plans to adopt these 
standards. I think we have touched on this a little bit, but if 
you want to add anything extra, obviously, you have talked 
about the dealers, but how else--is there any other thing? We 
have talked to some big truck dealers also, but how would it 
impact the dealers in Minnesota?
    Mr. Lambert. Well, Mr. Chairman--excuse me.
    Mr. Balderson. I would take that title any day, thank you.
    Mr. Lambert. Sorry, my apologies.
    Mr. Balderson. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Lambert. I apologize.
    The impacts are investments. We have got to be certain 
about what the future is for us. The dealers right now are 
making investments that they do not feel good about because the 
product is not there that consumers want.
    And again, consumers need to have a choice. I can't say it 
enough. They need to have a choice in every category, including 
electric. And there are vehicles for them. But right now 
there's starter vehicles and low-volume vehicles, and then 
there's vehicles that allow people to show off their good 
fortune. And there's nothing really in the middle 90 percent 
that applies to people's livelihoods and lifestyles.
    Mr. Balderson. I agree. You make an excellent point in your 
testimony that these rules are one-size-fits-all and that, 
unfortunately, Minnesota does not have a southern California 
climate. Can you expand on the issues that rural populations 
and States like Ohio or Minnesota would experience if we 
transitioned as quickly as this administration is proposing?
    Mr. Lambert. Well, sir, the--it gets cold in Minnesota in 
the winter. For about 3 or 4 months out of the year, it is very 
cold. And we lose battery capacity when that happens because we 
have to defrost and heat the car, and we can lose up to 40 
percent. If you are trying to tow anything in winter weather, 
you are going to have well under 100, possibly under 50 miles 
of range on your vehicle. That affects consumers.
    Consumers are not dumb. The consumers will make the 
decisions that work for them, and they are not interested in 
those types of vehicles. We have had a lot of vehicles, a lot 
of trucks recently, electric trucks that were sold but that 
were also returned when people understood their limited 
capabilities. So the impacts are real, especially in our 
climate.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much, and I appreciate 
everyone being here today.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
all for being on the panel today, for your testimony and 
discussion on this.
    And Mr. Lambert, let's just pick right up there where we--
where I heard you leaving off. You know, I am concerned about 
the capability of these vehicles being, you know, much less 
than it was previously. And, you know, one example is a 
manufacturer that has a truck with an advertised range of 240 
miles before you hit the load of either a trailer--and, 
actually, this is coming from a car dealer who wanted to 
purchase this but had a kind of a golf-cart-style trailer. And 
you put that load on there, either with a trailer or with 
temperature being reduced, and you are talking 25 to 40 percent 
reduction in range.
    And so this is something that I am, you know, worried 
about. Do you believe that any agency or the administration has 
thought through the actual impact on transportation--this is a 
personal use trailer--but on the transportation sector, on our 
economy? You know----
    Mr. Lambert. Congressman, they are looking at numbers and 
trends, but I fear they are not looking at how people really 
use these vehicles and what it means for their livelihoods and 
their lifestyles. It just doesn't seem to work for a lot of 
people.
    If they can fix those problems, they won't need a mandate. 
People will buy these vehicles.
    Mr. Pfluger. How long have we been talking about electric 
vehicles in this country? I mean, 20 years, 50 years, 80 years, 
100 years?
    Mr. Lambert. The history of the electric vehicle is 
tortured through the manufacturing process. But I think in 
current status we have been talking about it for maybe a decade 
to 15 years.
    Mr. Pfluger. But, I mean, this is not a new subject.
    Mr. Lambert. No.
    Mr. Pfluger. And if the ranges were such that it made 
economic sense, then we would be doing it already, and the 
manufacturers would be doing it. They are for-profit businesses 
that want to maximize that.
    So, Mr. Thompson, you referenced that the United States 
would need to--and I will quote--``more than double its 
electricity supply by 2050 and build more than 75,000 miles of 
high-voltage power lines by 2035 to achieve the administration 
goals.'' Is that feasible, given, you know, what we are--given 
the scale, the timeline of the Biden's EPA mandates and 
policies?
    Mr. Thompson. It certainly doesn't seem feasible within the 
time, you know, horizon we are talking about.
    And you know, on that same point, there was a question 
earlier about, you know, the cost of charging. And I took the 
opportunity to look at, you know, an article that says that 
California, their own California Utility Commission, is 
projecting, by 2026, that the price to charge a car could be 
the equivalent of $8 a gallon and that the State of California 
would need to triple their current capacity right now to meet 
EVs in the State--triple, OK?
    And so I don't even know how you begin to get something 
like that permitted in that time horizon.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. So we have got this mandate. We go 
electric. We get to 2030 or the 2035, or whatever the other 
markers are, and we get this done. Then what is the EPA going 
to do on production, on the generation of electricity, and 
where is it going to come from?
    I have asked the witness prior on the panel, I know many of 
you were here. I have asked the Secretary of Energy. There are 
no answers for where it is going to come from, other than a 
mixture of sources, which, to me, we need specifics. And I will 
open it up to any of you.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, Congressman, I don't know where it is 
going to come from, but what I will tell you--and I tell 
others--is that if we move forward and we lose refining 
capacity in this country, it is never coming back.
    Mr. Pfluger. That is right.
    Mr. Thompson. The administration came to us last year and 
said--they knew we lost over a million barrels a day, and they 
said, ``Well, turn it back on.'' It doesn't work that way. When 
they are gone, they are gone forever. And this is a national 
treasure that we have. It gives us security. We should be 
really, really reluctant to trade that away for dependance on 
China.
    Mr. Pfluger. We are trading it away. You see the way 
Western Europe has gone. Some of the countries have completely 
turned away from reliable and affordable energy. The Texas grid 
is right now enduring 110-degree, 115-degree days. It is not--
you know, we can't take it for granted. This is a fragile 
entity that we have, and we have to make sure it has got 
baseload, dispatchable power that is ready to go. And we are 
trading it away with policies that don't make sense, and they 
are not realistic.
    The Secretary of Energy told me that by 2030, if we had the 
50 percent mandate or the different markers, that we would need 
to double the demand, which is actually quicker than your 
assessment. I don't necessarily agree with that, although I 
will take it, because they don't have a plan when it comes to 
servicing the grid and the baseload demand.
    So my time is expired. Thank you for your time today. This 
is a very important discussion. At the end of the day, this is 
a national security discussion. And if we trade it away and we 
go the way of some of the countries in Western Europe, we will 
absolutely be in a more vulnerable place than Ukraine and other 
countries have been in.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Dr. Miller-Meeks for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the 
witnesses for being here.
    The Fuels Parity Act is legislation that would allow 
ethanol from cornstarch to qualify as an advanced biofuel and 
require EPA to use DOE's Argonne GREET model to determine the 
carbon content of biofuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard.
    Allowing corn to qualify as an advanced biofuel allows 
internal combustion engine vehicles to compete with EVs by 
incentivizing lower emissions from ethanol production. And even 
today there is an article in the Des Moines Register saying 
some studies show that ethanol decreases emissions by as much 
as 46 percent and biodiesel by 69 percent. So if our goal is to 
decrease emissions, biofuels is a great way to go.
    And as I stated in the earlier panel to Representative--
Ranking Member Tonko, I would be open to a discussion prior to 
the subcommittee markup of--you know, about making DOE's 
Argonne GREET model applicable to all fuels.
    Mr. Caskey, as you know, I am the author of the Fuels 
Parity Act. Why isn't cornstarch an advanced biofuel?
    Mr. Caskey. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. Thank you for your leadership on all things ethanol. 
We are grateful for that. Obviously, under current law there is 
only one biofuel that is not allowed, as--is not permitted as 
an advanced biofuel, and that is cornstarch ethanol. And so, 
obviously, your bill would change that.
    I think, you know, when the law was established, you know, 
we may not have been able to--ethanol may not have been able to 
meet that 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction standard. It can 
now. And that is largely because of the hard work, the way that 
America's corn farmers grow their crops. They are better now. 
They have better practices, they have better tools, and they 
are just--they are better at their craft. And so the things 
that they are doing from a sustainability standpoint are 
amazing, and that is why we are able to hit that standard, 
along with the work at the plants. They are a lot more 
efficient.
    And now cornstarch ethanol is able to hit that standard, 
and so it makes sense that this--that law be amended, as your 
legislation would do. And we are grateful for that change. It 
is overdue.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Moving to the Argonne GREET requirement 
and the Fuels Parity Act, your testimony characterizes the 
Department of Energy's Argonne GREET model as the Federal 
Government's most robust and transparent tool for measuring 
carbon intensity.
    Earlier today Mr. Goffman testified that the EPA should use 
multiple models. Do you know why the EPA would oppose the use 
of a model that the DOE relies on?
    Mr. Caskey. It is a great question. I know EPA has even 
suggested that the model that they are currently using is 
outdated. And when you look at GREET, it is developed by the 
Department of Energy. It is the gold standard in terms of 
measuring carbon intensity of biofuels and transportation, and 
it just makes a lot of sense to use it across the board. And 
certainly we would favor that, as well.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
    Mr. Thompson, would you say that the EPA and the Biden 
administration's forced push to EVs by looking solely at 
tailpipe emissions is completely oblivious or intentionally 
ignoring the tremendous carbon and climate impacts on the 
production of said vehicles?
    And to Ms. Cullen's point, I am not talking about just the 
grid. I am talking about production, from production to 
disposal.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, we certainly believe that the way EPA 
should be looking at this is through a full life cycle 
analysis.
    The American people, the consumers need to just put all the 
cards on the table. We are not even necessarily--I don't know 
how that would all play out, but I do know that, when you look 
at--there is no such thing as a zero-emitting vehicle just 
because you don't have a tailpipe. So we ought to be looking at 
the whole life cycle, from mining to where they are charged, 
right down. And we would expect the same for ICE engines, as 
well. Let consumers decide.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
    The Government classifies passenger vehicles as passenger 
sedans, light trucks, and motorcycles. So, Mr. Lambert or any 
of our panelists, do you know how many passenger vehicles are 
on the road in the U.S. today?
    Ms. Cullen. Two hundred and seventy-eight million.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Around 286 as of 2020, probably more on 
the road now.
    Do any of you know how much energy it takes to get a single 
100-mile charge on an electric vehicle?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. That would be 30 kilowatt hours. So can 
you please do the math for me? Let's say there's 300 million 
passenger vehicles--that is not the rest of the vehicles--300 
million vehicles on the road today, 30 kilowatt hours to get a 
single 100-mile charge. How many kilowatt hours is that to get 
a single 100-mile charge for all vehicles on the road today? 
Three hundred million times thirty kilowatt hours? Something 
like 9.5 trillion kilowatt hours. I think that is the 
substantial problem that we have in asking for choice.
    Electric vehicles are fine, they are not--just because the 
tailpipe emission may not be--may be zero doesn't mean that 
their carbon--they have no climate or carbon impact. And the 
monumental task of electrifying all vehicles, while there is 
increasing demand for everything else that we do in our 
lifestyle, would certainly increase the cost of energy, make 
less energy available, and might stall some vehicles on the 
road when there is a natural disaster and they don't need to be 
on the highway with no charge.
    With that, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here. Obviously, we are very concerned about this, as 
I am sure you have gathered from the questions that have been 
asked here today.
    Earlier in our first panel I made it clear, I think, the 
tailpipe ruling proposal is one of the most egregious, 
irresponsible proposals that I have seen the Federal Government 
do. I mean, it is just ridiculous that we are mandating and 
picking winners and losers like this and trying to do with 
internal--doing away with internal combustible engines.
    But nevertheless, I wanted to ask you, Mr. Thompson--I read 
your testimony. And in your testimony you characterized the 
tailpipe emission standard for light- and medium-duty vehicles 
and the California waiver as mandating a single technology, 
EVs, and banning the sale of new internal combustion engine 
vehicles. And I couldn't agree with you more.
    My question is this: Can you explain how the EPA 
regulations can be considered a mandate?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, look, you know, I couldn't help but 
think the emperor has no clothes when you hear EPA say this is 
not a mandate. Look at the President's Executive order, where 
he wanted to go with this. Look at the press releases around 
this. Look at the executive statements around the rule, and it 
is all about being about EVs and EV mandates. And they say that 
the only way the dealers can--excuse me, the manufacturers--can 
comply is selling 70 percent electric vehicles. That is a 
mandate under any reasonable definition.
    Mr. Carter. You know, also in your testimony you mentioned 
that refiners make long-term investment decisions. And, you 
know, I was--look, I was in business for 32 years, and I know 
that I did that, as well. My business decisions were based on a 
lot of what was going on in the economy, what was going on in 
my profession. And certainly, that is what is happening here.
    And I go back to the State of the Union address, where this 
President had the audacity to stand up before a joint session 
of Congress and say that the reason gasoline prices were so 
high is because the petroleum companies weren't investing in 
infrastructure and in refineries, and then in the next breath 
said, oh, by the way, we are not going to need fossil fuels in 
the next 10 years. Unbelievable.
    But I ask you this because, even if these are simple 
proposals, these tailpipe emissions proposals, even if they are 
simple, what is the impact of the EPA issuing such excessive 
regulation? What would it have on business?
    Mr. Thompson. Well, it is a massive impact.
    And as to any commentary that we haven't invested, I will 
tell you that our industry has invested over $100 billion in 
the last couple of decades to reduce our emissions and to keep 
our plants up and running so we could supply the fuel that gets 
people to work and to church and everywhere else we need to go. 
We make tremendous investments.
    But we are capital intensive, Congressman, as you just 
said. And so if you are at a refinery right now trying to 
decide whether you are going to invest a couple of billion 
dollars to keep your plants up and running, these rules mean a 
lot. These rules mean a lot.
    Mr. Carter. So do you think that they--that these rule 
proposals and California's waiver, that they have a chilling 
effect on the investments in the energy sector?
    Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. There is no doubt about it.
    Mr. Carter. It makes perfect business sense to me. One last 
question, Mr. Thompson. The Fuels Institute report indicated 
that battery EVs have a higher life cycle greenhouse gas 
emissions footprint than internal combustion engines and hybrid 
vehicles, and that is one thing that bothers me.
    Hybrid vehicles seem to be working well, and yet it is all 
or none. It has got to be all EV or nothing at all, whereas the 
hybrids seem to accomplish even more. And you would think that, 
if we were being reasonable, that we would try to ease into 
this, maybe, you know, encourage more hybrids and then get to 
EVs, if that is the ultimate decision. But it doesn't--this 
rush to green that we are experiencing with this administration 
just is appalling to me.
    But if the Biden administration truly wanted to decrease 
transportation-related emissions, should the tailpipe emission 
standard for light- and medium-duty vehicles include hybrids?
    Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. It should include all options, 
and it should do a life cycle analysis, and that way--and they 
should follow the law, importantly, and then, you know, let the 
standards fall where they may.
    Listen, nothing we have said today is any way suggesting 
there should be a rollback or we should not be pressing for 
fuel efficiency improvements. But we ought to do it the way 
this body, Congress, told EPA to do it, and we ought to leave 
all options--it is crazy to take hybrids off the table, crazy.
    Mr. Carter. Good. Well, again, I thank all of you for being 
here. And this is extremely important to this.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very educational and 
important hearing, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back.
    Seeing that there are no other Members seeking to ask 
questions, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the 
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
    Without objection, that will be the order.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. I remind Members that they have 10 business 
days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the 
witnesses to respond to the questions promptly if you receive 
them. Members should submit their questions by the close of 
business on July 6.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]