[Senate Hearing 113-731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-731
BLACK CARBON--A GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEM WITH LOW-COST SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-022 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office
Internet: http://bookstore.gpo.gov Phone toll free (866)512-1800; DC area (202)512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 8
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 9
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 10
WITNESSES
Schneider, Conrad G., Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force.... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Johnson, Timothy V., Director of Emerging Technologies and
Regulations, Corning Environmental Technologies, Corning, Inc.. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Schaeffer, Allen, Executive Director, Diesel Technology Forum.... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Singletary, Robert, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Harris, Robert C., Jr., Vice President, Environmental and Program
Management, Alabama State Port Authority....................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
BLACK CARBON--A GLOBAL HEALTH PROBLEM WITH LOW-COST SOLUTIONS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Whitehouse, Inhofe, Sessions, and
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order, I think it already is in order. We are happy that you
all are here on this beautiful, beautiful September morning.
I am happy to be here with Senator Sessions and Senator
Inhofe. Especially I want to acknowledge Senator Inhofe. I have
been privileged to work with him on these issues and I think we
are making good progress. We made good progress with the
leadership of George Voinovich in previous Congresses. I saw
him about 2 weeks ago and he was anxious to know that the work
he pioneered is working and that we are continuing it. I think
he could feel good about it. I know I do and I hope my
colleagues do as well. Thank you.
Today's Subcommittee hearing will review the health impacts
of black carbon and review cost effective technologies,
strategies and Federal programs with the highest potential to
reduce black carbon emissions. Senators will have 5 minutes for
their opening statements.
We will then recognize our panel of witnesses. Each witness
will have about 5 minutes for their opening statement. If you
go way over that, we will rein you in. If you don't, we will be
OK.
Following the panel's statements, we will have two rounds
of questions. And I think we may have a vote around 11:45; we
will see how that works.
My colleagues and I were sent to Washington to govern and
to find commonsense solutions to the challenges that face our
Nation. I don't believe that Americans are especially
interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They are
interested in good ideas, and they are interested in ideas that
will work and that we can agree on to make our country better
and our air cleaner.
Cleaning up black carbon and dirty diesel emissions
provides us with an opportunity to work across the aisle,
something that the three of us are pretty good at doing, but
not all of us are as often as we should be.
For folks that don't know, black carbon emissions,
sometimes called soot, are the dark particles emitted when
fossil fuels, when biomass and biofuels are burned. Black
carbon particles make up a large part of the Nation's fine
particulate matter, pollution. Once in the air, these black
carbon particles absorb heat from the sun, causing a warming
effect to the atmosphere, and can speed up the melting process
for lands on snow or ice.
Black carbon can also cause serious health impacts. These
particles are pretty small, they get lodged deep in our lungs
and cause respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis, asthma,
lung cancer and even premature death. Indoor and outdoor
emissions of black carbon are estimated to cause millions and
millions of premature deaths worldwide each year. Many of these
deaths occur overseas in developing countries.
There is still much we don't know about the health impacts
of black carbon. That is why in 2009, Senator Inhofe and I
asked the EPA to study black carbon and report back to
Congress. We received that report about 3 years later, in 2012.
Since then, the international scientific community has been
very focused on this issue.
I look forward to today's testimony, we look forward to
today's testimony, to hear an update on the health and climate
impacts of black carbon. Although we are still learning about
the full extent of black carbon's impact on our health and on
climate change, we do know what it takes to reduce harmful
emissions. And we have technology, technology that, as our
witnesses know, especially one of you, technology that is
designed and made in America, to reduce these emissions.
Over half of our country's black carbon emissions and a
large part of global emissions come from older, dirty, diesel
engines, the kinds of engines that we find in school buses and
bulldozers and large vehicles and trains and boats and in
trucks. As we will hear from our witnesses today, we have clean
diesel engines made in America today that are reaching near
zero emissions. Isn't that a great success story? And while
that is wonderful news, it was nothing to address the pollution
coming from millions of engines already in use, likely to be
operating and polluting for the next 20 years. What do they say
about diesel engines? The good news is they last a long time.
And the bad news is that they last a long time.
Despite new engine standards, the EPA estimates that there
are some 11 million old diesel engines in America lacking the
latest pollution control technology. In 2005, our friend, the
former Senator, Governor George Voinovich, came to meet a
number of us with an idea to address the dirty diesel engine
backlog, which soon was signed into law as the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act, affectionately known as DERA. Through DERA, the
EPA provided voluntary incentives to diesel engine owners to
retrofit or replace their vehicles early. DERA turned out to be
a great idea, not just a great idea but actually great policy,
averaging more than $13 in health benefits for every $1 in
funding.
Since it was enacted, DERA has helped replace or retrofit
thousands of old school buses, 2,000 school buses in
Mississippi alone. Since up to 90 kids can ride on an average
school bus, that is up to 180,000 kids in Mississippi that are
breathing better on their way to school because of this law. By
cleaning up our school buses, DERA reduces our black carbon
emissions and employs thousands of workers who manufacture, who
sell or repair diesel vehicles and install the components in
each State. It is a true win-win situation.
In 2012, we reauthorized the DERA program through 2016, and
made some changes to try to improve DERA's effectiveness.
Unfortunately, every year our President's budget has decreased
funding for the DERA funding. I appreciate the dedication to
reducing the Federal deficit, but some investments are actually
worth paying for, especially when they have a 13 to 1 payoff.
Even during these challenging times, that is not a bad payoff
or a bad return on investment.
Cutting such a successful program is, I think penny-wise
but pound foolish, which is why I am going to work with my
colleagues here and across the Committee to restore funding for
this effective law.
Although DERA is a great success, more can be done to
reduce our black carbon diesel emissions. For example, the
bulldozers, diggers, backhoes that build the Nation's
infrastructure, transportation infrastructure especially,
produce some 25 percent of America's mobile diesel emissions,
25 percent. But because of who owns these construction vehicles
and how they are used, DERA has not been as effective at
reducing emissions for much of the Nation's construction
equipment.
To better address this problem, last Congress I introduced
the Clean Construction Act of 2011. Its commonsense approaches
are simple. In the areas of poor air quality, Federal
transportation projects should reduce, not increase, deathly
diesel emissions. Major provisions of this legislation made it
into the Senate-passed Transportation Reauthorization bill. I
want to thank some of my colleagues who helped make that
happen. Unfortunately, nearly all the language was subsequently
removed during conference with the House.
As we look to a new transportation bill, and we are always
looking to a new transportation bill, it seems, I will continue
my efforts, we will continue our efforts on that.
In closing, we look forward to today's testimony and we are
looking forward to learning more about the health impacts of
carbon and what more we could do, can do, and smarter ways to
reduce emissions. I believe if we continue to work together on
this issue, and I am encouraged that we will, we can build on
the progress we have already made and use our resources wisely
to reduce black carbon emissions at home and abroad.
With that, I am delighted to turn it over to our ranking
member, Senator Jeff Sessions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper,
U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
My colleagues and I were sent to Washington to govern and
to find common-sense solutions to the challenges facing our
Nation. I don't believe Americans are especially interested in
Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They want us to come up
with ideas that will work and we can all agree on to make our
country even better.
Cleaning up black carbon and dirty diesel emissions
provides us an opportunity to work across the aisle, something
we do too rarely these days.
For folks that don't know, black carbon emissions--
sometimes called soot--are the dark particles emitted when
fossil fuels, biomass and biofuels are burned. Black carbon
particles make up a large part of our Nation's fine particulate
matter pollution.
Once in the air, these black carbon particles absorb heat
from the sun--causing a warming effect in the atmosphere and
can speed up the melting process if it lands on snow or ice.
Black carbon can also cause serious health impacts. These
particles can get lodged deep in the lungs and cause
respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer,
and premature death. Indoor and outdoor emissions of black
carbon are estimated to have caused millions of premature
deaths worldwide each year--many of these deaths occur overseas
in developing countries.
There is still much we don't know about the health impacts
of black carbon. That is why in 2009, Senator Inhofe and I
asked the EPA to study black carbon and report back to
Congress.
We received EPA's report in 2012--and since then the
international scientific community has been very focused on
this issue. I look forward to today's testimony to hear an
update on the health and climate impacts of black carbon.
Although we are still learning about the full extent of
black carbon's impact on public health and climate change, we
do know what it takes to reduce harmful emissions. And we have
technology that's designed and made in America to reduce these
emissions.
Over half of our country's black carbon emissions and a
large part of global emissions come from old, dirty diesel
engines. The kinds of engines you'd find in school buses,
bulldozers and other large vehicles.
As we will hear from our witnesses, clean diesel engines
made in America today are reaching near zero emissions. While
that is great news, it does nothing to address the pollution
coming from the millions of engines already in use that will
likely be operating--and polluting--for the next 20 years.
Despite new engine standards, the EPA estimates there are
11 million old diesel engines in America lacking the latest
pollution control technology. In 2005, our friend former
Senator George Voinovich came to me with an idea to address the
dirty diesel engine backlog--which soon was signed into law as
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). Through DERA, the
EPA provides voluntary incentives to diesel engine owners to
retrofit or replace their vehicle early.
DERA turned out to be a great idea--averaging more than $13
in health benefits for every $1 in funding. Since it was
enacted, DERA has helped replace or retrofit thousands of old
school buses--2,000 school buses in Mississippi alone. Since up
to 90 kids can ride on an average school bus, that's up to
180,000 kids in Mississippi that are breathing better on their
way to school because of this law.
By cleaning up our school buses and ports, DERA reduces our
Nation's black carbon emissions and employs thousands of
workers who manufacture, sell or repair diesel vehicles and
their components in each State. It is a true win-win.
In 2010, we reauthorized the DERA program through 2016 and
made some changes to try to improve DERA's effectiveness.
Unfortunately, every year the President's budget had decreased
funding for the DERA program.
I appreciate dedication to reducing the Federal deficit,
but some investments are worth paying for, even during these
challenging financial times. Cutting such a successful program
is penny wise and pound foolish, which is why I will work with
my colleagues to restore funding for this effective law.
Although DERA is a great success, more can be done to
reduce our black carbon diesel emissions. For example, the
bulldozers, diggers, and backhoes that build our Nation's
infrastructure produce 25 percent of America's mobile diesel
emissions. But because of who owns these construction vehicles
and how they are used, DERA has not been as effective at
reducing emissions from our Nation's construction equipment.
To better address this problem, last Congress I introduced
the Clean Construction Act of 2011. This common-sense approach
is simple: in areas of poor air quality, Federal transportation
projects should reduce, not increase, deadly diesel emissions.
Major provisions of this legislation made it into the Senate-
passed transportation reauthorization bill. Unfortunately,
nearly all the language was subsequently removed during
conference with the House. As we look to a new transportation
bill, I will continue my efforts on this front.
In closing, I look forward to today's testimony to learn
more about the health impacts of black carbon and what more we
could do to reduce emissions. I believe if we continue to work
together on this issue we can build on the progress we have
already made and use our resources wisely to reduce black
carbon emissions at home and abroad.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those good
remarks, and thank you for the kind of leadership you provide
to us. You set a good example on how the Senate ought to
operate.
I thought I would yield to Senator Inhofe. He has been
active on this issue for a number of years and is our ranking
member of the full Committee, formerly ranking member of the
full Committee. Senator Inhofe, I would yield to you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I do thank
you.
So that you will be aware, the five of you, and that we are
aware, I am not on this Subcommittee. However, I was chairman
of this full Committee when the Republicans were in the
majority, and I am very active on it. This Committee has the
largest jurisdiction of any committee in the U.S. Senate. It
covers a lot of things.
So I think that this issue, you are going to find during
the course of this, is not really a partisan issue. So this is
kind of an unusual subject that we are dealing with here.
I think the chairman has done a good job explaining what
black carbon is. Everybody knows what that is. I would like to
say that we have, this has nothing to do with global warming or
carbon dioxide. I do think it is important for all of us to
understand that this is something that is very significant in
the third world countries. I happen to kind of specialize in
one area of Africa; in fact, I have made 127 African country
visits. The one thing that is consistent throughout Africa is
the harmful emissions that stem largely from the indoor use of
cookstoves filled with tree bark and dung. According to a
recent study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, black
carbon causes 3.5 million deaths annually in these countries, I
am talking about Africa now, which is more than malaria and
AIDS combined.
Now, that is incredible. But that is true. That is what we
are dealing with here. So it is significant. One of the
simplest ways we can reduce this type of pollution is to
increase access to electricity in these poorer regions in the
world. While many may not realize it, there are significant
hurdles caused by U.S. policies that make it difficult for U.S.
companies to invest in and build power plant projects in low-
income areas.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, is a
Government entity that facilitates investment in high-risk
environments by providing political risk insurance. Many of the
world's poorest regions are also the most politically volatile.
So many companies will not invest in these countries unless
they have insurance that would cover their losses in the event
the government seized their assets or something similar to
that, which we know happens quite often in the third world
countries. OPIC sells insurance to cover this risk.
Unfortunately, in 2007 a rider was attached to an
appropriations bill that prohibits OPIC from writing insurance
on projects that may increase greenhouse gas emissions. This
language effectively prohibits U.S. involvement in power
projects that use traditional fuels such as coal, oil and
natural gas for the misguided goal of combating global warming.
In reality, the only impact of this language is that it
levies the cost of global warming regulations on the backs of
the world's poorest people. If we remove this language and OPIC
was allowed to offer insurance to these projects, U.S. firms
would be able to safely, cheaply and effectively generate
electricity to the poorest areas of the world. This would
enable these families to affordably use electric power stoves
which would significantly reduce the risk of black carbon
filling the homes as families' meals are cooked.
In short, you almost have to go there and see this, and see
what they are using today. It is such a no-brainer that we
ought to help them develop what they can to offset this. Small
change in U.S. policy that wouldn't cost a dime could
dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused by black carbon
pollution worldwide. I am eager to pursue a change in this law,
so that we can help the most impoverished obtain access to
cheap power and cleaner electric powered stoves.
Domestically, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program
has been a big success. It was created in the Energy Policy
Act. Actually it was in a different committee, but it was at a
time in 2005 when I chaired this Committee. So we were very
much involved in it. It provides Federal and State grants to
manufacturers to rebuild diesel engines or install emissions
reduction systems to diesel vehicles to comply with State and
Federal laws.
In 2010, when I was the ranking member of this Committee, I
was one of the primary champions of this Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act, with Chairman Carper and Senator Voinovich, who
is no longer in the U.S. Senate. Each year, DERA helps clean up
more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and equipment across
the country.
What a lot of people don't know is, and even my colleagues
here are probably not aware that the majority of school buses
that are powered by the diesel engines, and then of course the
old ones that are still there, were manufactured not just in my
State but in my city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. So we have an
opportunity to do something about it. Robert, I appreciate very
much your being here. And I will not be able to be here during
your testimony but I have read it, and I agree with your
efforts. We need to have your help along with the other members
of this panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Sessions, for
holding this hearing today. First, I should point out that
black carbon has nothing to do with global warming or carbon
dioxide.
It is, however, an important topic, especially on the
continent of Africa. What a lot of people don't know is that I
have traveled to Africa more than any other Senator in the
history of the United States. I have made 127 individual
country visits, and the issue of black carbon has come up
almost everywhere I've been--whether it's Burundi or Zambia.
Black carbon--the common name for fine particulate matter,
or soot--is a pollutant that can cause negative health
effects--and even death--when breathed in high concentrations.
In lower income countries, like those in Africa, the
problem is massive compared to the United States. These harmful
emissions stem largely from the indoor use of cook-stoves
fueled by tree bark, dung, and other high-pollutant, unhealthy
materials.
According to a recent study by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, black carbon causes 3.5 million deaths annually in
these countries--which is more than malaria and AIDS combined.
One of the simplest ways we can reduce this type of
pollution is to increase access to electricity in these poor
regions around the world. And while many may not realize it,
there are significant hurdles caused by U.S. policies that make
it difficult for U.S. companies to invest in and build power
plant projects in low-income countries.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is a
Government entity that facilitates investment in high-risk
environments by providing political risk insurance. Many of the
world's poorest regions are also the most politically volatile,
so many companies will not invest in these countries unless
they have insurance that would cover their losses in the event
the government seized their assets or something similar to
that. OPIC sells insurance to cover this risk.
Unfortunately, in 2010, a rider was attached to an
appropriations bill that prohibits OPIC from writing insurance
on projects that may increase greenhouse gas emissions. This
language effectively prohibits U.S. involvement in power
projects that use traditional fuels such as coal, oil, and
natural gas for the misguided goal of combating global warming.
In reality, the only impact of this language is that it levies
the cost of global warming regulations on the backs of the
world's poorest people.
If we removed this language and OPIC was allowed to offer
insurance to these projects, U.S. firms would be able to
safely, cheaply, and effectively generate electricity for the
world's poorest. This would enable these families to affordably
use electric-powered stoves, which would significantly reduce
the risk of black carbon filling homes as family meals are
cooked.
In short, a small change in U.S. policy--that wouldn't cost
a dime--could dramatically reduce the number of deaths caused
by black carbon pollution worldwide, and I am eager to pursue a
change in this law so that we can help the most impoverished
obtain access to cheap power and cleaner electric-powered
stoves.
Domestically, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
program has been a big success. It was created in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and provides Federal and State grants to
manufacturers to rebuild diesel engines or install emission
reduction systems to diesel vehicles to comply with State and
Federal emission requirements.
In 2010, when I was Ranking Member of this Committee, I was
one of the primary champions of the DERA Act of 2010 with
Chairman Carper and Senator Voinovich, which reauthorized the
program through 2016.
Each year, DERA helps clean up more than 14,000 diesel-
powered vehicles and equipment across the country, which has
reduced emissions while employing thousands of workers who
manufacture, sell, or repair diesel vehicles and their
components in each State. I am proud to say this bill was
signed into law on January 4, 2011.
The voluntary DERA program has been utilized by Oklahoma to
effectively reduce a real pollution risk in a cost effective
way. We'll hear the specifics about this from Mr. Singletary,
but among other things, we've been able to replace dozens of
old school buses with up-to-date vehicles and install upgraded
equipment on hundreds of others.
I want to thank Robert for taking the time to come up and
discuss how this program has been implemented by our State. He
works in the Air Quality division of the General Counsel's
office at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and
has been instrumental in ensuring the program's effectiveness.
Robert, thanks again for being here.
Senator Carper. Senator Inhofe, thank you. Thanks for
coming by and joining us and for your steadfast support on this
front. It is great to work with you.
Senator Sessions is next, and then Senator Boozman,
welcome, and Senator Whitehouse, welcome. If you would like to
make a statement as well, you are welcome to do that.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Senator Inhofe knows what he
is talking about when he talks about Africa. We should call him
the Senate's Ambassador to Africa. No one has been there more,
and been in some of the most remote areas and met with real
people. I think that insight into the advantage of electricity
over burning of waste products is certainly valuable to us all.
Matter of fact, I have heard it said that the life span of
people in a country where electricity is readily available is
twice that where it is not. So there are all sorts of
advantages for having electricity. In the long run, I think
even a less than perfect plant would be better than burning
individual fires in people's homes, wouldn't you agree, Jim?
Senator Inhofe. I would.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, you are a great leader, we
thank you for that. We just had a big announcement about carbon
dioxide standards last week. We are on a positive note today,
this is something we can really agree about. You have been an
advocate for these reforms for some time.
Last year, due to the work of Chairmen Carper and Inhofe,
the EPA issued a 388-page report to Congress on black carbon
and found that the United States contributes 8 percent of
global emissions of black carbon. A key source of that in the
United States is diesel exhaust emissions from large trucks,
ships, trains, school buses and construction equipment. The
remaining 92 percent comes from outside the United States.
Globally, black carbon comes often from pollution in
underdeveloped nations, as we have discussed.
Other key findings of the EPA report is that substantial
progress has been made and is being made in reducing carbon
emissions from diesel engines. EPA data shows that black carbon
emissions from mobile sources, vehicles, dropped more than 30
percent from 1990 to 2005, and that ``continued reductions are
expected for mobile sources in the next two decades.'' In fact,
the EPA report says ``total mobile source black carbon
emissions are projected to decline by 86 percent by 2030 due to
regulations already promulgated.''
So we will hear today from Bob Harris, from the Port of
Mobile, a typical industrial activity active port, on the
things that they have done and some of the grants that Federal
money provided helped them make major progress. The Department
of Energy report in 2009, Light Duty Diesel Vehicles, Market
Issues and Potential Energy and Emission Impacts, was a report
I asked for in 2009. I wanted to get a comparison of the
characteristics of diesel-fueled vehicles with those from the
hybrid vehicles, E85-fueled vehicles and other normal gasoline
vehicles.
The report found ``Diesel vehicles show a fuel economy
advantage of 20 to 40 percent over gasoline vehicles, depending
on the size and duty requirements of the vehicles.'' The report
identified ``several impediments to the market success of
diesel vehicles in the United States, including more stringent
Federal and State standards for emissions, cost premiums, they
cost more for diesel vehicles, limited availability of light
duty diesel vehicles and higher retail prices for diesel fuel
than conventional gasoline.'' And we know that Europe uses a
good bit more of diesel engines in their normal automobile
fleet.
Mercedes Benz in Alabama builds the M class and the GL
class at their Tuscaloosa, Alabama facility. They come with
this most modern Bluetec diesel engine. Their fuel economy for
the E250 Bluetec engine is 45 miles per gallon on the highways.
And the 250 Bluetec has a 33 percent advantage in the city and
combined EPA fuel economy over the gasoline counterpart, and a
50 percent advantage in highway fuel economy. They tell me that
the payback for the engine is immediate and it has a higher
resale value.
So there are a number of programs that we have. GAO has
issued a report saying that there are 14 programs that provide
grant or loan funding to reduce mobile source diesel emissions,
disbursing $1.4 billion from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. Perhaps
we could combine some of those, create some efficiencies and it
would probably be appropriate for us, Mr. Chairman, as you
noted, to evaluate how we can make this program work even
better.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much, Senator
Sessions. Thanks for letting me be your wingman here.
Senator Boozman, if you would like to make your comments
now, please proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Yes, thank you, Chairman Carper and
Ranking Member Sessions. Again, I appreciate you for holding
today's Subcommittee hearing.
I have been glad to work with you to reduce harmful
emissions and make our air cleaner. Senator Carper, Senator
Inhofe, Senator Sessions and others have been true leaders, for
example, in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.
Diesel engines are vital to our economy. We know that older
diesel engines contribute about 50 percent of our Nation's
black carbon emissions. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or
DERA, has received very broad bipartisan support, and I was
pleased to be the lead Republican on efforts to secure adequate
funding during the 112th Congress. I now work on this issue as
a member of the Appropriations Committee. DERA supports funding
for retrofits of diesel engines, reducing harmful emissions by
as much as 90 percent.
Clean air is not a partisan issue on Capitol Hill.
Unfortunately, we have seen this Administration's proposed to
slash funding for this funding by 70 percent, while continuing
to waste money on far less effective environmental initiatives.
For example, they continue to aggressively pursue the
greenhouse gas emissions standards that will cost American jobs
without having any significant impact on the climate.
On the other hand, with DERA and similar efforts, we work
together to protect our air and resources. This type of
conservation and protection will continue to receive broad
bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, because we see clear,
science-based evidence that the policy will address a
legitimate problem and have a substantial impact.
Again, I appreciate the hearing today, and I appreciate
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, and I
look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. Thank
you all for being here.
Senator Carper. Let me just say we very much welcome your
statement, we welcome your participation. This is a great
bipartisan issue and if we work together it is amazing what we
will get done.
Senator Boozman. I agree.
Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
Senator Whitehouse, good morning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator
Sessions, for hosting this hearing and for the terrific way
that you are working together on this issue.
We are all very aware of the health effects of black carbon
through asthma and bronchitis and lung cancer. It is also a
potent climate pollutant, running hundreds of times more
dangerous or more impactful on global warming than carbon
dioxide. Thankfully it is not up there for as long. But while
it is, it does a lot of global warming damage. Then of course
it falls, and when it lands on snow and ice, it reduces the
albedo, the shininess, so it absorbs more heat and there is
more melt, and on you go.
So it has both health and climate effects. I think this is
an area where we cannot only work together as a Nation, but
also work internationally. I traveled with Senator McCain to
China over the August recess. It looked like we landed at dusk.
There was a big time change, so I wasn't really exactly sure
what time it was. It wasn't dusk, it was mid-afternoon. It just
looked like dusk because the pollution was so bad over Beijing.
It has gotten to the point where the Chinese government is
getting a bit anxious about popular unrest on this subject. So
they are really serious about cleaning this up, and black
carbon is a good place to work together internationally as
well.
I would like to ask your consent, everybody's consent, if I
could enter an article from MIT Technology Review into the
record, and just close by observing that this is solvable
problem. Solving it will benefit American manufacturing and
protect public health and move us forward on climate change.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. So again, my thanks for the wonderful
way the two of you are working together.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much, without objection, we
will be happy to do that. That is a publication that comes to
our house every month. My wife says, why do they send us this?
I said, we had a son that went to school there. And I said,
Martha, we have paid for this subscription more times than you
can count.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. All right. One of our colleagues who is not
with us today, he would like to talk about the 80-20 rule and
explain how he had great success for many years when Ted
Kennedy was with us. Our colleague is a very conservative
Republican from out west and was able to work with a pretty
liberal Democrat. I said, what is the key to your success? He
always said, it is the 80-20 rule. And I said, what is that? He
said, Senator Kennedy and I agree on 80 percent of the stuff,
we disagree on the other 20 percent of what we try to do is
focus on the 80 percent where we agree, to see what we can get
done. This s just a great example of the 80-20 rule.
And my staff reminded me, and I want to thank our staffs,
Democrat and Republican staff, reminded me that for every $3
that we invest in DERA, in those funds, for every dollar,
excuse me, that we invest in DERA, we get a $3 leverage from
State funds, local funds, private funds. So it is a great way
to leverage additional moneys on a three to one basis.
The last thing I would say before we recognize our panel,
is a question that I ask of all of us from time to time, is it
possible to clean our environment, clean our air and create
jobs at the same time. And we will hear from Mr. Johnson and
probably others on this panel, we will probably get the answer,
and the answer is very encouraging: yes.
So our panel today, Conrad Schneider, very nice to see you
again. Welcome, thanks for joining us. You are the Advocacy
Director at the Clean Air Task Force. Thank you very much.
Next is Timothy V. Johnson, Tim Johnson. Tim Johnson is a
popular name here, you know, with one of our colleagues from
South Dakota. This Tim Johnson, though, is the Director of
Emerging Technologies and Regulations at the Corning
Environmental Technologies, Corning, Inc.
Next we have Mr. Allen Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer, nice to
see you. He serves as the Executive Director of the Diesel
Technology Forum. Thanks so much.
And next Bob Singletary, an attorney at the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality.
And finally, Robert C. Harris, Jr. He is the Vice President
of Environmental and Program Management at the Alabama State
Port Authority. It is great to see you.
I would ask you to keep your statements to about 5 minutes.
If you go way over that, we will rein you back. Otherwise, you
will be good to go. So thank you all for joining us. Your whole
statements will be made part of the record, and we look forward
to hearing from you and having a good conservation.
Mr. Conrad Schneider.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD G. SCHNEIDER, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR
TASK FORCE
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Senator Carper, Ranking Member
Sessions and other members of the Subcommittee. Good morning.
My name is Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director of the Clean
Air Task Force. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak
to you today. We are an advocacy group really focused on clean
air and climate issues.
I would like to talk about the public health and
environmental threats posed by black carbon emissions and two
cost-effective ways that the Federal Government can reduce
them. First, fully fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act,
DERA. And second, enact Senator Carper's Clean Construction Act
as part of the next Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
DERA, as we have heard, is a highly successful program and
enjoys broad bipartisan support. Clean Construction, which has
been endorsed in principle by my organization and the
Associated General Contractors, provides a unique opportunity
to integrate and streamline clean air measures into project
delivery while providing support for contractors to clean up
dirty equipment and protect public health.
Diesel engines are known for their durability. But older
engines emit a toxic mixture of tiny black carbon soot
particles and gases from the burning of diesel fuel and
lubricating oil that go from the end of the tailpipe directly
to your lungs. At highest risks are commuters and people living
or working in proximity to truck traffic, construction or other
heavy equipment.
Nationally, diesel exhaust poses a cancer risk that is
three times higher than the risk from all other air toxics
tracked by EPA combined. Premature death, lung cancer, heart
attack and stroke have all been tied to diesel pollution.
Estimates show that for every dollar spent on reducing black
carbon and the other components of diesel exhaust, $13 would be
avoided in health damages.
Moreover, black carbon is a potent global warming agent. It
warms the atmosphere by absorbing sunlight and radiating heat
into the air, much like an asphalt parking lot on a summer day.
Black carbon can darken snow and ice directly, accelerating
melting. It is about 2,000 times more potent than the
equivalent amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and
the United States has the highest per capita emissions in the
world for black carbon, 57 percent of which comes from diesels.
Retrofitting these engines with filters and/or accelerating
the turnover to new cleaner engines equipped with filters
offers one of the few actions that will have immediate climate
benefits, complementing long-term efforts to reduce
CO2 emissions. In fact, diesel particulate filters
are the only emission control technology that can virtually
eliminate black carbon particles from diesel exhaust, with over
a 90 percent effectiveness.
While EPA has mandated tighter emissions rules on new
diesel engines, most of the 11 million heavy duty engines in
use today lack these filters. Unfortunately, the rate of fleet
turnover to new, cleaner engines slowed during the recession.
And more dirty diesels are likely to be with us even longer
than we expected. More years and more miles by older engines
means more pollution. So we need to address the pollution from
the existing fleet. In 2005, Congress and the Administration
enacted DERA, a federally sponsored voluntary grant and loan
program to do just that.
Since its inception, EPA estimates that DERA has cleaned up
more than 50,000 diesel vehicles, resulting in the reduction of
thousands of tons of fine particles, and created over 10,000
jobs. The program was originally authorized at $200 million per
year for 5 years and since that time, over $500 million has
been appropriated, $300 million through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act.
Throughout the program's history, DERA has enjoyed strong
bipartisan support, most recently demonstrated by its
reauthorization for another 5 years in 2010. It was
reauthorized at a smaller amount, $100 million and funded in
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 at $60 million. But the funding has
declined every year since, due to the current budgetary
situation. The current House and Senate Interior Appropriations
bills include less than $20 million for this program.
We are missing an enormous opportunity for improving public
health and the environment by failing to fully fund it. It is
backed by a uniquely broad coalition of States and localities,
environmental, health, user and industry groups that all
support funding because of its sound environmental health and
budgetary policy. As Senator Carper said, it is a win-win-win.
We wrote earlier this year asking that Congress fund DERA
at not less than $20 million. It is our hope that Congress will
continue to provide leadership on this issue. We urge you to do
so.
One sector that has been underserved by DERA and other
existing programs is construction. Construction contractors are
not always well positioned to take advantage of these programs,
which have required a competitive grant application process.
There is a better way: clean construction as a part of project
delivery in the Transportation bill. Modern pollution control
equipment is being used across the country in building
projects, originating in the Big Dig and in the Lower Manhattan
reconstruction after 9/11, and construction clean contract
specifications have been adopted by New York, New York City,
Illinois, Rhode Island and most recently by the city of Chicago
and in New Jersey.
Taking the lead from these States and working with
contractors and the environmental community, you, Senator
Carper, crafted the Clean Construction Act of 2011. Provisions
included in the Senate version of last year's MAP-21 bill, but
unfortunately did not survive in the conference committee and
were not included in the final bill as enacted. This is
regrettable. This type of program, if included as part of the
reauthorization when MAP-21 expires next year, would reduce the
amount of harmful black carbon emissions emitted by older
construction equipment, working on federally funded
transportation projects.
Your approach would accomplish this by ensuring that diesel
construction equipment employs modern engine and pollution
reduction technology through a requirement in funding, and it
is capped at 1 percent of project cost. In MAP-21, we estimated
that this would generate $200 million per year to clean up this
construction equipment, and we estimated that the bill would
eliminate 9,000 tons of black carbon soot, and avoid nearly
1,000 premature deaths each year.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
these two important opportunities to reduce black carbon
emissions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
testimony and for your leadership for eons on these important
issues.
Mr. Johnson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES AND REGULATIONS, CORNING ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGIES, CORNING, INC.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sessions,
members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
and also the staffers. We realize the key role that you play
here as well.
Senator Carper. We realize that, too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. I work for Corning, Incorporated. I am a
technology scout for the company. It is an honor and pleasure
to help you understand the issues around diesel emissions and
how remediation is a winning proposition for all stakeholders,
and I mean all the stakeholders.
Corning, Incorporated is one of the oldest companies in the
world. We date back to 1850. We invest very heavily in R&D, and
as a result of that, we have obtained, or were awarded, four
Presidential National Medal of Technology Awards, four, in
addition to the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award and many other
awards recognizing our relationships with our employees and our
community.
I am a recognized expert in diesel emissions and vehicle
emissions in general, and keep a keen eye on future
developments and openly share my knowledge with industry and
government, so we can work together to reduce the harmful
environmental impact of vehicles.
My colleague just gave a great overview, and he provided
you with a very thorough fact-based assessment in the written
testimony. So I won't spend a lot of time on that.
I do have some facts here that you might find surprising.
Diesel exhaust is all around us, and is quite toxic. Untreated
diesel engines will emit about 10 million to 100 million
particles per milliliter. That is the volume in the curved part
of my little finger, 100 million particles in that little
volume. And each one carries toxic polyaromatic hydrocarbons
and other toxic agents deep into your lungs. It is no wonder
that the World Health Organization has labeled it as a
carcinogen. That is their highest designation and it warrants
action.
There are other organizations as well, as reputable, that
have declared it as toxins.
This is quite urgent, because we are all exposed. When you
drive on the freeway, the air entering your cabin in your car
has five times the toxic components of background air. When you
take a breath on the order of 1 million to 10 million particles
enter your lungs. One breath, 1 million to 10 million. Seventy
percent of those are retained.
Effective and inexpensive technologies are available to
clean this up. In 2007, the USEPA set limits on diesel
pollution for new trucks and engines that resulted in the use
of a diesel particulate filter, which my company makes. These
amazing devices remove more than 99 percent of these fine
particles from the exhaust. In fact, they are so effective that
they act like a huge vacuum cleaner. The air going into the
engine has higher concentrations of fine particulates than the
gas coming out of the tailpipe.
The more you drive these engines with diesel filters, the
cleaner the air gets. Even in pristine Corning, New York, we
have a lot of cows there. And this cleans the environment even
better.
The technology is a major cornerstone of the emissions
control industry, and generates high quality jobs. According to
the manufacturers of the Emission Controls Association, in
2012, $12 billion of economic activity and 65,000 high-paying
U.S. jobs were generated in the vehicular emission control
industry, and more than $2 billion of this was from diesel
truck controls.
We just announced a new plant in Corning, New York, $245
million investment, 250 employees and a huge cornerstone,
again, to the region of western New York. The plant is intended
to build components that will be exported to China, if you can
believe that. So it is a significant environmental impact.
DERA, of course, is central to this. Mr. Schneider gave all
that justification. Remember, 13 to 1 dollar benefit cost
ratio. It is unbelievable.
And one last thing, as Steve Jobs would so effectively say
when describing the coolest part of a new product, the filters
take out more than 90 percent of the carbon black. This is a
proven global warming agent, thousands of times more potent on
a pound for pound basis than CO2. And about 30
percent of the carbon footprint of trucks. So this is a major
side benefit that we cannot discount.
I thank you very much for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for great products and for a
terrific testimony.
Mr. Schaeffer.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN SCHAEFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DIESEL
TECHNOLOGY FORUM
Mr. Schaeffer. Good morning, Senator Carper, Senator
Sessions and Senator Boozman. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here.
The Diesel Technology Forum is a not for profit educational
group that represents the Nation's leading diesel engine
vehicle and equipment manufacturers, fuel refiners and
emissions control technology companies as well as allied
organizations. We have submitted a detailed written statement
for the record today.
I would like to address four points in my oral statement,
however. First is to highlight the importance of diesel power
to the U.S. economy. Diesel engines are a significant part of
the U.S. economy, contributing about $480 billion annually, and
are a dominant feature of 16 key sectors of the economy, from
agriculture to wholesale trade.
Diesel engine fuels and technology manufacturing is a job
engine in every State, and accounts for about one and a quarter
million jobs, engineering, manufacturing and servicing in every
State in America. And the technology is not only important to
the U.S. economy, but I would also like to highlight its role
in the black carbon inventory. While about half of the U.S.
economy depends in some way on diesel technology, diesel
engines play a declining role in the emissions of black carbon.
According to the 2012 EPA black carbon report to Congress, the
U.S. accounts for about 8 percent of global black carbon
emissions. Of that, 52 percent comes from mobile sources, and
93 percent of that is attributed to diesel engines. Senator
Carper, as you stated in your opening remarks, the EPA projects
this to decline by 86 percent by 2030, largely due to controls
on new engines. In fact, the California Resources Board
similarly concludes that by 2014, in 14 short months from
today, diesel emissions will make up just 9 percent of all soot
in California.
The second point I would like to make is that these major
reductions in black carbon emissions are a result of the new
generation of clean diesel technology that offers significant
fuel savings and emissions reductions and is widely accepted.
That is where the largest clean air and climate benefits are
being delivered.
The diesel industry has been on a journey of continuous
improvement to reduce emissions to near zero levels. Thanks to
billions of dollars in investments and the innovation of diesel
engine manufacturers and suppliers, we fundamentally
transformed diesel engines to a near zero emissions technology.
And clean diesel, as we refer to it, is clean engines, advanced
fuels and emissions control technologies.
Exhibit 1 to my right outlines that journey for heavy duty
on-road commercial trucks and buses, showing particulate
matter, of which black carbon is a component and oxides of
nitrogen have decreased by 98 percent relative to an engine
manufactured in 1988.
As depicted in the next exhibit, not only are these new
engines near zero emissions but they are also gaining
acceptance in the trucking industry and delivering tangible
clean air benefits today. Based on our research, almost one in
three heavy duty trucks on the road today is now of 2007 or
newer vintage of clean diesel standards. These engines are
found in delivery trucks, buses, fire trucks, short haul and
long haul truck and tractor combinations in communities all
across America. Their use has already contributed to a
reduction of 27,000 tons of particulate matter and almost 1
million tons of nitrogen oxide emissions. While preserving this
impressive clean air performance, truck and engine
manufacturers are now embarking on another journey, one
requiring more investment and innovation to meet requirements
to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy by
somewhere between 6 and 23 percent over the next 6 to 8 years,
in compliance with new EPA and NHTSA regulations.
This journey to clean diesel technology is not limited to
heavy duty on-road commercial trucks, but has been underway
across the board for all diesel engines and applications. As
shown in the next exhibit, you can see that diesel engines,
which make up two-thirds of all farm and construction
equipment, are now in the final phase of their journey for
meeting some of the near zero standards for some of the largest
earth moving and marine workload kinds of engines. These so-
called Tier 4 standards have already been met with the smaller
and higher volume off-road engines and equipment.
The third point I would like to make today is on the matter
of existing engines, and there are effective technical
strategies to reduce those emissions from existing engines. And
there is a continued need for the government incentive programs
to encourage their adoptions.
Senator Carper, you have been a leader in the forefront of
this battle since 2005, and we thank you for that. Under your
leadership, we have made two great accomplishments, in the
funding of the program and its performance.
According to the EPA's second report to Congress, between
2008 and 2010, the program retrofitted, repowered or replaced
over 52,000 older engines found in a wide variety of
applications, resulting in about 12,000 tons of PM emission
reductions and 200,000 tons of NOx reduced at the
same time.
Let me emphasize, we believe there is still plenty of work
to do that will allow more need for these programs. Further EPA
action to reduce levels of allowable emissions of ozone and
meeting new particulate standards will make the need even
greater. DERA has provided important Federal funds in a very
competitive process that other programs should aspire to, and
has been able to leverage those dollars, leverage roughly $3 in
non-Federal funding for every $1 in Federal funding to make
these air quality benefits.
The other provisions that we looked for help in reducing
emissions include the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
Improvement Program of the MAP-21, the transportation
legislation, which allows that particulate matter non-
attainment areas may spend up to 25 percent of their CMAQ
allocation toward retrofitting diesel engines.
Finally, black carbon reductions from new technologies are
likely to have a measurable impact in reducing and mitigating
the impact of a warming planet. These reductions and these new
engines have had significant benefits, as I have outlined.
According to some scientists, emission reductions from diesel
engines in the U.S. may mitigate up to 15 percent of the U.S.
contribution to a warming planet. Climate scientists estimate
that clean diesel technologies deployed in California alone may
mitigate global warming effects by 5 percent to 15 percent.
The success of these strategies has not gone unnoticed by
the international community, and in part because of the success
in reducing black carbon here, the United Nations Environment
Program, UNEP, is working with partners across the globe to
urge the adoption of clean diesel fuel and engines.
So in conclusion, diesel engines play a significant role in
the U.S. economy and the U.S. is a leader in clean diesel
technology that improves air quality and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, including emissions of particulate matter, of which
black carbon is a component. Thanks to the investment in
cleaner fuels, emissions and emissions control technologies,
diesel emissions have fallen by orders of magnitude to near
zero levels. While new engines are meeting near zero standards,
older engines and existing equipment still have distinct
economic value to tens of thousands of small businesses out
there. Incentive programs such as DERA and CMAQ go a long way
toward helping those small businesses do better with their
emissions.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Mr. Schaeffer.
Mr. Singletary, welcome aboard. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SINGLETARY, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Singletary. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking
Member Sessions and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
My name is Robert Singletary, and I serve as the
supervising attorney for the Air Quality and Land Protection
Divisions at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
I have been asked to provide testimony today regarding the
implementation of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act in
Oklahoma, and the resulting reductions in diesel emissions and
the associated impacts on air quality.
The State of Oklahoma has participated in the DERA program
since 2008. During this period, Oklahoma has administered funds
allocated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in an
amount of just over $4.3 million. The majority of those funds,
approximately $3.1 million, came via the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Aside from the funding provided
through ARRA, the annual funding allocated to Oklahoma by EPA
for ERA projects during this period was between approximately
$190,000 and $295,000 annually until fiscal year 2013. In
addition, the State of Oklahoma has contributed just over
$300,000 in State matching funds.
Since beginning participation in the program in 2008, the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has overseen the
completion of approximately 413 DERA projects, including the
replacement of 118 older diesel school buses with new vehicles
meeting more stringent emission limits, the installation of
diesel particulate filters and related technologies on 18
school buses, the installation of diesel oxidation catalysts on
82 school buses, the installation of closed crankcase
ventilation systems on 125 buses, and the installation of
auxiliary heaters on 55 buses.
Diesel engines are designed to have very long operating
life spans and many of the buses that have been replaced in
Oklahoma were more than 20 years old. It is not uncommon for
diesel school buses of that age to have emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that are 65
to 95 percent greater than those of the new school buses.
Similarly, and of particular relevance to the black carbon
discussion, it is not uncommon for fine particulate matter,
PM2.5 emissions, from older diesel buses to be 90
percent greater than the newer certified models.
Installation of certain retrofit technologies also greatly
reduces the percentages of PM2.5 emissions. For
example, the installation of diesel particulate filters reduces
PM2.5 emissions by 50 to 60 percent and the
installation of diesel oxidation catalysts reduces such
emissions by nearly 30 percent.
In total, the projects administered by the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality have resulted in emissions
reductions over the life of the replaced or retrofitted
equipment by approximately 21 tons of PM2.5, 37 tons
of hydrocarbons, 172 tons of carbon monoxide, and 353 tons of
NOx.
In addition to the emission reductions that are directly
attributable to the replaced or retrofitted equipment, the DERA
program has also provided the State with an opportunity to
educate school districts regarding the economic and health
benefits that are associated with implementing anti-idling
strategies. These strategies can significantly reduce the
overall emissions from these diesel engines, whether or not
they are replaced or retrofitted. And they also significantly
reduce the exposure to impacted children to concentrated levels
of these pollutants. Moreover, any school or school district
participating in the program was required to implement an anti-
idling policy across its entire fleet.
Based on the reductions in the proposed funding allocations
for the upcoming year, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality chose not to participate in the program next year.
However, the agency continues to support the voluntary nature
of the DERA program and the opportunity for States to implement
it at the State level. Assuming a funding level that is
sufficient to warrant the minimal administrative burden that is
associated with implementing the program, the resulting
emissions, especially in light of the sensitive population
impacted, justify the agency's continued participation in the
program.
Again, thank you, Chairman Carper, members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared testimony of Mr. Singletary follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Singletary. When we mentioned
the idling strategy, I was in a school not long ago where the
school buses had gathered to take the students home. And the
point you made is a really good one, all these kids have to
walk by their buses, through their buses in order to get on the
buses. That is a very good point. If they are idling, if they
are not idling, if they stop the idling, you save fuel and
probably save some lives as well. That is a great point. Thank
you.
Mr. Harris.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. HARRIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, ALABAMA STATE PORT
AUTHORITY
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Sessions and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to discuss black carbon emissions and
the Alabama State Port Authority's positive experiences to
reduce diesel emissions and leverage Federal financial support
under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.
My name is Bob Harris and I oversee environmental and
Federal programs for the Port Authority. The Authority
represents the public cargo terminals at the Port of Mobile,
which is currently the 13th largest of the Nation's 150
commercial deepwater seaports. The Alabama State Port
Authority's economic value in Alabama alone tops $18.7 billion
and directly and indirectly generates over 127,000 jobs.
The Alabama State Port Authority is one of three commercial
deepwater U.S. seaport authorities that owns and operates a
freight railroad. The Authority's terminal railway consists of
75 miles of track and operates 10 diesel-powered locomotives.
The terminal railway is the largest public seaport owned and
operated terminal railroad in the Nation, handling over 133,000
cars annually.
In and around port communities, the seaport industry is
increasingly factoring air quality when addressing port
operations. Cargo handling equipment, trucks, locomotives,
tugboats, dredges, ferries and ships mostly rely on diesel
engines for power. Older diesel engines can emit elevated
levels of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides which can
contribute to air quality concerns.
In 2008, the Alabama State Port Authority began pursuing
the goal of voluntarily reducing emissions at the Port's
terminals by seeking funding assistance made available through
the Environmental Protection Agency's National Clean Diesel
Funding Assistance Program to purchase a new class of fuel
efficient, low emission locomotive engines. The Port's
objective was to begin converting its 10 locomotives to cleaner
burning, more efficient engines that met Tier 2 emissions
standards.
In 2011, EPA awarded the Port a $953,921 grant to improve
air quality through assistance funding from the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2010. The Port Authority's $1.58
million project would repower a 1980 diesel electric switching
locomotive with state-of-the-art GenSet technology with a goal
to significantly reduce existing locomotive emissions by up to
95 percent and reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent.
GenSet technology replaces a single large diesel engine in
the locomotive with two smaller engines that can be shut down
or operated depending on power demand requirements. Without
compromising traction and power, this approach conserves fuel
and reduces noise during operations by using only one engine in
low power applications and powering up both engines in higher
power demand applications. The Port Authority took delivery of
the first retrofitted engine in February 2013.
In follow up to our positive experience with DERA, the Port
Authority looked to build on the program's success. The Port
Authority sought out and has received a $1.35 million grant
under DERA 2012 to repower two more terminal railways circa
1980 diesel electric switching locomotives. It is estimated
that this $2.02 million repower project will reduce particulate
matter emissions by 60 tons over the lifetime of these two
engines. Additionally, these two engine repowers will generate
an estimated 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel savings annually.
The Alabama State Port Authority applauds the Subcommittee
for its past leadership in support of the DERA grant program
and for its ongoing leadership in addressing black carbon
impacts. The Port Authority thanks the members for the
opportunity to speak on our experiences with this critical
program, and I am happy to address any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. Harris, I am glad you came today. I am
glad you all came today, but I said to Senator Sessions, what
compelling testimony. I would just say to my colleagues, think
about this. For every $1 that we appropriate for DERA, it
leverages $3 additional. And for every $1 that we appropriate
through DERA, we get about $13 worth of health savings.
So if you think about the $1 from DERA that leverages the
other $3, if you multiple three times $13, you actually get for
every $1 in DERA spending, we are getting about $39 worth, if
my math is right, about $39 worth of health benefits. Pretty
compelling.
And the point that you made, Mr. Harris, about the fuel
savings as well on the locomotives that you have in, is it
Mobile?
Mr. Harris. Yes.
Senator Carper. That is very compelling. We have to figure
out a way, these numbers are just too compelling, we have to
figure out a way to get some additional moneys moved, Federal
moneys moved through the appropriation process into this
program.
Before we get started with questions, I just want to first
ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from
the President and CEO of the American Association of Port
Authorities, Kurt Nagle, I expect you know him. Kurt Nagle, in
support of fully funding DERA at the authorized levels.
[The referenced letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. I want to go back to, if I could, Mr.
Johnson, to something that you said. I was telling Jeff here
that my primary vehicle for moving around the State of Delaware
is a 2001 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. We bought it the
year that I stepped down as Governor of Delaware in 2001. And
it now has 353,000 miles on it. It has the original engine,
original transmission, original owner. And my wife says to me,
when are you ever going to buy a new vehicle? And I say, why?
In fact, it is in the shop today, but just for an oil change.
We started changing oil last year.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Before that, all we did is wash it every 2
weeks.
But someday, I will have to get a new vehicle, and Jeff was
telling me about some of the vehicles they make down in Alabama
that are highly energy efficient diesel-powered vehicles, clean
emissions, low emissions, which is very compelling. Made here
with American technology.
I just want to go back to something you said, Mr. Johnson.
Sometimes when we are driving down the highway in Delaware in
my like-new Town and Country minivan, we will have on the air
conditioning. Days like this we don't, and we will just
circulate the outside air through the vehicle.
You made a statement included in your comments, you talked
about the level of emissions that we breathe in when we do
that. Would you just revisit that for us again, please? I just
want to hear this again.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you for the chance to clarify the
statements and elaborate a little bit more. Coming out of the
tailpipe of an unfiltered diesel engine, the particle
concentrations are 10 million to 100 million per milliliter. By
the time it reaches the car, the car behind the truck or even
the car a couple cars behind the truck, it is diluted a
thousand times. So if you recall the arithmetic here, you go
from 10 to the eighth down to 10 to the fifth, but then every
breath that you take is about 100 milliliters. So you add
another 10 to the 2 and you end up with 1 million to 10 million
particles per breath.
Now, in your cabin, I used to work in cabin air filtration
earlier in my career, and I was astounded that the air in your
car changes, even if the fan is not on, about three times a
minute. That was back then. I don't know what they are today.
But you are essentially bringing in high volumes of fresh air
into your vehicle. And this air has very high contaminant
levels, when you are on the freeway.
Another comment that I would like to make is that freeway
exposure is not limited to vehicles. In California, a study in
Toronto, 40 percent to 50 percent of the people in those cities
live within 500 yards of a highway or a major thoroughfare.
These are referred to as tunnels of pollution, and this affects
the children's lung capacity, asthma, and other things that are
lifetime illnesses, lifetime, it is carried over for a
lifetime. So when you are talking 40 to 50 percent of the
population living within these freeways, vehicular emission
control takes a whole new meaning. That is in L.A. today, with
the tightest regulations in the country, the world.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you for that
clarification.
One question, if I could, for both Mr. Schneider and Mr.
Singletary, then I will kick it over to Senator Sessions. As
you know, I have another day job, you may know I have another
day job as the Chair of the Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee, with my ranking member on that Committee,
Tom Coburn. We try very hard to make sure we are getting better
results for less money, not duplicating efforts in the Federal
Government. Can you talk just a little bit about why, despite
the overall success of the Clean Air Act in improving our air
quality, we need programs like DERA and Clean Construction to
reduce black carbon pollution? Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Sure, Senator, that is a great question. I
think the answer primarily is that the Clean Air Act is a
regulatory program. It tells you what you can't do or how much
pollution you can't emit. It does not provide necessarily
incentives or subsidies or whatever for pollution reduction. So
it is a regulatory-based program.
And so for these diesel particulate filters that we are
talking about, they are very effective at taking pollution out
of the air, but they don't necessarily confer a benefit on the
companies that have to install them. In fact, a lot of the
companies that have bought what we call the existing diesel
fleet, when they purchased them, they met the clean air
standards that EPA had set. Now what we are seeing is they need
to do better, it would be great if they could retrofit. Because
those companies don't experience a direct benefit to that, the
benefit is really a public good. So it makes sense for the
Government to have a role in providing some incentives to help
them do that.
Now, that might not be true for a repower like the GenSet,
and the situation that was described in Mobile. That would be a
situation where you get the double benefit. But the filter
doesn't really get you a fuel economy benefit. So that is a big
part of it.
States do have the ability, particularly as Mr. Schaeffer
mentioned, that we may be seeing tighter PM and ozone standards
in the future. States do have the ability to require these
retrofits, as California has tried to do as part of their State
implementation plans. So it is possible to order these
retrofits. But in many areas, you are probably not going to see
that. If we want to experience the benefits of these retrofits,
it is a great step to have the Federal Government step in with
DERA and Clean Construction and lend a helping hand.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
Mr. Singletary, same question, please.
Mr. Singletary. Senator, in regard to the DERA program, I
think the best benefit of the program is that it is assisting
these school districts, some of them who are struggling
financially to replace these aging fleets. It would be very
difficult on a mandatory basis to make them do that. So the
voluntary nature of the program, helping them to address those,
especially considering the sensitive population that is most
impacted. In Oklahoma, we are currently in attainment for all
the NAAQs, so we don't have the ability to go back, especially
in regard to mobile sources, but even stationary sources, and
achieve tighter reductions from existing sources. So a
voluntary program like that that provides an incentive for the
school districts to come forward and try and replace those
buses prior to the life span of the bus, or retrofit the buses
to lower those emissions is very helpful.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I want to ask a number of
questions, and maybe briefly go through and give us some
perspective on where we are. Mr. Harris, thank you for your
leadership at the State docks, Port Authority. Do you believe
the diesel engines are environmentally beneficial, a modern,
efficient diesel engine?
Mr. Harris. Yes, Senator, very much. There have been
tremendous advances in diesel engine technology over the last
several years. A modern diesel engine is very much
environmentally friendly technology.
Senator Sessions. Share with us how much it takes per
engine to retrofit it in the way you suggested with two
different engines that combine, if needed, for extra power and
get a 50 percent fuel reduction. What does it cost, so people
know, to actually accomplish that per engine?
Mr. Harris. It costs approximately $1.6 million per
locomotive to do that rebuild with the GenSet technology that
we have adopted.
Senator Sessions. So the Federal grant money was very
helpful in helping you make that decision?
Mr. Harris. Yes. The Federal grant money allowed us to go
that extra step to put in place a more emission-efficient
technology and a fuel-efficient technology.
Senator Sessions. Does a complete new, actually two
complete new engines replacing one, Mr. Johnson, you have a
filter that can go on an existing engine, as I understand it.
Is that correct? How much does it cost to install your product?
Mr. Johnson. It depends, of course, on the vehicle. Looking
at a heavy duty truck, it is on the order of $5,000 to $7,000
per truck. Now, keep in mind that these trucks are still worth
$50,000 to $70,00, even $100,000. So it is a relatively small
investment on a truck that is worth an order of magnitude more
and will be in service for 5 or 10 years.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Singletary, thinking about thousands
of school buses there, I calculated one time, I spent a full
year of my life on a school bus, an hour just about in the
morning and an hour home in the afternoon, for many years. What
about new engines? Where are we heading with new engines? Is
there a movement toward the more modern diesel engines or are
school systems still using a gasoline engine? What do you think
is best environmentally?
Mr. Singletary. Senator, I believe the majority of the
fleet in Oklahoma are diesel buses. Obviously the newer diesel
buses, you have emissions in regard to PM that are 93 percent
less than some of the older buses that are in place. Like I
said in my direct testimony, some of the buses that we have
replaced through our program were over 20 years old, some
approaching 30 years. So there are some significant reductions
between the standards when they were manufactured and the newer
2011 and newer models.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Schneider, do you have any
observation about the choice that a school system has in buying
a new bus? Should they consider a modern diesel or would, from
an environmental perspective and cost perspective, be smarter
to buy gasoline?
Mr. Schneider. Typically what we find is that the school
bus fleets are running on diesel. And the choice that they
typically face is whether and how fast to replace those older
diesel buses with new ones versus taking the money maybe
through a DERA program or whatever and install a diesel
particulate filter on them. Both are very effective. But we
have found that you can retrofit and clean up an entire fleet
through retrofits probably more efficiently and more cost
effectively than replacing it. But some of the school districts
have the capital budget to be able to replace their fleets.
Senator Sessions. But just as vehicles turn over, and some
have to be replaced, do you have an opinion which would be
preferable?
Mr. Schneider. I think the industry standard is diesel.
Senator Sessions. When you look at the overall cost and the
advantages, I guess I am wrestling with the question, should we
do more to incentivize the new vehicles also, not just
retrofitting old ones. But diesels last a long time, some are
30 years old, still running, is that correct?
I see Mr. Schneider and Mr. Johnson are nodding. Do you
have some old ones?
Mr. Harris. Yes, Senator, the locomotives that we have
discussed were purchased in 1980. So we are talking 40-plus
years.
Senator Sessions. So, 1980 was 40 years ago?
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. I am kind of kidding.
Well, we are making progress with the new ones. One of my
staff people in Alabama commuted about 50 miles a day. And she
bought a Volkswagen Beetle diesel and was getting 52 miles to
the gallon. Now, that is significant, that really started my
inquiry into the advantages, one way or the other, as to diesel
engines as compared to gasoline engines. And that was better
than hybrid engine cars yet. So it was a matter of real
importance.
We have also a representative here from NAVASTAR who builds
fabulous diesel engines in Alabama. We are proud of them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. These are
important issues. What I like about this whole process, to me,
it is a win-win in the sense that we are getting better gas
mileage, bringing down the costs to the purchaser of the
vehicle, getting better environmental impact and having the
savings more than pay for the cost of the engine. So I think
that is a good step for us to take, and thank you for your
leadership.
Senator Carper. It doesn't get much better than that. It is
a great combination. Win-win-win.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I did note for the record
here and offer for the record a summary of the GAO report on
the various programs. This one is entitled Fragmented Federal
Programs That Reduce Mobile Source Emissions, which is what we
are talking about, Could Be Improved. That is the title of it.
So one of the things we ought to look at is maybe exactly where
we are targeting our resources, maybe we don't need quite so
many programs, we could actually get more money that could go
out to transform our fleets.
Senator Carper. Thank you. And with that, that will be part
of the record. Thanks so much.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senator Boozman, welcome aboard. Thanks so
much for being here.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, and I have enjoyed working with
you on this issue very, very much. I agree with Senator
Sessions, I think the GAO says that we are spending over a
billion dollars in ancillary stuff and needing to consolidate,
fund the programs that work. Seriously, I asked Philip about
the funding that had gone forward in the House. I think it is
about $19 million, which is interesting. That is three times
what the Administration has asked for, and this very difficult
time I think really illustrates how important a lot of people
feel like this program is.
I think we all agree that this black soot is extremely
toxic, and again, as the Chairman has pointed out and Senator
Sessions, the bang for the buck with three to one leveraging,
and then also the health care costs. It really does seem to be
something that is a little bit of a no-brainer.
Mr. Singletary, you mentioned that Oklahoma is not
participating. Is that because under the current funding of the
$6 million or whatever projected that it is not worth the
administrative cost to the State to go forward?
Mr. Singletary. Yes, Senator, that is correct. I believe
the proposed allocation for States last year was just over
$71,000. The agency made the determination that the commitment
of agency resources to implement that, that we could achieve
better impact on air quality in Oklahoma by focusing those
efforts elsewhere.
Senator Boozman. So we are in a situation now where we have
cut the funding and proposed funding and things such that we
are, it is basically administrative costs, and we are not going
to get a whole lot done. Can you all comment about that?
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think
you are exactly right. We have seen from the beginning of the
DERA program adequate funding levels really drive results. And
we can focus on larger numbers of fleets and vehicles and
equipment and machines and that was done in the early parts of
the program.
Now we are getting into more specific and difficult areas
and ones that are quite significant. As Mr. Harris outlined,
the cost to upgrade existing locomotive technology is quite
significant and far beyond that of a single school bus. So as
we get into diminishing funds, we can also run into a situation
of diminishing returns, as we are unable to fund larger
projects and we have situations that were just described. So I
think as the agency has focused increasingly, I believe, this
year on port activities, and those are some of the larger
ticket items. So that will create some imbalances probably in
how funds are allocated throughout the country. Just by the
nature of the situation that we find ourselves in, not because
of agency choice.
So I think a more fully funded program of course would
benefit more parties, more entities, both large and small.
Senator Boozman. What is the average age of the truck
fleet? And you might comment on the diesel fleet. Then also you
have the heavy equipment, the earth movers, things like that.
Mr. Schaeffer. Sure, thank you. I happen to have some
specific data from Arkansas. Senator, in your State, about 24.7
percent of all commercial vehicles registered in the State
today, and that is Class 3 through Class 8, the smallest
commercial trucks up to the largest tractor trailers, 24.7
percent of those are 2007 and newer. So they include the latest
emissions control technology.
From a national perspective, about 11 percent of the trucks
out there today are 2010 and newer. Those also incorporate very
low emissions, NOx reduction technology. So the
fleet is improving in its average age. But we did go through a
period of time during the 2008 through 2011 period,
particularly, when the purchases of new technology were delayed
because of the recession and the uncertainty about the economy.
Senator Boozman. So part of that too was the uncertainty
about the equipment also, wasn't it, in the sense that new
technology, nobody really understood? I guess that was really
pushed forward in a hurry. And there was concern about adequate
testing.
Mr. Schaeffer. I think it is fair to say there was some
uncertainty about the new technology and whether or not it
would perform as suggested. Within the trucking industry,
adoption of new technology, of any kind of new technology there
is uncertainty. So that is correct.
I wanted to answer the off-road question a little bit. The
average age of the off-road fleet is a really difficult
question and one that we don't have the benefit of vehicle
registration data. So what we find, though, in our sort of
analysis of the situation, the best we can, find that those
machine and pieces of equipment that are highly used, like
backhoes and wheel loaders and dozers, are replaced quite
often, because they are the primary tools of construction.
There are some very old cranes and other machines that perform
unique activities. But they only perform them in a very unique
and limited period of time. So it is not like they are being
used every day. They may be 20 years old, but they may only be
being used a few hours each year on a very specific task. We
are not able to really provide the average ages of all those
machines and equipment. There are just too many and to many
diverse types.
Senator Boozman. If they are like my little tractor on my
little farm, a lot of it is old.
Tell me, Mr. Singletary, you mentioned the voluntary nature
of this. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Singletary. I think that is a big plus to the program,
is the voluntary nature. Like I said, the buses are the
vehicles that we are primarily targeting in Oklahoma. Our
school buses, school districts, especially during tough
economic times, replacing a school bus is $80,000, $85,000. So
any amount that can be offset through a grant program to
replace a 30-year-old bus is something that is very helpful to
get those old buses off the road.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and again, I appreciate you
and Senator Carper working together. I think this is great.
There is lots of stuff going on up here, but this is a great
example of us really trying to come together and get some
common ground and provide adequate funding for what appears to
be from the studies and listing of people like yourselves that
are out there every day fighting the battle of trying to
control these things, a very worthwhile program. So hopefully
we can work together to get the adequate funding that we need.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. I do have one comment to make. This is a very
valuable program, obviously, for all the stakeholders. But it
is over-subscribed. Six entities apply and only one gets it. So
as long as there are volunteers that wish to use this
technology, it is a great investment for everybody.
Senator Boozman. Well, if it goes down to $6 million, it is
going to be way over-subscribed.
Senator Sessions. Senator Boozman, I don't know if you want
one of those $5,000 filters on your tractor or not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. It does raise the question of what we can
afford, how many hours a vehicle is being used, how much we can
afford to put in the older vehicles. We are not able to just
completely eliminate that fleet. But looking at the numbers,
the improvement we are seeing is rather remarkable. The trends
are really, really good.
I noticed, and I mentioned the school bus manufacturing in
Oklahoma, but those engines are made by NAVASTAR in Huntsville,
Alabama, those diesel engines. Each one of them that goes out
is very much an improvement on the environment.
Mr. Johnson, did you want to comment?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. The $5,000 to $7,000 that I quoted, much
of it is engineering. It is labor to design the equipment,
install it, monitor it and so on. The actual hardware is much
less than that.
Senator Sessions. Are there things that we might could use
that would be less efficient but more affordable for a small
farm tractor or something of that kind? Have any technology
improvements been made there?
Mr. Johnson. That raises an interesting question. Companies
like mine invest in markets that look promising. So the
interesting thing about DERA is that it was an incubator for a
wide range of retrofit technologies.
So I am quite confident that if the market is there, the
technology will be developed to address the market need,
whether that market need is for a $1,000 system or a $150,000
system. So this is an incubation program in a lot of ways.
Senator Sessions. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you. It has been really
extraordinary. We have about 5 minutes to go, so we are going
to ask maybe one more question, then we will have some
questions for the record. I want to thank Senator Sessions, I
really want to thank our staffs for the work that went into
this.
Again, for Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schaeffer if I could, this
will be my last question here today. Both of you mentioned in
your testimony the cutting edge diesel technology that American
companies have developed and are manufacturing here in the U.S.
Mr. Johnson, I believe the comment you made was that you are
building a new clean diesel manufacturing facility as we speak
in New York, is that right?
All right. Can you talk about why this country, how did we
end up as a leader, if you will, in clean diesel technology and
what it has meant for economic development and trade deficits
in this country? Are there any programs or anything that the
Federal Government can do to keep us on the cutting edge?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, that is an excellent question that I look
at all the time. First of all, regarding the first part of your
question on why the United States is leading this technology. I
saw a presentation given just last week by Cummins. They
showed, and others have shown the same thing, where the
technology follows the regulation. Whenever there is a
regulatory shift, there is a technology shift, for whatever
reason. It is a very clear relationship.
We have the tightest regulations in the world on vehicles
here in the United States. That is why we are a leader in
developing these technologies.
With regard to exports, this plant that we are building is
being designed to meet the worldwide requirements for our
products. And the intent is to put a lot of the product into
export from this plant to meet the needs in China and India.
The reason that we built it here, quite simply, is because
of the tax incentives that we received at the State level and
hopefully from the Federal level as well. They were
instrumental in helping us make that decision.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Schaeffer, please.
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you, Senator Carper.
The recent economic study that the Diesel Technology Forum
commissioned, which was completed by Aspen Environmental Group
and M.Cubed, found that diesel engines, fuel and equipment are
very high value as exports and account for about 4.4 percent of
all exports. That is about a $46.2 billion annual figure.
In the course of doing that, we learned that about one in
four of all diesel engines produced in the U.S. is destined for
a market overseas. So diesels are a high value export. The
technology is really in the forefront, not only of reducing
emissions but also the kinds of things that are highly valued;
fuel efficiency, reliability, durability, and performance that
diesel offers. The U.S. manufacturers and the members of our
organization have really been the forefront of making the
billions of dollars of investments that have been necessary to
produce these products that people want to buy around the
world.
So in terms of things that can be done, certainly
incentives to encourage more research and development, the
Department of Energy's Super Truck program is doing a great job
in facilitating new fuel-efficient truck technology for the
next century. And incentives to help fleets create and invest
in new technology were mentioned earlier. I think those are
important considerations. We are seeing those play out right
now in the agricultural sector, where many farmers have taken
advantage of some tax advantages that have allowed them to
invest in a lot of new equipment the last few years.
So that is better fuel-efficient technology for them, and
fewer emissions for our environment. So those are very
important programs.
Senator Carper. Excellent. That is all we have time for
today, time is running out on the clock. Again, thank you so
much for being here, thank you for the great work that you are
doing in this arena, whether you happen to be doing the R&D,
manufacturing the technology, implementing the technology, in
ways that are just very, very encouraging.
I usually take the train down in the morning and go back at
night. A lot of times I walk down the platform to get on the
train in the morning when I catch it, and I stop and talk to
people, mostly from Delaware but some from Pennsylvania or New
Jersey. And they say, how are you doing, how are you doing, I
have a friend when you ask him, how are you doing, he says,
compared to what?
Well, I almost always say, I am happy. People say, how can
you be happy? You are going to work, and don't you work in the
Senate? That must be a terrible place to work these days. If
they could be with us today, they would see why I am happy. I
am happy and I am encouraged. In adversity does lie
opportunity, thank you, Mr. Einstein, for that quote. But there
is plenty of adversity, reliance on foreign oil, fossil fuels,
creating a lot of pollution, climate change, health care
problems for young people and old, all kinds of adversity. But
there is real opportunity here, there is real opportunity in a
cost effective way to address those elements of adversity and
actually do them a lot better, and at the same time, create
jobs and create economic activity here in our country.
Thank you for remind us that it is possible to do it and do
well at the same time. This is a great example. And a great
example for us to focus on that 80-20 rule here in Washington,
DC. This is certainly that 80 percent that we can agree on.
And we just need to bear down and do more. Thank you so
much.
We have 2 weeks for Senators to submit their questions and
materials for the record. We just ask that you respond promptly
to those questions.
Again, thank you for a great job. Terrific panel. We have
four or five of us here today, I wish everybody on the
Committee could have actually been a part of this hearing. They
would have been as happy as I am and as encouraged as I am.
Thank you so much. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]