    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      EXAMINING HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY COULD HELP MITIGATE AND
                            ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE

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

                                    (116-3)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     35-381 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2020

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
      District of Columbia               DON YOUNG, Alaska
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland             Arkansas
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      ROB WOODALL, Georgia
        Georgia                          JOHN KATKO, New York
    ANDRE CARSON, Indiana                BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            MIKE BOST, Illinois
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         DOUG LaMALFA, California
    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey     BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California          PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice  GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
        Chair                            BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York            Puerto Rico
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    GREG STANTON, Arizona                ROSS SPANO, Florida
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               GREG PENCE, Indiana
    SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    HARLEY ROUDA, California
                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                       STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Salud O. Carbajal, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Vice Chair, Committee on
      Transportation and Infrastructure:
        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative
          in Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee
          on Transportation and Infrastructure \1\...................     3
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:
        Opening statement............................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, prepared statement.................................   157

                                   WITNESSES
                                    Panel 1

    Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air Resources Board:

        Oral statement...............................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center:

        Oral statement...............................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Thomas P. Lyon, Professor, Stephen M. Ross School of Business,
      University of Michigan:

        Oral statement...............................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Ben Prochazka, Vice President, Electrification Coalition:

        Oral statement...............................................    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Nancy N. Young, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Airlines
      for America:

        Oral statement...............................................    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    43

                                    Panel 2

    Kevin DeGood, Director, Infrastructure Policy, Center for
      American Progress:

        Oral statement...............................................   104
        Prepared statement...........................................   106
    James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
      McWane, Inc.:

        Oral statement...............................................   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   109
    Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project,
      Center for Strategic and International Studies:

        Oral statement...............................................   116
        Prepared statement...........................................   118

    ----------
    \1\ Hon. Carbajal delivered the prepared statement of Hon. DeFazio, who
    was unable to attend the hearing due to a snowstorm in Oregon.
    Lynn Scarlett, Vice President, Public Policy and Government
      Relations, The Nature Conservancy:

        Oral statement...............................................   120
        Prepared statement...........................................   121

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Post-hearing supplements to testimony submitted by Ben Prochazka.

    Article, ``Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon
      Dioxide,'' Science, Vol. 213, No. 4511, August 28, 1981,
      submitted for the record by Hon. Perry of Pennsylvania.........   159
    Statement of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
      Association, submitted for the record by Hon. Graves of
      Missouri.......................................................   169
    Statement of Ian J. Jeffries, President and Chief Executive
      Officer, Association of American Railroads, submitted for the
      record by Hon. Graves of Missouri..............................   170
    Comments of the Southern Environmental Law Center, submitted for
      the record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon...........................   174
    Letter of February 22, 2019, from Matthew J. Strickler, Secretary
      of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted for
      the record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon...........................   181

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Daniel
      Sperling.......................................................   185
    Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Daniel Sperling..........   185
    Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Daniel Sperling.............   187
    Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia for Vicki Arroyo.....   187
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Vicki
      Arroyo.........................................................   188
    Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Vicki Arroyo.............   188
    Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Vicki Arroyo................   192
    Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Vicki Arroyo.................   193
    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Vicki Arroyo.................   193
    Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Thomas P. Lyon...............   198
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Thomas P.
      Lyon...........................................................   199
    Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Thomas P. Lyon...............   199
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Ben
      Prochazka......................................................   200
    Question from Hon. Lloyd Smucker for Ben Prochazka...............   201
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Nancy N.
      Young..........................................................   201
    Question from Hon. Garret Graves for Nancy N. Young..............   202
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Kevin
      DeGood.........................................................   203
    Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Kevin DeGood.................   203
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for James M.
      Proctor II.....................................................   204
    Question from Hon. David Rouzer for James M. Proctor II..........   205
    Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Whitley Saumweber............   206
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Whitley
      Saumweber......................................................   206
    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Lynn
      Scarlett.......................................................   207
    Question from Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Lynn Scarlett......   207

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               February 22, 2019

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:       Members, Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure
        FROM:   Staff, Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure
        RE:       Full Committee Hearing on ``Examining How Federal
    Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate
    Change''

                                    Purpose

        The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    (Committee) will meet on Tuesday, February 26, 2019, at 10 a.m.
    in HVC-210, the Capitol Visitors Center, to receive testimony
    related to ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could
    Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change.'' The purpose of
    this hearing is to examine the role the transportation sector
    plays in global warming, understand the dual track approach of
    mitigation and resiliency, and learn from individuals in the
    public and private sectors whom have demonstrated pragmatic
    solutions for reducing carbon emissions and building resilient
    infrastructure.
        The first panel will focus on ways to mitigate the effects
    of climate change, by reducing carbon emissions to reduce the
    accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The
    Committee will hear from representatives of the California Air
    Resources Board, Georgetown Climate Center, Stephen M. Ross
    School of Business at the University of Michigan,
    Electrification Coalition, and Airlines for America. The second
    panel will address how to make infrastructure more resilient
    and protect people, infrastructure, and ecosystems from the
    impacts of climate change. The Committee will hear from
    representatives of the Center for American Progress, McWane
    Inc., Center for Strategic and International Studies, and The
    Nature Conservancy.

                                   Background

        The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC) estimates that human activities have caused
    approximately 1.0 +C of global warming above pre-industrial
    levels, and are likely to cause a 1.5 +C increase between 2030
    and 2052 if warming continues at the current rate.\1\ Impacts
    from global warming are already apparent.\2\ Unless we take
    action to quickly reverse course, these trends will persist for
    centuries and will continue to cause further long-term changes
    to the environment, such as sea level rise, changing
    precipitation patterns, more acidic oceans, and increasing
    frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Global warming of 1.5 +C: Summary for Policymakers.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. October 2018.
        \2\ Ibid.
        \3\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Mitigation

    THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECTOR'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING

        In 2017, the emissions from transportation accounted for
    about 28.7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
    making it the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas
    emissions.\4\ Historically, electricity generation has been the
    largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but the
    replacement of many coal plants with cheaper natural gas and
    rising vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has recently pushed
    transportation into the forefront as the largest contributor.
        Within the U.S. transportation sector, passenger vehicles
    and freight trucks added together account for 83 percent of
    greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation contributes only 10 percent
    of emissions. Other modes such as rail and shipping play a
    minor role.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
    2017. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2019. Table 2-10.
        \5\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
    2017. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2019. Table 2-13.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    PASSENGER VEHICLES, LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES, AND FREIGHT TRUCK MITIGATION

        There are three methods to reduce emissions from passenger
    vehicles and trucks, which combined account for 83 percent of
    greenhouse gas emissions, and a robust decline in emissions
    will require all three methods.
        1.   Improved Vehicle Efficiency--Reducing the amount of
    fuel necessary to move a vehicle will reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. Traditionally, Congress has used CAFE standards to
    reduce fuel consumption and related carbon emissions, although
    the current Administration is considering changes to these
    standards with a final rule pending.\6\ CAFE standards are
    within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        2.  Switch to Fuel with Less Carbon: Shifting away from
    fossil fuels and toward electricity, fuel cells, biodiesel, and
    fossil fuels with less carbon content than gasoline or diesel
    can reduce emissions. In the current market place,
    electrification is viewed as the most plausible replacement for
    fossil fuel and has the lowest carbon profile.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        To find the impact of carbon reduction from switching to a
    hybrid or electric car in your State see this link: https://
    afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

        3.  Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Reducing the number of
    miles driven will reduce carbon emissions. Providing incentives
    for more efficient travel planning, eliminating the need for
    some trips, and shifting to more efficient modes will reduce
    vehicle miles traveled.

    AVIATION MITIGATION

        Aviation emissions come largely from commercial carrier jet
    fuel. According to the IPCC, aviation represents approximately
    2 to 3 percent of the total annual global CO2 emissions from
    human activities.\7\ While the United States does not currently
    have standards for aircraft emissions (generally or carbon
    dioxide specifically), the Federal Aviation Administration
    (FAA) supports several emission-reduction programs and the
    industry has taken on initiatives to reduce emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ European Union Aviation Safety Agency, European Aviation
    Environmental Report 2019, available at https://www.easa.europa.eu/
    eaer/system/files/usr_uploaded/219473_
    EASA_EAER_2019_WEB_HI-RES.pdf; see also EPA's most recent final GHG
    inventory report, issued in April 2018, US commercial aviation is only
    2 percent of the nation's domestic GHG emissions inventory. EPA
    Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016,
    available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-
    gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a
    specialized UN agency made up of 192 member states, is the
    primary international body for regulating global aviation
    standards. In 2016, ICAO reached an agreement on the (1) first
    international carbon dioxide standards for newly built aircraft
    and (2) first-of-its-kind carbon offsetting scheme known as the
    Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
    Aviation (CORSIA).\8\ CORSIA is an emissions offsetting program
    aimed at achieving carbon neutral growth after 2020 for
    operators that fly internationally and produce more than 10,000
    metric tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions. CORSIA has the
    support of the United States, U.S. airline industry, and 73
    other ICAO member nations representing 75.96 percent of the
    international aviation industry.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ International Civil Agency Organization, ICAO Council Reaches
    Landmark Decision on Aviation Emissions Offsetting (June 27, 2018),
    available at https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Council-reaches-
    landmark-decision-on-aviation-emissions-offsetting.aspx
        \9\ National Business Aviation Association, Carbon Offsetting and
    Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA): Introduction &
    Expectations on the Submission of Emissions Monitoring Plan (Oct. 16,
    2018), available at https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/events/
    20181011_Overview-of-CORSIA-EMP_NBAA-BACE-2018.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES

        1.  CORSIA Implementation--To comply with the recent ICAO
    agreements, the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) are required to develop regulations regarding aircraft
    design standards, emissions data collection, and monitoring. In
    addition, the agencies are tasked with implementing the new
    carbon offsetting system for U.S aircraft operators. Unlike how
    the Clean Air Act sets standards for other modes, here, the EPA
    must consult with the FAA on developing any emissions standards
    for aircraft, giving the FAA a central role in creating and
    enforcing the new ICAO environmental standards.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See ICAO, supra note 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2.  Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN)
    Program--The CLEEN program is a collaboration between the FAA
    and industry to drive the development of new aircraft and
    engine technologies that increase fuel efficiency, reduce
    emissions, decrease noise, and advance sustainable aviation
    fuels. During the first iteration of CLEEN, the FAA partnered
    with five companies and had a total investment value of more
    than $250 million by end of the original agreement in 2015.\11\
    Through cost-sharing partnerships with industry, CLEEN projects
    developed technologies that reduce noise, emissions, and fuel
    burn. The second iteration, CLEEN II, currently has the FAA
    partnered with eight companies and is scheduled to continue
    through 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Federal Aviation Administration, Continuous Lower Energy,
    Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program (2018), available at https://
    www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/
    aircraft_technology/cleen/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3.  Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) Program--Through
    participation in the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE)
    Program, airports can use Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
    funds and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue to finance
    low-emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate
    electrification, and other airport air quality improvements.
    Through September 2018, this program funded 105 projects at 51
    airports and is expected to reduce ozone emissions by 1,192
    tons per year over the next five years.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Federal Aviation Administration, Voluntary Aviation Lower
    Emissions Program (VALE) (2018), available at https://www.faa.gov/
    airports/environmental/vale/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4.  NextGen Implementation--The FAA continues to develop
    and implement NextGen technologies and procedures to modernize
    the air traffic control system. NextGen programs include
    Performance-Based Navigation procedures (GPS-satellite based
    flight paths) and Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM)
    deployment (a surface management solution), which will reduce
    aircraft fuel burn and create a more predictable and efficient
    flight and ground transportation system at airports.\13\ The
    TFDM system alone is expected to create 313 million gallons of
    fuel savings and reduce more than three million metric tons of
    carbon emissions over the life of the system.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ United States. Cong. House. Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure. Subcommittee on Aviation. Hearing on Putting U.S.
    Aviation At Risk: The Impact of the Shutdown Feb. 13, 2019. 116th
    Congress 1st sess. p. 12 (Statement of Paul Rinaldi, President,
    National Air Traffic Controllers Association).
        \14\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        5.  Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
    (CAAFI)--CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine
    manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, international
    participants, and U.S. government agencies working to promote
    alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation. CAAFI has led
    efforts in research and development, environmental assessment,
    fuel testing, and demonstration and commercialization of
    alternative aviation fuels. CAAFI efforts contributed to the
    creation of testing protocols and new alternative fuel
    specifications that have enabled approvals for aviation to use
    new fuels in commercial service. According to the FAA, this is
    helping to pave the way to large-scale production and use of
    these fuels. This leadership has also helped make aviation a
    major target market for the alternative fuels sector.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ United States Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
    Plan, submitted to ICAO, June 2015. Available at: https://www.icao.int/
    environmental-protection/Lists/ActionPlan/Attachments/30/
    UnitedStates_Action_Plan-2015.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COMMERCIAL AVIATION

        U.S. airlines have increased fuel efficiency by more than
    125 percent between 1978 and 2017, and they have moved 28
    percent more passengers and cargo in 2016 than 2000, using 3
    percent less fuel.\16\ This reflects the industry's interest in
    maximizing fuel efficiency, largely attributed to the fact that
    fuel consistently ranks as their largest or second largest
    expense.\17\ Furthermore, the U.S. airline industry has
    committed to ICAO goals to increase fuel efficiency and reduce
    its environmental footprint. These goals include (1) achieving
    annual fuel efficiency improvement of 1.5 percent starting in
    2010, (2) achieving carbon neutral growth starting in 2020, and
    (3) reducing net carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent over
    2005 levels by 2050.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Airlines for America, Policy Priority: Energy and the
    Environment (2018), available at http://airlines.org/policy-priorities-
    learn-more/#energy
        \17\ See Victoria Bryan, Higher Wages, Fuel Prices Turn Up Cost
    Pressure on Airlines, Reuters, Feb. 14, 2018, available at https://
    www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-wages-inflation-analysis/higher-
    wages-fuel-prices-turn-up-cost-pressure-on-airlines-idUSKCN1FY292
        \18\ Airlines for America, A4A's Climate Change Commitment,
    available at http://airlines.org/a4as-climate-change-commitment/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To achieve these goals, airlines are investing in fleet
    design standards with greater fuel efficiency, prioritizing the
    adoption of NextGen technologies, and developing industry
    coalitions such as the CAAFI to promote and deploy sustainable
    aviation fuels within the commercial aviation industry.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine
    manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, international
    participants and U.S. Government agencies working to promote
    alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MARITIME MITIGATION

        The maritime industry is taking steps to mitigate its
    environmental impacts. Overall, the maritime industry is
    responsible for approximately 2.6 percent of global CO2
    emissions from fossil fuel uses.\20\ However, the industry is
    working to reduce those emissions through several means,
    including slow steaming, conversion to low sulfur fuels, and
    the implementation of mandatory emission reductions in 2020.
    There has been worldwide cooperation across the maritime
    industry to pursue that goal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ The International Council on Clean Transportation, Greenhouse
    Gas Emissions From Global Shipping, 2013-2015 (October 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Resiliency

        The impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and
    extreme weather events can have a serious impact on our ports,
    airports, rail lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, locks, canals/
    channels, waste water systems, transit systems, pipelines,
    public buildings, and other critical infrastructure. Climate
    trends affect the design of transportation infrastructure,
    which is expensive and designed for long life (typically 50 to
    100 years). As climatic conditions shift, portions of this
    infrastructure will increasingly be subject to climatic
    stresses that will reduce the reliability and capacity of
    transportation systems and other infrastructure.

    HIGHWAYS

        Climate resiliency activities are eligible for Federal
    Highway Administration (FHWA) funding, including vulnerability
    assessments and design and construction of projects or features
    to protect assets from damage associated with climate change.
    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act
    (P.L. 112-141) required states to develop risk-based asset
    management plans for the National Highway System and to
    consider alternatives for facilities repeatedly needing repair
    or replacement with federal funding. The Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94) added a new
    requirement for states and metropolitan planning organizations
    consider projects and strategies to ``improve the resiliency
    and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or
    mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation'' as part
    of their planning process.

    WATER RESOURCES

        The United States has over 95,000 miles of coastline and
    approximately 3.4 million square miles of ocean within its
    territorial sea. Some 53 percent of the total U.S. population
    lives on the 17 percent of the land in the coastal zone, and
    these areas become more crowded every year. Demands on coasts
    are increasing, and as coastal areas become more developed,
    these communities are vulnerable to hurricanes, storm surges,
    and flooding events.
        Similarly, inland communities are vulnerable to a changing
    climate, especially communities that rely on rivers and
    streams, and associated water resources infrastructure, for
    transportation, water supply, power, and flood protection. For
    example, in 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute
    for Water Resources released a report on the impacts of climate
    change to the Ohio River Valley--home to more than 27 million
    people who live within this 204,000 square mile area.\21\ This
    report modeled how increasingly potent storms could cause
    increased river levels and the likelihood of flooding in low-
    lying areas; how more frequent and heavy droughts could reduce
    river volumes in localized areas, adversely impacting
    navigation and power generation that all rely on river flows;
    and the possible economic losses from the potential events.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio River Basin Alliance,
    Ohio River Basin--Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation
    Strategies through Regional Collaboration with the ORB Alliance (May
    2017), available at https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/
    orba/USACE%20Ohio%20River%20Basin%20CC%20Report_MAY%202017.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WATER RESILIENCY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Through the biennial Water Resources Development Acts, the
    Committee has taken initial steps to ensure that the impacts of
    climate change are taken into account in the planning, design,
    and construction of water resources development projects, such
    as flood risk reduction projects and hurricane and storm damage
    reduction projects, as well as to promote greater use of
    natural and nature-based infrastructure systems that seek to
    mimic nature's resiliency and reduce the effects of extreme
    weather events, and seek to develop integrated water resources
    projects that address multiple project purposes. Similarly, the
    Committee amended the Clean Water Act in the Water Resources
    Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) to make
    projects increase the resiliency of water-related
    infrastructure from the impacts of natural and man-made
    disasters, including extreme weather events and sea-level rise.

    FEMA RESILIENCY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        In 2017, Executive Order 13690--the Federal Flood Risk
    Management Standard (FFRMS), which amended the longstanding
    floodplain management Executive Order 11988, was repealed. In
    2018, Congress enacted language in the John S. McCain National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L.
    115-232) to establish minimum flood mitigation requirements for
    all military construction within the 100-year floodplain.
        The FFRMS was developed with significant interagency
    coordination during the Obama Administration. It was intended
    to assist in reducing the risk and cost of future flood
    disasters by ensuring that Federal investments in and affecting
    floodplains were constructed to better withstand the impacts of
    flooding. The FY19 NDAA language (Sec. 2805(a)(4)) is a similar
    step toward resiliency--albeit limited to the Department of
    Defense--requiring construction of non-mission critical
    buildings to two feet above the base flood elevation (BFE) and
    construction of mission-critical buildings to three feet above
    the BFE.
        Congress advanced two additional provisions to incentivize
    greater resiliency for future projects receiving Federal
    funding via the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
        First, in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018
    (P.L. 115-254), the Committee authorized the National Public
    Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) fund which will be
    funded as a six percent set aside from disaster expenses. This
    will be a more consistent stream of funding for PDM, allowing
    for greater investment in public infrastructure mitigation
    before a disaster. Additionally, DRRA clarifies what may be
    eligible for mitigation funding, ensuring Federal investments
    are cost effective and reduce risk. Until enactment of DRRA,
    PDM grants were inadequately and inconsistently funded by
    annual and supplemental appropriations.
        Second, in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 (P.L.
    115-123), Congress authorized the President to adjust the
    Federal cost share for FEMA Public Assistance grants on a
    sliding scale for States and Tribes that have invested in
    measures that increase readiness for, and resilience from, a
    major disaster (Sec. 20606).

    MARITIME RESILIENCY

        The U.S. Arctic, as defined in statute \22\, encompasses
    U.S. territory north of the Arctic Circle and along the Alaskan
    coast, including the Aleutian Islands. Three Arctic seas--the
    Bering, the Chukchi, and the Beaufort--border Alaska, and these
    seas have historically been frozen for more than half the year.
    The U.S. Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone contains 568,000 square
    nautical miles (SNM), of which less than half is considered by
    NOAA to be ``navigationally significant.'' The National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has designated 38,000 SNM
    of the navigationally significant areas as survey priority
    locations in the Arctic and estimates that it could take up to
    25 years to conduct modern hydrographic surveys in the priority
    locations, if resources remain at their current level.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, as amended (Public
    Law 98-373).
        \23\ NOAA National Ocean Service, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
    economy/arctic/, accessed February 19, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, most cargo ship traffic is not trans-Arctic;
    rather it is regional, focusing on the transport of natural
    resources and general cargo to and from widely dispersed
    communities. While there has been a recent increase in shipping
    activity, that increase is more related to a rise in commodity
    prices than with the melting of Arctic ice.\24\ However, the
    January 2019 Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth smallest in
    the 41-year record, six percent below the 1981-2010
    average.\25\ While all areas of the Arctic are seeing increased
    vessel activity, the Northern Sea Route along the Eurasian
    Arctic coast continues to account for the bulk of Arctic
    shipping activity.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Ronald O'Rourke, Congressional Research Service. Changes in
    the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress. February 7, 2019.
        \25\  National Snow & Ice Data Center, https://nsidc.org/
    arcticseaicenews/, accessed February 19, 2019.
        \26\ O'Rourke.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Numerous governmental and academic reports have identified
    infrastructure and operational challenges to maritime
    transportation in the U.S. Arctic, including limited satellite
    coverage and architecture to support voice and data
    communications, the lack of a deep-draft port (accommodating
    ships with a draft of up to 35 feet), hazardous weather and ice
    conditions, and the lack of channel marking buoys and other
    floating visual aids to navigation, which are not possible due
    to continuously moving ice sheets.\27\ In order to ensure safe
    and efficient maritime transportation in the region, it is
    necessary to conduct surveys to improve nautical charts,
    improve communications capabilities, improve weather
    forecasting and modeling, construct a deep-draft U.S. Arctic
    port, and develop community and regional emergency response
    networks in preparation for vessel and aircraft accidents and
    environmental damage related to increased ship traffic and
    industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Arctic Council (2009) Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment; U.S.
    White House (2013) National Strategy for the Arctic Region; U.S.
    Government Accountability Office (2014) Maritime Infrastructure: Key
    Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next
    Decade; Alaska Arctic Policy Commission (2015) Final Report; U.S.
    Committee on the Marine Transportation System (2016) A Ten-Year
    Prioritization of Infrastructure Needs in the U.S. Arctic; Council on
    Foreign Relations (2017) Arctic Imperatives, Reinforcing U.S. Strategy
    on America's Fourth Coast; Center for Strategic and International
    Studies (2017) Maritime Futures, the Arctic and the Bering Strait
    Region; Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (2018)
    Identifying Potential Gaps in the U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Capabilities;
    U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System (2019) Revisiting
    Near-Term Recommendations to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs in the
    U.S. Arctic.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While climate change is causing the Arctic to become an
    emergent area, it will not solely affect the polar regions.
    Rising sea level projections mean that port infrastructure at
    all latitudes could be at risk of inundation, higher storm
    surge, and loss of economic function costing hundreds of
    millions if not billions of dollars to mitigate threats or
    rebuild/relocate existing infrastructure.

                                  Witness List

    PANEL I

          Dr. Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air
    Resources Board
          Ms. Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown
    Climate Center
          Professor Thomas P. Lyon, Stephen M. Ross School
    of Business, University of Michigan
          Mr. Ben Prochazka, Vice President,
    Electrification Coalition
          Ms. Nancy Young, Vice President, Environmental
    Affairs, Airlines for America

    PANEL II

          Mr. Kevin DeGood, Director, Infrastructure
    Policy, Center for American Progress
          Mr. James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President
    and General Counsel, McWane, Inc.
          Dr. Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean
    Security Project, Center for Strategic and International
    Studies
          Ms. Lynn Scarlett, Vice President, Policy and
    Government Affairs, The Nature Conservancy

      EXAMINING HOW FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY COULD HELP MITIGATE AND
                            ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Salud O. Carbajal
    (Vice Chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Mr. Carbajal. The committee will come to order. I ask
    unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare
    recess during today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Welcome, everyone. Unfortunately, due to an unusually heavy
    snow storm in Oregon, the chairman remains stuck and is unable
    to attend today's hearing.
        This is the latest evidence, many will say, that climate
    change increases extreme weather events, and those events
    negatively affect our transportation system. Today I will
    deliver the following remarks on behalf of Chairman DeFazio.
        Today we bring the full committee together for our second
    hearing of the year, to examine how Federal infrastructure
    policy could help mitigate and adapt to climate change. The
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has traditionally
    worked in a bipartisan manner. We don't always agree, but we do
    always strive to find common ground.
        Today we tackle a topic that has divided Congress for a
    long time. I urge every member of this committee to approach
    today's hearing with an open mind and a willingness to listen
    and learn, and to respectfully engage with each other and
    today's panel.
        The transportation sector is now the largest contributor to
    global warming. Within the transportation sector, passengers
    and freight vehicles contribute 83 percent of the global
    warming emissions. I intend to respond appropriately to this
    challenge as we move legislation and direct investment to
    transportation activities this Congress.
        I suspect many on both sides of the aisle will want to spar
    over the Green New Deal. While proponents tout it as critical
    to avoiding a climate crisis, others have called it a plan that
    will undermine our economy and way of life. It is difficult to
    reconcile these two portrayals, but it is not what we are here
    to do today. If you want to debate the underlying arguments or
    ideas of the Green New Deal, this is not the venue.
        The authors of the Green New Deal set an ambitious goal,
    one which I support, but their plan encompasses issues far
    beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. In fact, it was
    referred to 11 committees, and the resolution provides no
    details. Rather than debate this resolution, our job is to find
    pragmatic approaches to address the challenges of our changing
    climate.
        I believe our best chance of mitigating further damage and
    creating sustainable, resilient infrastructure is to look for
    areas of common ground.
        Many would be surprised to learn that my district is not so
    different from our ranking member's district. His district is
    the 40th largest district in the Nation at 18,198 square miles.
    My district is the 41st largest district in the Nation at
    17,274 square miles. We both have population areas. The ranking
    member has the northern suburbs of Kansas City, while I have
    two university towns. Moreover, we both have large rural
    constituencies who make an honest living in agriculture, in Mr.
    Graves's district, and in timber, fishing, and agriculture in
    my district.
        Ranking Member Graves and I represent similar people,
    facing similar struggles, and worrying about similar things,
    some in the rural areas and some in more urban areas. We owe it
    to our constituents to be pragmatic, thoughtful, and
    deliberate.
        Also on this committee are members with vastly different
    districts. Mr. Espaillat's district, parts of Manhattan and the
    Bronx, is so small and dense that one can stroll from one side
    of the district to the other with a leisurely walk. On the
    other side of the spectrum, it takes a lengthy plane ride to
    get across Mr. Young's vast district.
        Today I want the witnesses to offer pragmatic, yet
    effective, solutions to climate change that reflect these
    differences and that will inform the committee's efforts to
    mitigate carbon emissions and provide for resilient
    infrastructure in different disparate districts.
        Despite the differences among Member districts, our
    constituents rely on airports, bridges, drinking water,
    highways, ports, public buildings, rail, transit, tunnels, and
    wastewater systems. Protecting critical infrastructure unites
    us, and firmly within this committee's jurisdiction. I want to
    be proactive, working with all Members to address this
    challenge.
        I would also ask that Members give thoughtful consideration
    to the options presented today, and look for areas of future
    opportunity. For example, many of today's witnesses will
    support electrification of passenger and freight vehicles
    because of the overwhelming contribution to global warming
    emissions by today's fleet.
        Some Members may be tempted to blast away at this idea,
    raising concerns about the economic consequences. Before they
    do, they should know that over four-fifths of battery electric
    vehicles and nearly two-thirds of plug-in hybrid electric
    vehicles are assembled in the United States. I think we can all
    agree we should support more domestic manufacturing.
        So let's get down to business. If you want to do the hard,
    messy work of legislating to reduce carbon emissions from
    transportation, and build resilient infrastructure in an effort
    to tackle global warming, I look forward to working with you. I
    welcome our witnesses who are here to inform us of pragmatic,
    but effective, strategic strategies this committee can take.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
                                 Infrastructure
        The following are opening remarks as prepared for delivery by
    committee Vice Chair Salud O. Carbajal, on behalf of Chair Peter A.
    DeFazio, who was unable to attend today's hearing due to a snowstorm in
    Oregon.
        Welcome. Unfortunately, due to an unusually heavy snowstorm in
    Oregon, the chairman remains stuck there and is unable attend today's
    hearing. This is the latest evidence that climate change increases
    extreme weather events and those events negatively affect our
    transportation system. I will deliver the following remarks on behalf
    of the chairman.
        Today we bring the full committee together for our second hearing
    of the year, to examine how Federal infrastructure policy could help
    mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee has traditionally worked in a bipartisan
    manner--we don't always agree, but we do always strive to find a common
    ground. Today, we tackle a topic that has divided Congress for a long
    time. I urge every member of this committee to approach today's hearing
    with an open mind and a willingness to listen and learn, and to
    respectfully engage with each other and today's panel.
        The transportation sector is now the largest contributor to global
    warming in the U.S. Within the transportation sector, passenger and
    freight vehicles contribute 83 percent of global warming emissions. I
    intend to respond appropriately to this challenge as we move
    legislation and direct investment to transportation activities this
    Congress.
        I suspect many Members on both sides of the aisle will want to spar
    over the Green New Deal. While proponents tout it as critical to
    avoiding a climate crisis, others have called it a plan that will
    undermine our economy and way of life. It is difficult to reconcile
    these two portrayals, but that is not what we are here to do today.
        If you want to debate the underlying arguments or ideas of the
    Green New Deal, this is not the venue. The authors of the Green New
    Deal set an ambitious goal, one which I support, but their plan
    encompasses issues far beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, in
    fact it was referred to eleven committees, and the resolution provides
    no details. Rather than debate this resolution, our job to is find
    pragmatic approaches to addresses the challenges of our changing
    climate.
        I believe our best chance of mitigating further damage and creating
    sustainable, resilient infrastructure is to look for areas of common
    ground. Many would be surprised to learn that my district is not so
    different from the ranking member's district. His district is the 40th
    largest district in the nation at 18,198 square miles. My district is
    the 41st largest district in the nation at 17,274 square miles.
        We both have populous areas, the ranking member has the northern
    suburbs of Kansas City, while I have two university towns. Moreover, we
    both have large rural constituencies who make an honest living--in
    agriculture in Mr. Graves's district--and timber, fishing, and
    agriculture in my district.
        Ranking Member Graves and I represent similar people, facing
    similar struggles, and worrying about similar things, some in rural
    areas and some in more urban areas. We owe it to our constituents to be
    pragmatic, thoughtful, and deliberate.
        Also on this committee are members with vastly different districts.
    Mr. Espaillat's district, parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, is so small
    and dense that one can stroll from one side of the district to the
    other with a leisurely walk. On the other side of the spectrum, it
    takes a lengthy plane ride to get across Mr. Young's vast district.
        Today, I want the witnesses to offer pragmatic, yet effective,
    solutions to climate change that reflect these differences and that
    will inform the committee's efforts to mitigate carbon emissions and
    provide for resilient infrastructure in disparate districts.
        Despite the differences among Member districts, our constituents
    rely on airports, bridges, drinking water, highways, ports, public
    buildings, rail, transit, tunnels, and wastewater systems. Protecting
    critical infrastructure unites us, and is firmly within this
    committee's jurisdiction. I want to be proactive, working with all
    Members to address this challenge.
        I would also ask that Members give thoughtful consideration to the
    options presented today, and look for areas of future opportunity. For
    example, many of today's witnesses will support electrification of
    passenger and freight vehicles because of the overwhelming contribution
    to global warming emissions by today's fleets.
        Some Members may be tempted to blast away at this idea, raising
    concerns about the economic consequences. Before they do, they should
    know that over four-fifths of battery electric vehicles and nearly two-
    thirds of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are assembled in the United
    States. I think we can all agree we should support more domestic
    manufacturing.
        So let's get down to business. If you want to do the hard, messy
    work of legislating to reduce carbon emissions from transportation and
    build resilient infrastructure in an effort to tackle global warming, I
    look forward to working with you. I welcome our witnesses who are here
    to inform us of pragmatic, but effective, strategies this committee can
    take.

        Mr. Carbajal. I will now turn it over to Ranking Member
    Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we
    can all agree that we want clean air and clean water for our
    communities, and we have to be prepared for the challenges that
    are posed by a sometimes harsh environment.
        And as a farmer myself, I know that the environment is
    important for both quality of life, and it is obviously
    important for the economy. And I also know we need to work
    together to find solutions that actually work.
        We don't have to live in a fairy tale. And that is where
    ideas like the Green New Deal come from. There is no other way
    to describe this idea to completely make over our
    transportation network.
        Who actually believes that we can make aviation unnecessary
    by building some vast high-speed rail system? Because right
    here in the real world, the poster child, obviously, for high-
    speed rail in California has simply run off the tracks right
    before our eyes. And by the way, this massive shift would put
    11 million people in the aviation sector out of jobs, or out of
    work.
        There are some real consequences of pursuing the goals of
    this fantasy proposal. And that is just one example of the
    Green New Deal goals and the trillions of dollars it would
    likely cost.
        Infrastructure is an issue that we can find common ground
    and bipartisan agreement on, with real-world solutions. In
    recent years, we have passed some really good bipartisan
    infrastructure legislation that has addressed environmental
    issues.
        For instance, the FAA reauthorization, among other things,
    established the FAA industry partnership for developing low-
    energy and low-emission technologies. The Disaster Recovery Act
    focused on making our communities more resilient to disasters.
    And we passed three Water Resources Development Acts that
    address ecosystem restoration, flood risk reduction, and storm
    risk reduction projects.
        Instead of taking the Government-knows-all or one-size-
    fits-all approach, these laws provide the State, local, and
    private-sector partners with the tools and flexibility to
    address their needs and to innovate.
        In fact, it is the private sector that is responding to
    industry-driven and consumer-driven market demands for cleaner
    energy and cleaner technology. As a result, we continue to have
    more fuel-efficient cars, trains, trucks, aircraft, and to
    develop cleaner alternative fuels.
        The airline industry, represented here today, is making
    considerable progress in reducing emissions, and I look forward
    to hearing more about their efforts.
        The freight rail industry is making progress, implementing
    technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel
    efficiency, and reduce their carbon footprint.
        At the Federal level we need to ensure that our partners
    have the ability to keep innovating. We don't need sweeping
    mandates that ignore economic reality and differing needs
    within our communities. And that heavy-handed approach, which
    is envisioned in the Green New Deal, just simply doesn't work,
    and it just drives entire industries and communities right into
    the very earth that we are trying to protect.
        Today I hope our panelists are going to talk about real,
    practical, and bipartisan solutions within this committee's
    jurisdiction which will build the infrastructure, and improve
    and respond to our environment.
        [Mr. Graves's prepared statement follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the
    State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
                                 Infrastructure
        We can all agree that we want clean air and clean water for our
    communities, and that we have to be prepared for the challenges posed
    by a sometimes harsh environment.
        As a farmer, I know that the environment is important to both
    quality of life and the economy.
        I also know that we need to work together to find solutions that
    actually work.
        We don't live in a fairy tale. That's where ideas like the Green
    New Deal come from. There's no other way to describe this idea to
    completely make over our transportation network.
        Who actually believes that we can make aviation ``unnecessary'' by
    building some vast high-speed rail system? Because here in the real
    world, the poster child for high-speed rail in California has run off
    the rails right before our eyes. And by the way, this massive shift
    would put 11 million people with aviation-related jobs out of work.
    Those are some of the real consequences of pursuing the goals of this
    fantasy proposal.
        That's just one example of the Green New Deal's goals and the
    trillions of dollars it would likely cost.
        Infrastructure is an issue where we can find common ground and
    bipartisan agreement on ``real world solutions.''
        In recent years, we passed good bipartisan infrastructure
    legislation that addressed environmental issues.
        For instance, the FAA bill, among other things, establishes an FAA-
    industry partnership for developing low-energy and low-emission
    technologies. The Disaster Recovery Reform Act focuses on making our
    communities more resilient to disasters. And we passed three Water
    Resources Development Acts that address ecosystem restoration, flood
    risk reduction, and storm risk reduction projects.
        Instead of taking the ``government-knows-best,'' ``one-size-fits-
    all'' approach, these laws provide our State, local, and private sector
    partners with the tools and flexibility to address their needs and to
    innovate.
        The fact is that the private sector is responding to industry-
    driven and consumer-driven market demands for cleaner energy and
    cleaner technology. As a result, we continue to have more fuel-
    efficient car, truck, train, and aircraft engines, and to develop
    cleaner alternative fuels.
        The airline industry, represented here today, is making
    considerable progress in reducing emissions, and I look forward to
    hearing more about their efforts.
        The freight rail industry is also making progress, implementing
    technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel efficiency, and
    reduce its carbon footprint.
        At the Federal level, we need to ensure that our partners have the
    ability to keep innovating.
        We don't need sweeping mandates that ignore economic reality and
    the differing needs of our communities.
        That heavy-handed approach, envisioned by the Green New Deal,
    doesn't work. It just drives entire industries and communities right
    into the very earth we're all trying to protect.
        Today, I hope our panels can talk about real, practical, and
    bipartisan solutions--within the Committee's jurisdiction--for building
    infrastructure, and improving and responding to our environment.

        Mr. Graves of Missouri. And with that, I look forward to
    hearing from all of our witnesses, and I would yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Representative Graves. I would
    like now to welcome the witnesses on our first panel. We first
    have Dr. Daniel Sperling, board member, California Air
    Resources Board; Ms. Vicki Arroyo, executive director,
    Georgetown Climate Center; Professor Thomas P. Lyon, with the
    Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; Mr.
    Ben Prochazka, vice president, Electrification Coalition; and
    Ms. Nancy Young, vice president, environmental affairs,
    Airlines for America.
        Thank you to each of you for being here today, and I look
    forward to your testimony.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record.
        Since your written testimony has been made part of the
    record, the committee would request that you limit your oral
    testimony to 5 minutes each.
        With that, Dr. Sperling, you may proceed.

      TESTIMONY OF DANIEL SPERLING, BOARD MEMBER, CALIFORNIA AIR
     RESOURCES BOARD; VICKI ARROYO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN
      CLIMATE CENTER; THOMAS P. LYON, PROFESSOR, STEPHEN M. ROSS
    SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; BEN PROCHAZKA, VICE
    PRESIDENT, ELECTRIFICATION COALITION; AND NANCY N. YOUNG, VICE
         PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA

        Mr. Sperling. Good morning, distinguished members of the
    committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My
    name is Dan Sperling. I am a professor of engineering and
    environmental science and policy and founding director of the
    Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of
    California, Davis. I am also a board member for the California
    Air Resources Board, holding the transportation seat for the
    past 12 years, first appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
        I am here to share experiences from California, and my
    insights from over 30 years studying the transportation system
    of this country. Let me frame the challenges before us.
        The number-one priority for California, like the rest of
    America, is to maintain and repair our deteriorating road
    infrastructure. That is widely accepted. The point of my
    testimony, however, is to address the additional goal of
    aligning transportation spending with environmental goals, as
    well as with social goals.
        First, we need to acknowledge that our transportation
    system is failing. Not only are our roads deteriorating, but
    congestion, traffic deaths, transit ridership, and greenhouse
    gases are all worsening. And many people are marginalized with
    poor access to jobs, health, and education. We can fix this. We
    have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do so, thanks to the
    waves of transformational innovations starting to sweep through
    transportation.
        I refer to these innovations as the three transportation
    revolutions: electrification, shared mobility, and automation.
    The challenge is to refocus and restructure how we fund and
    manage our transportation system, such that we direct these
    many innovations toward the public interest.
        The State and Federal DOTs were called upon in the 20th
    century to build and operate a massive new highway and rail
    transit system. They were amazingly successful with this
    engineering mission. But the organizational culture that was
    created, and the set of rules and formulas that were put in
    place are now outdated and, frankly, have been for some time.
        As we approach reauthorization of the FAST Act, we need a
    paradigm shift in how we address transportation. It means
    focusing on new formulas and performance standards to stimulate
    innovation, expand the mission of our transportation
    institutions, and knock down silos within transportation.
        Back to California. We have made extraordinary progress in
    some ways. We instituted the most successful cap and trade
    program in the world, an effective low-carbon fuel standard,
    and a variety of requirements for electrification of cars and
    buses. Together these initiatives continue to fund many
    billions of dollars in electric cars, trucks, buses, as well as
    charging stations and hydrogen stations, and much more. I
    provide a description of these many programs in my written
    testimony.
        We have been less successful in addressing vehicle use,
    both passenger and freight. We are now shifting our programs
    and incentives in California to fix this shortcoming. I would
    characterize California's evolving strategy on vehicle use as
    fourfold.
        One, encourage more mobility and accessibility. That means
    more passenger miles traveled, but at the same time reducing
    vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled.
        Number two is create more choice for travelers, and that
    means electric scooters, bikes, pooled services by Lyft, Uber,
    Via, and others, car sharing, and much more.
        Number three is increase investment in protected lanes in
    infrastructure for these scooters and bikes.
        And number four is to electrify all passenger vehicles and
    passenger services, as well as most of the freight vehicles, as
    well.
        In conclusion, transportation is in desperate need of a
    fix. Fortunately, innovation is sprouting everywhere in
    transportation. In a major way, for the first time in half a
    century, California is pioneering some initiatives, but so are
    many others. Much more can be done, especially in urban areas,
    but also in rural areas, as well. Our top priority should be to
    reform Federal and State policies to incentivize change to
    encourage innovation to flourish.
        Thank you very much.
        [Mr. Sperling's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Daniel Sperling, Board Member, California Air
                                Resources Board
        Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Daniel Sperling. I hold two different positions: (1)
    Distinguished Professor of engineering and environmental science and
    policy and founding Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies
    at the University of California, Davis; and (2) Board member for the
    California Air Resources Board, holding the transportation seat (first
    appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in February 2007). CARB, as
    we call it, is the agency in California principally responsible for
    administering its climate policies.
        I am here to share thoughts on what California is doing to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, what we have learned, and
    what the Federal Government might do, with a focus on new approaches to
    funding and incentives. The opportunity exists for the first time in
    half a century to create a truly sustainable transportation--
    economically, environmentally and socially.
    California has been a pioneer in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
            while improving the economy and the mobility and accessibility
            of its residents . . .
        California is home to some of the world's strongest environmental
    protections, while growing to become the fifth largest economy in the
    world. California policies have created markets for energy efficiency,
    energy storage, low carbon fuels, renewable power and zero-emission
    vehicles. California is home to nearly half of the zero-emission
    vehicles in the U.S., 40 percent of North American clean fuels
    investments, the world's best known electric car manufacturer, and the
    world's leading ride-sharing services.
        California has demonstrated that one can invest in clean energy,
    efficient buildings and sustainable transportation, to gain a healthy
    environment while also growing the economy. Since 2010, California's
    economy, per-capita income and the size of the private workforce have
    all grown significantly faster than the national average, while at the
    same time reducing its carbon emissions back to the level they were at
    in 1990.
        California is not an island--an especially important understanding
    in crafting solutions to climate change, a global problem. With ports,
    industries, water supplies, wild fires, and many communities all
    vulnerable to climate change, California aims to be a leader and model.
        California's strategy is to employ a suite of policy approaches,
    combining carbon pricing with other complementary programs, including
    market-based compliance mechanisms, performance standards, technology
    requirements, and incentives.
        A large variety of approaches are needed to grow the economy, solve
    environmental problems, and adapt to climate change. We have learned
    over the past decade that climate change is happening more quickly and
    with greater impact than we imagined, and that we need to pay special
    attention to transportation. What we see in California is that, despite
    the rapidly growing number of low and zero emissions vehicles,
    emissions are stubbornly rising.
    The important role of transportation and its link to land use. . . .
        California's transportation system underpins its economy. The
    extensive freight system moves trillions of dollars of goods each year
    and supports nearly one-third of the State economy and more than 5
    million jobs.
        Transportation is also the largest source of GHG, criteria, and
    toxic diesel particulate matter emissions in the State (mobile sources
    account for almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in
    California, 85 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 90 percent of diesel
    particulate matter). This is not unique to California.
        Where and how population grows will also have implications for
    traffic congestion, demand for new infrastructure (including roads,
    transit, and active transportation infrastructure), and demand for
    maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure. Historic patterns of
    growth continue to shape the country. While California has grown to be
    the fifth largest economy in the world, with world-class cities and
    thriving communities, many residents have no choice but to spend
    significant time and money driving from place to place.
        The way we grow imposes and often reinforces long-standing racial
    and economic injustices by placing a disproportionate burden on low-
    income residents, who end up paying the highest proportion of their
    wages for housing and commuting. These residents also often live in
    communities with the most health impacts from lack of active
    transportation infrastructure and transportation pollution. Communities
    are at the heart of California's efforts to address climate change:
    urban and rural ones, and big and small ones. We cannot meet our goals
    without re-envisioning the way we plan and build them.
    Innovative California initiatives in place . . .
        I'd like to present a sampling of major California initiatives to
    reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions, which also bolster the
    economy, enhance public health, revitalize disadvantaged communities,
    improve mobility, and strengthen resilience to disasters and changing
    climate, are often the same strategies that reduce transportation
    sector GHG emissions.
          California's Sustainable Communities Program, SB 375, is
    a law that sets targets for metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions from passenger transportation. The law has been highly
    successful at motivating leaders and community groups to reframe how to
    align transportation and environmental strategies and investments--
    truly a paradigm shift for the transportation community. What we
    learned, though, is that strong carrots and perhaps some sticks are
    needed to go the next step of accomplishing actual change at the local
    level.
              One example of going the next step: a variety of
            policy and funding processes are being explored to infuse
            environmental criteria more deeply into transportation funding
            decisions.
              As we continue to develop new approaches to
            transportation planning, it is important that we continue to
            measure and assess what we have. The transportation system is
            rapidly changing, so it's important that we have up-to-date
            data to inform our decisions
          California is investing in infrastructure that supports a
    suite of low-carbon transportation choices.
              The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is structured to
            incentivize the supply of transportation fuels that are lower
            emitting and supports zero-emissions technology. For example,
            zero emissions technology use is credited to the low carbon
            fuel supplier, such as the electric utility or transit agency.
            Those credits are valued at over $0.10 per kWh; they are used
            to fund electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fuel stations,
            and are expected to be converted into rebates to electric
            vehicle buyers (estimated to be about $2000 per vehicle).
              The California Energy Commission has committed $276
            million for charging infrastructure and $141 million for
            hydrogen stations, to be fully spent within about 3 years.
              Funding from the Volkswagen settlement, $1.2 billion,
            is being made available in California over 10 years mostly for
            electric vehicle charging stations, electric transit and school
            buses, electric trucks, electric forklifts and other equipment
            at ports, electric airport ground support equipment, electric
            ferries and tug boats, and low NOx combustion engine trucks,
            locomotives, and ships.
          Proceeds from California's Carbon Cap and Trade program
    are used for investments and incentives to reduce emissions from
    transportation. Of $9.4 billion available for public spending since
    2012, more than $7 billion is being used to reduce GHG emissions from
    transportation, through a variety of programs. These include incentives
    and funding for clean cars, buses, and trucks, and off-road vehicles,
    high speed rail, active transportation, and more. Innovative efforts
    include linking affordable housing, transit, bike paths, car sharing,
    and urban greenery.
          Recent increases in California's gasoline/diesel tax
    (SB1) provides billions of transportation dollars to support
    California's air pollution, climate and public health priorities.
              Over $800 million is allocated to active
            transportation, Sustainable Communities planning grants,
            transit and rail investments, and a new Congested Corridors
            program.
              ``The Solutions for Congested Corridors'' program
            provides competitive funding based on performance measures tied
            to funding. The program requires that regions have an adopted
            Sustainable Communities Strategy (based on SB375) as part of
            their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Project applications
            are scored and selected based on metrics for accessibility,
            economic development, job creation and retention, air pollution
            and greenhouse gas emission reductions; and efficient land use.
    Looking to the future, we need to rethink how transportation dollars
            are spent . . .
          In California alone over $1.1 trillion will be spent on
    transportation infrastructure over the life of current transportation
    plans--yet these spending plans often do not reflect key sustainability
    goals. Federal and State governments, including California, need to
    update transportation funding to better align projects with health,
    equity, economic, and environmental priorities.
              In California 24 counties have passed local
            transportation sales tax measures, which comprise a significant
            portion of many regions' transportation funds. These measure
            often list specific projects, locking them in for years or
            decades. Often, these measure do not fully fund their listed
            projects, with the result that they go on to capture a region's
            otherwise-flexible State and Federal funds. While some of these
            projects or measures have been remarkably supportive of
            sustainability goals, others are not.
          Fiscally sustainable and equitable methods for funding
    the transportation system are needed; they should be designed and
    adopted in a manner that aligns transportation goals with environmental
    and health goals. This alignment can be achieved through project
    performance criteria, funding formulas that account for environmental
    outcomes, and road user charges that account for congestion and
    environmental externalities.
          Funding programs could be created to fund pilot tests of
    strategies for improving transportation efficiency, such as shuttles,
    enhanced transit service, pooling facilitated by ride-hailing,
    protected bike lanes, and bike- and scooter-sharing, possibly to make
    travel easier in key zones that are currently highly congested, such as
    urban downtowns.
    Looking to the future, we also need to use policy to direct new
            mobility services toward the public interest . . .
        New mobility options offer an extraordinary opportunity to improve
    accessibility to jobs, school, health and more. Outside dense core
    cities, public transit is not efficient and does not serve many people
    well. An important goal is to improve mobility and accessibility for
    everyone--but to do so in a way that reduces vehicle miles traveled. It
    is possible and desirable--but only if the right policies are put in
    place. If we don't intervene, the likely outcome is higher costs for
    travelers and infrastructure, greater environmental impacts, and
    reduced accessibility and mobility by the most disadvantaged segments
    of our population. California is just beginning to pursue policies that
    direct these many new services, technologies, and business models
    (including demand-responsive ride-hailing companies, micro-transit vans
    and small buses, and micro-mobility options such as dockless scooters
    and bikes) toward the public interest. These initiatives include:
          Regulations to accelerate the use of electric vehicles
    and passenger ``pooling'' by Lyft, Uber, and other ``transportation
    network companies'' are being adopted in response to a new law, SB 1014
    (2018)--the Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program--which calls for
    innovative ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This new program will
    be aligned with future changes to the Advanced Clean Cars automaker
    regulations, as well as the SB 375 program--the Sustainable Communities
    and Climate Protection Act (which requires regional GHG reductions from
    passenger transportation).
          Pilot testing of innovative ideas and services to speed
    the adoption of clean, efficient transportation solutions. Promote the
    use of pilot projects that bring together innovators, technical
    experts, community members, and decisionmaking partners to find
    creative solutions for accelerating a change in travel choices away
    from single-occupancy vehicles while improving accessibility and access
    to opportunity, particularly for low-income communities.
              In our capital city of Sacramento, the regional
            metropolitan planning organization, SACOG, is developing a
            ``Green Means Go'' pilot program that incentivizes and
            accelerates infill development, reduces vehicle miles traveled,
            and increases electric vehicle use within designated ``Green
            Zones'' or opportunity areas. Green Zones complement SACOG's
            Civic Lab pilot program, which focuses on targeted innovative
            transportation solutions and new ideas that can be scaled up
            throughout the region.
          Emerging public private partnerships are also helping to
    pave the way, and incentive funding to explore innovative solutions are
    key,
              For example, the Car-Free Living Program is a first-
            of-its-kind partnership that encourages residents to use public
            transportation and ride share, providing a more affordable
            alternative to car ownership. The real estate developer is
            enthusiastic because they do not provide as much (expensive)
            parking garage spaces. New residents who participate in the
            Car-Free Living Program receive a $100 monthly transportation
            credit per apartment to use with Getaround, Clipper card
            (transit fare card in the San Francisco Bay Area), and Uber.
            Any resident can also catch a ride in an UberPool from
            Parkmerced to nearby public transit stations for a flat rate of
            $5.
    In conclusion . . .
        Transportation is in need of a fix, not just because of greenhouse
    gas emissions, but also because of degrading road infrastructure,
    worsening traffic congestion, declining transit ridership, and large
    numbers of people with poor access to jobs, health, and education.
        Transportation is also an opportunity. Innovation is everywhere.
    California is pioneering some initiatives, as are others. But much more
    can be done. Reforming Federal and State policies to encourage
    innovation and incentivize change should be a top priority. Funding
    should be used to support initiatives that promote environmental,
    social, and economic goals.
        Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you might
    have.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Sperling.
        Ms. Arroyo, you may proceed.
        Ms. Arroyo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to share what
    States and cities are doing to promote clean and resilient
    transportation. I am Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the
    Georgetown Climate Center, and professor from practice at
    Georgetown Law.
        I also currently chair the Executive Committee of the
    Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, and
    recently chaired TRB's Task Force on Resilience and
    Sustainability. My comments are my own.
        As the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes clear, the
    U.S. is experiencing serious impacts of climate change. There
    is an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon transportation
    system, not only to fight climate change, but to protect public
    health, provide mobility options, and catalyze economic growth
    and investment.
        States and cities are working to make this transition
    happen by promoting adoption of cleaner vehicles and fuels,
    improving public transportation, and enacting pathways to fund
    clean transportation innovation: just a few examples.
        California is investing in transit electric vehicles and
    clean buses, and requiring investment in disadvantaged and
    underserved communities using funds from their State cap and
    trade program that covers transportation fuels. Oregon law
    makers are working to adopt a similar program.
        Twelve States from New England through the mid-Atlantic
    plus DC participate in the Transportation and Climate
    Initiative, or TCI, which our center facilitates. Ten TCI
    jurisdictions recently announced a bipartisan agreement to
    design a regional low-carbon transportation policy proposal
    that would cap and reduce carbon emissions from transportation,
    allowing participating States to invest proceeds in low-carbon
    and more resilient transportation options.
        Due to policies and market shifts, the electricity sector
    is decarbonizing, leaving the transportation sector the largest
    source of emissions. A key strategy for reducing these
    emissions is to switch to zero-emission vehicles. TCI States
    collaborate on regional, interstate corridor planning, with
    over 2,500 miles of EV corridors designated by FHWA. Federal
    funding to support implementation would be helpful.
        Beyond funding, Federal action could allow EV charging
    icons at highway logo signs, and exempt EV charging stations
    from current restrictions on commercial activity along the
    interstate right-of-way.
        Zero-emission buses provide opportunities to expand
    benefits of clean transportation. Last year FTA provided over
    $80 million for 52 electric bus transit projects in 41 States.
    States are also exploring opportunities for zero-emission ships
    and trucks. Washington State plans to use 45 percent of its VW
    settlement funds to electrify public vessels, including ferries
    which are responsible for significant air pollution. Hydrogen
    fuel cells provide another option for zero-emission green
    transport.
        Beyond clean fuels, States and cities are also working to
    reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting more compact,
    livable communities, and providing options such as transit,
    biking, and walking. For example, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
    system's GoPass allows easy payment for different transit
    services, even integrating microtransit and scooters.
        Arlington, Virginia, where I lived, has enjoyed tremendous
    economic growth, while holding emissions down by implementing
    transit-oriented development, including bike paths and more,
    taking roughly 50,000 vehicle trips off the road each work day.
    Increasing the Federal match for public transit operating
    expenses from current levels of 50 percent would help in these
    efforts, which provide multiple benefits.
        In addition to being the largest source of emissions,
    transportation is quite vulnerable to climate impacts. Since
    1980 the U.S. has experienced 241 extreme weather events,
    costing $1.6 trillion.
        There is a tremendous human toll, as well. My mother and
    other family members lost their homes in Katrina. Our work on
    Katrina, Irene, and Sandy identified opportunities to improve
    how communities can rebuild.
        Vermont faced challenges with Federal reimbursement in
    building back culverts and bridges to withstand future storms
    after Irene. Incorporating lessons from this and other recent
    disasters, some Federal funds are now flowing to more resilient
    investments.
        LA SAFE, Louisiana's program initially funded through
    disaster recovery dollars, works with parishes to design
    customized projects that improve community resilience, like
    ``complete streets'' and nature-based flood mitigation.
        Building on reforms in MAP-21, the FAST Act, and the
    Disaster Recovery Reform Act, funding recipients should be
    required to consider how climate change will affect
    infrastructure, making investments designed to withstand future
    conditions.
        Beyond infrastructure, improving operations and evacuation
    protocols can save lives. In 2004, my father's, Sidney
    Arroyo's, heart failed during a stressful evacuation from New
    Orleans in anticipation of Hurricane Ivan, which struck Alabama
    instead. The next year many people chose not to leave New
    Orleans before Katrina, some recalling the evacuation
    challenges the year before, others without access to
    transportation or not willing to leave behind beloved pets.
        Congress swiftly acted to pass the Pet Evacuation and
    Transportation Standards Act--yes, it spells PETS--and it saved
    lives in subsequent storms. Congress should again act more
    comprehensively, joining States and communities in addressing
    climate change, while preparing communities for the disruptive
    challenges to come. Thank you.
        [Ms. Arroyo's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown
                                 Climate Center
        Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
    the steps that states and cities are taking to reduce greenhouse gas
    pollution from transportation and to make our communities more
    resilient to the serious consequences of climate change.
        Many states and cities are taking bold action to reduce emissions
    and improve resilience, offering both substantial progress in the fight
    against climate change and examples of successful action that others
    could emulate and that the federal government could be helpful in
    scaling up. However, more action is needed.
        I'm Vicki Arroyo and I serve as Executive Director of Georgetown
    Climate Center, which is based at Georgetown University Law Center. I
    am also a member of the full-time faculty, serving as a Professor from
    Practice and as Assistant Dean for Centers and Institutes.
        The nonpartisan Georgetown Climate Center was established over ten
    years ago to serve as a resource to states on issues relating to
    climate change policy and clean energy and to inform the federal
    dialogue with the lessons of the states.\1\ We work with state and city
    officials on a bipartisan basis at their request to support their
    transition to cleaner energy sources in important sectors, including
    the power sector and transportation, and to prepare for the impacts of
    a changing climate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ About Us, Georgetown Climate Center, https://
    www.georgetownclimate.org/about-us/index.html (last visited Feb. 19,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am also currently Chair of the Executive Committee of the
    Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences,
    and recently chaired TRB's Task Force on Resilience and Sustainability
    \2\ which made recommendations regarding how TRB might incorporate
    considerations of a changing climate and the role of transportation--
    and impacts to transportation infrastructure--into its important work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ TRB Executive Committee, National Academies of Sciences
    Engineering Medicine (2019), http://www.trb.org/CommitteeandPanels/
    ExecutiveCommitteeOverview.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While I am proud of these roles and affiliations, my comments today
    are my own.
        Given the urgent need to address climate change, it's my privilege
    to be with you today to share examples of what states and cities are
    doing to promote cleaner transportation options and to prepare for
    climate impacts. I hope these examples will help inform your own work.
        As the Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in November,
    describes, the United States is already experiencing serious impacts of
    climate change--and the risks to communities all across the country are
    growing rapidly.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation
    in the United States--Summary Findings, National Climate Assessment
    (2018), https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These findings, along with those in the 2018 Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, are clear and should be a call
    to immediate action. Even if we manage to limit planetary warming to
    just 2 degrees C, the world will still face increased chances of
    economic and social upheaval from more severe flooding, droughts,
    heatwaves, and other climate impacts as well as devastating
    environmental consequences, the IPCC report warns.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Global Warming of 1.5 +C, IPCC (2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/
    sr15/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The scientific consensus as described in the IPCC Special Report is
    that countries around the world must rapidly decarbonize their
    economies, cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to near
    zero by 2050.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Id.; Climate Assessment, Volume II, supra note 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yet the current trends are going in the wrong direction. Despite
    our increasing understanding of the narrowing window to act, U.S. GHG
    emissions increased by 3.4 percent in 2018, according to a January
    report from the Rhodium Group. Clearly more action is needed.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Energy & Climate Staff, Preliminary U.S. Emissions Estimates
    for 2018, Rhodium Group (Jan. 8, 2019), https://rhg.com/research/
    preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The encouraging news is that many states and cities have committed
    to taking action. They are taking steps to reduce emissions through
    legislation, executive orders, and pledges made in collaborations such
    as the US Climate Alliance--now covering roughly half the US population
    and GDP.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. Climate Alliance Fact Sheet, United States Climate
    Alliance, https://www.usclimatealliance.org/us-climate-alliance-fact-
    sheet (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my testimony, I will be focusing on the transportation sector,
    which is the largest contributor of GHG emissions in the United
    States,\8\ and is already facing significant impacts from climate
    change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
    ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (last visited Feb. 19,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal standards have been important in increasing efficiency and
    reducing emissions, yet transportation-sector emissions are increasing
    as more vehicle miles are driven, more freight is transported in
    trucks, and airline travel continues to grow. Transportation is
    becoming an increasingly large share of U.S. economy-wide emissions as
    the power sector decarbonizes as a result of market shifts and
    policy.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Transportation Sector Emissions, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
    ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation (last
    visited Feb. 19, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is an urgent need, therefore, to transition to a low-carbon
    transportation system. Such a transition would not only reduce
    emissions and fight climate change, it also would bring additional
    important benefits, including protecting public health by reducing
    conventional air pollution, providing more mobility options, and
    driving innovation and economic growth through policy action and
    through public and private investment.

            State Leadership Reducing Emissions from Transportation:

        Fortunately, states and cities in the US are already investing in
    low-carbon transportation solutions, and innovation by governments and
    the private sector has created opportunities to enable low-carbon
    economic growth.
        States are enabling the transition to zero-emission, electric
    transportation--promoting adoption of cleaner vehicles and fuels;
    developing strategies to improve public transportation while reducing
    vehicle miles traveled and congestion; and enacting pathways to fund
    this clean transportation innovation--including by pricing the
    emissions that cause climate change.\10\ Cities across the country are
    also reducing air pollution and GHGs through land use policies; by
    increasing transportation options through investments in public
    transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and new mobility solutions;
    and by switching to alternative fuels such as electricity, hydrogen,
    and natural gas. Many cities are committing to deep decarbonization by
    transitioning to zero-emission public fleets,\11\ including replacing
    100 percent of their fossil-fueled buses with electric transit
    buses.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec.  38566 (West 2017).
        \11\ Climate Mayors Electric Vehicle Purchasing Collaborative,
    Climate Mayors (2018), https://driveevfleets.org/.
        \12\ Zero Emissions Vehicles, C40 Cities, https://www.c40.org/
    networks/zero-emission-vehicles (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            state funding for low-carbon transportation investments
        Here are some specific examples:
        California's economy-wide cap-and-trade program covers
    transportation fuels and uses the proceeds generated from selling
    allowances to invest in transit, electric vehicles, and clean transit
    buses. It also requires investment in projects serving disadvantaged
    and underserved communities to ensure that the benefits of this new,
    low-carbon transportation system are more equitably shared.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ CCI Funded Programs, California Air Resources Board (Aug. 31,
    2018), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-workprogramscalifornia-climate-
    investments/cci-funded-programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Oregon lawmakers are considering adopting an economy-wide cap-and-
    trade program that could be linked to California's program.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ H.B. 2020, 80th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the Northeast, the Transportation and Climate Initiative of 12
    northeast and mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia
    (``TCI'') was launched in 2010. Facilitated by our Georgetown Climate
    Center, TCI has worked to develop the clean energy economy in the
    region, improve transportation, and reduce carbon emissions in the
    transportation sector.
        Projects over the years have included eliminating barriers to the
    use of cleaner transportation fuels and technologies; sharing best
    practices in promoting smart growth; understanding freight flows into
    and through the region to consider ways to enhance efficiency and
    reduce congestion and air pollution; and even working to defeat a
    patent troll who tried to inhibit sharing of platforms that provide for
    real-time information on arrivals of subways and buses.
        Since 2012, TCI jurisdictions have explored potential regional
    policy solutions with analysis that demonstrated the economic benefits
    of moving to cleaner transportation alternatives. In 2015, the TCI
    jurisdictions announced plans \15\ to work together on potential
    market-based policies and in 2017 \16\ began to conduct extensive
    public outreach.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Five Northeast States and DC Announce They Will Work Together
    to Develop Potential Market-Based Policies to Cut Carbon Emissions from
    Transportation, Transportation & Climate Initiative (Nov. 24, 2015),
    https://www.transportationandclimate.org/main-menu/five-northeast-
    states-and-dc-announce-they-will-work-together-develop-potential-
    market.
        \16\ Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States Seek Public Input As They
    Move Toward a Cleaner Transportation Future, Transportation & Climate
    Initiative (Nov. 13, 2017), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
    northeast-and-mid-atlantic-states-seek-public-input-they-move-toward-
    cleaner-transportation-future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2018, TCI regional outreach engaged 500 diverse stakeholders--
    including from businesses, local governments, community groups, and
    NGOs--and over 100 state officials in a series of regional listening
    sessions, with further outreach through statewide efforts in
    Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Listening Session Summary Report, Transportation & Climate
    Initiative (Nov. 13, 2018), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
    tci-news-and-updates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Those efforts led to a landmark announcement on December 18th, 2018
    by nine states plus DC to work together on a bipartisan basis to design
    a regional low-carbon transportation policy proposal. The proposed plan
    would cap and reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of
    transportation fuels and allow each TCI jurisdiction to invest the
    proceeds in low-carbon and more resilient transportation
    infrastructure.\18\ This approach is modeled on the successful Regional
    Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which has reduced emissions and
    generated substantial economic benefits in the region. Analysis of the
    first ten years of the RGGI program estimates that the program has
    created a net economic benefit of $4 billion dollars for the
    participating states, while reducing carbon emissions from the power
    sector by nearly 50 percent.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Nine States and D.C. to Design Regional Approach to Cap
    Greenhouse Gas Pollution from Transportation, Transportation & Climate
    Initiative (Dec. 18, 2018), https://www.transportationandclimate.org/
    nine-states-and-dc-design-regional-approach-cap-greenhouse-gas-
    pollution-transportation.
        \19\ The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
    on Nine Northeast and Atlantic States, Analysis Group: Economic,
    Financial And Strategy Consultants (Apr. 17, 2018), https://
    www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/uploadedfiles/content/insights/
    publishing/
    analysis_group_rggi_report_april_2018.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We believe that the TCI effort can offer similar large benefits and
    are proud to support this bipartisan group of states in this important
    initiative.
        TCI states are not alone in working to cut transportation
    emissions--or in recognizing the importance of sustainable funding
    sources to support needed investments in low-carbon and more resilient
    transportation infrastructure.
        Other states are exploring mileage-based user fees. The state of
    Oregon conducted two pilots and has now expanded to launch a permanent
    voluntary program to charge drivers for road usage.\20\ Several other
    states, including California and Hawaii, are conducting research or
    pilot programs to assess the feasibility of mileage-based user fees as
    an alternative or complement to motor fuel taxes.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ About, OReGO, http://www.myorego.org/about/ (Feb. 19, 2019).
        \21\ Susan Handy & Marlon Boarnet, A Framework for Projecting the
    Potential Statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) Reduction from State-
    Level Strategies in California, National Center For Sustainable
    Transportation (Mar. 2017), https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/
    uploads/2017/03/State-Level-VMT-Strategies-White-Paper_FINAL-
    03.2017.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          state action to support electric and zero-emission vehicles:
        For many years now, states have been leaders in supporting a
    transition to zero-emission vehicles that reduce air pollution, improve
    public health, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Today this committee
    is hearing from California, given its leadership. But critical
    investments and policy support for zero-emission vehicles are underway
    in states and cities across the country. Indeed, it is becoming more
    widely recognized that moving from a transportation system entirely
    dominated by petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric and other zero-
    emission transportation options can provide significant benefits for
    both the environment and the economy.
        It is important to understand that switching to electric vehicles
    significantly reduces GHG emissions even when emissions from power
    plants that generate the electricity for the electric vehicles are
    included. For example, in Oregon, a recent analysis showed that an
    electric vehicle in 2018 would be the equivalent of a gas car with 94
    MPG rating.\22\ Even in Missouri, where (as of 2015 data) coal power
    makes up more than 75 percent of electricity generation,\23\ an
    electric vehicle would be equivalent to a 35 miles per gallon gas
    vehicle.\24\ And of course, the opportunities for emissions reductions
    from adopting electric vehicles will improve throughout the country as
    the electricity grid decarbonizes (due to fuel switching and the
    falling prices of wind and solar power for baseload and peak power
    generation).\25\ As the grid becomes cleaner, an electric vehicle sold
    this year will effectively become lower- and lower-emitting throughout
    its life.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ David Reichmuth, New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to
    Get Cleaner, Union of Concerned Scientists (2018), https://
    blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-
    continue-to-get-cleaner?_ga=2.65610987.430581647.1520949632-
    566757794.1516988670.
        \23\ State Energy Analysis Tool, Georgetown Climate Center, https:/
    /www.georgetownclimate.org/clean-energy/sea.html (last visited Feb. 19,
    2019).
        \24\ Reichmuth, supra note 22.
        \25\ See, e.g., Robert Walton, Utility Dive, Xcel solicitation
    returns `incredible' renewable energy, storage bids (January 8, 2018)
    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/xcel-solicitation-returns-incredible-
    renewable-energy-storage-bids/514287/; Hawaiian Electric Company Press
    Release: ``New solar-plus-storage projects set low-price benchmark for
    renewable energy in Hawaii'' (January 3, 2019) https://
    www.hawaiianelectric.com/new-solar-plus-storage-projects-set-low-price-
    benchmark-for-renewable-energy-in-hawaii
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Electric vehicles thus present a very important opportunity for
    reducing emissions and helping states and cities--along with the United
    States--reach GHG emission reduction commitments. Eventually--and
    perhaps within the next decade--electric vehicles will be cheaper to
    buy and to drive than gas vehicles. However, as is the case with many
    new technologies, public sector support through research, early
    deployment, and infrastructure installation will be vital to enabling
    this market to grow. Continued federal support will be critical in this
    regard to complement, expand upon, and scale the efforts underway in
    states throughout the country.
                     incentives for zero-emission vehicles:
        States across the country are providing incentives to drivers to
    lower the upfront cost of zero- emission vehicles, including battery
    electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Fourteen states currently
    offer a financial incentive, such as a tax credit, and many electric
    utilities and local or regional governments offer additional financial
    or non-monetary incentives to drivers.
        Some jurisdictions are exploring ``fee-bate'' structures--a
    revenue-neutral incentive mechanism where more polluting vehicles pay a
    fee inversely proportional to vehicle emissions and lower polluting or
    zero-emission vehicles receive an incentive or rebate.\26\ The District
    of Columbia will be implementing a version of a fee-bate starting in
    2020, at which time the District of Columbia Department of Motor
    Vehicles will assess vehicle title excise tax based on the fuel
    efficiency of the vehicle, with vehicles that are more fuel efficient
    than a benchmark level receiving a discount and vehicles that are less
    fuel efficient paying an additional amount.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Natalie Mims & Heidi Hauenstein, Feebates: A Legislative
    Option to Encourage Continuous Improvements to Automobile Efficiency,
    Rocky Mountain Institute (Feb. 2008), https://www.rmi.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_
    Feebate_final.pdf.
        \27\ District of Columbia Code 50-2201.03(j)(1A)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One challenge with reducing emissions from the United States fleet
    of 250 million passenger vehicles is the long lifecycle of
    vehicles.\28\ The average age of passenger vehicles in operation (as of
    2017) was 11.6 years, with many vehicles kept in operation for two
    decades or more.\29\ One way to incentivize the retirement of low-
    efficiency older vehicles would be for the federal government to
    develop a scrappage and replacement program designed to reduce vehicle
    emissions. Such a program could learn valuable lessons from the Car
    Allowance Rebate System or ``Cash for Clunkers'' program of 2009, which
    was primarily designed as an economic stimulus, but still resulted in
    improved fuel economy of the vehicle fleet. A federal program could
    also learn from the scrap and replace programs implemented by two Air
    Quality Management Districts in California, which provide significant
    financial incentives to low-income residents who trade in an
    inefficient vehicle for zero- or near-zero emission replacement.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other
    Conveyances, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://www.bts.gov/
    content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances (last
    visited Feb. 20, 2019).
        \29\ Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the
    United States, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://
    www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-
    united-states (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
        \30\ Clean Cars 4 All, California Air Resources Board (Feb. 5,
    2019), https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/cc4a/cc4a.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             electric vehicles charging along interstate corridors:
        One area where states are working together is the deployment of
    fast charging stations along highway corridors. Given ``range anxiety''
    concerns, corridor fast charging is critical to grow the market for
    electric vehicles. People need to know that they can charge their
    vehicles, such as my 2018 Chevy Bolt, Bluebell, before they will use
    the vehicles for long distance trips.
        The Pacific Coast states have collaborated since 2011 to develop
    the West Coast Electric Highway, a network of DC fast charging stations
    along Interstate 5 and other major roadways.\31\ This project was first
    funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since the
    initial wave of funding, Washington, Oregon, and California have used
    public-private partnerships and state grant funding to build out EV
    charging infrastructure along corridors. The West Coast Electric
    Highway effort is notable for its focus on expanding consumer awareness
    of EV charging through outreach and branding. The states have shared
    their lessons with other regions, including states participating in the
    Transportation and Climate Initiative in this region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ West Coast Electric Highway, Idaho National Laboratory:
    Advanced Vehicles, https://avt.inl.gov/project-type/west-coast-
    electric-highway (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TCI states have worked to develop EV charging infrastructure since
    the start of the regional partnership, and have collaborated since 2016
    on regional interstate corridor planning. The focused effort on
    corridor planning has included engagement with the Federal Alternative
    Fuel Corridors Program, including a regional nomination resulting in
    over 2,500 miles of EV corridors designated by U.S. Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) in the first round of designations.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ U.S. Department of Transportation Designates Electric Vehicles
    Corridors in the Transportation and Climate Initiative Region,
    Transportation & Climate Initiative (Nov. 3, 2016), https://
    www.transportationandclimate.org/us-department-transportation-
    designates-electric-vehicles-corridors-transportation-and-climate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Transportation and Climate Initiative has been a valuable forum
    for electric vehicle corridor planning, due to the leadership of state
    departments of transportation and given the inherent need to
    collaborate across state lines to allow residents to travel seamlessly
    and conveniently between cities, for work, and to tourism destinations.
    The TCI states have worked together to share best practices, engage
    with EV charging business and electric utilities, and apply together
    for grant funding programs.
        The TCI states have also worked together to conduct a regional
    analysis to identify priority locations for additional EV charging
    infrastructure investment. The technical analysis--launched in 2018--
    includes an Excel-based tool that can be used to identify which highway
    exits may be good candidates for additional charging infrastructure
    investment, as well as an interactive GIS map that displays fast
    charging infrastructure along corridors in the region and priority
    investment locations.\33\ This corridor analysis was developed by the
    Georgetown Climate Center and M.J. Bradley & Associates to support the
    TCI states and was expanded to include Virginia, which joined TCI in
    September 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ The regional EV corridor analysis is publicly available at no
    cost from Georgetown Climate Center. EV Corridor Analysis Tool for
    Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, Georgetown Climate Center (July 26,
    2018), https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/ev-corridor-analysis-
    tool-for-northeast-and-mid-atlantic-states.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the inter-mountain west states, another bipartisan coalition of
    governors from eight states launched the Regional Electric Vehicle Plan
    for the West, or ``REV West,'' with governors signing an MOU with the
    goal to promote a network of EV corridors.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Regional Electric Vehicle (REV) West Program, U.S. Department
    of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, https://
    afdc.energy.gov/laws/11874 (last visited Feb. 29, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opportunity for Federal Leadership and Support
        While state and regional initiatives such as these are important in
    their own right and as models, the federal government can play a
    critical role in providing funding to stimulate greater investment in
    EV fast charging along highway corridors. The FAST Act instructed the
    U.S. Federal Highway Administration to designate corridors for
    alternative fuels (including electric vehicles), but did not provide
    any direct funding for infrastructure investment to support the build-
    out of designated or pending corridors.\35\ Given that electric
    vehicles are a new technology with limited penetration in the vehicle
    market, there are very few viable business cases for investment in DC
    fast charging--particularly along highway corridors--in the absence of
    some public sector funding to support investment. Nevertheless,
    significant additional investment in EV fast charging will be needed to
    provide the minimum level of coverage necessary for the market to
    mature.\36\ Once a minimum level of EV fast charging coverage is in
    place and EV sales increase, consumer demand for charging will drive
    private investments. In order to jump-start this critical transition to
    transportation electrification, targeted public funding is needed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 151 (2015).
        \36\ Eric Wood, New EVSE Analytical Tools/Models: Electric Vehicle
    Infrastructure Projection Tool (EVI-Pro), National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory (Jan. 24, 2018), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/
    70831.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Potential federal investment could expand on strategic planning
    efforts underway in states and regional partnerships to ensure that
    federal funding is strategically invested to grow the market for EVs
    while spurring economic development and improving transportation. For
    example, several states, including California, Washington, and New
    York, have undertaken modeling and analysis to better understand which
    highway corridors have been developed by the private market and which
    are the highest priorities for public funding to support a
    comprehensive network of EV charging.\37\ One strategy that this
    committee might consider is targeting investment in EV charging in
    rural and remote corridor locations which are currently underserved by
    the private market, as a business and economic development opportunity
    for those locations that would also provide access to EVs to a wider
    range of communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Washington State
    Department of Transportation (2019), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/funding/
    partners/evib.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to strategically targeting geographic locations, a
    federal funding program could also provide additional public benefits
    by including requirements or incentives that ensure driver convenience
    and a robust private market for charging stations. There is an
    opportunity for such a federal program to incorporate lessons learned
    and policies from ongoing state efforts. States participating in the
    multi-state ZEV Task Force have worked to identify policy outcomes that
    can be achieved through requirements for EV charging stations installed
    with public funding. For example, states are exploring open payment
    requirements, to ensure that drivers know how much they will pay for a
    charge, can easily use a credit card to pay for charging, and are not
    required to have a charging station network membership. We've all
    gotten used to driving up to a gas station and knowing that we can pay
    with a credit card (for example), without the requirement of becoming a
    member of a fuel provider like Exxon or Shell. But that is not always
    the case with EV charging, which can create inconvenience and
    confusion. Similarly, requirements that charging station hardware,
    software, and network services be inter-operable could create a more
    flexible business market that allows for innovation and avoids stranded
    assets. I would encourage Congress to engage with states and U.S.
    national laboratories considering these issues when developing
    potential infrastructure funding programs.
    Federal Support for Technical Analysis
        Federal technical and financial support could also help states and
    metropolitan planning organizations better identify gaps in EV charging
    infrastructure. This could include expansion of existing tools, for
    example the corridor analysis tool built to inform northeast and mid-
    Atlantic states \38\ or the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection
    (EVI-Pro) tool built by the California Energy Commission and National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory to assess charging infrastructure
    needs.\39\ The federal government could support a study (using EVI-Pro
    or other methodology) of specific charging infrastructure needs to
    support long-distance trips on a national level. This analysis has
    already been conducted for California, Colorado, and Columbus, Ohio,
    through existing programs or partnerships.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ EV Corridor Analysis Tool for Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
    States, supra note 33.
        \39\ CEC EV Infrastructure Projection (California), National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://maps.nrel.gov/cec/
    ?aL=0&bL=cdark&cE=0&lR=0&mC=36.8708321556463%2C-116.34521484375001&zL=6
    (last visited Feb. 19, 2019).
        \40\ Eric Wood, supra note 36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non-financial Policy Opportunities:
        Currently the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    does not allow state DOTs to easily add an EV charging station logo to
    specific service (food/fuel/lodging) signs. The current manual is
    somewhat unclear on this subject, which has been vexing to many state
    agencies looking to develop EV charging signage guidance.\41\ One
    potential solution would be to create a new category of highway logo
    (specific service) signs for EV charging. This would improve EV driver
    convenience and provide a significant consumer awareness benefit.
    California has already taken this approach, modifying its state manual
    to create a new category for EV charging station logos, and other
    states are interested in this issue as well. It is important at a
    minimum that the federal manual maintain flexibility for states to
    experiment with the best ways to provide logo signs for electric
    vehicles as we develop an appropriate federal standard.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ ``To qualify for a GAS logo sign panel, a business should
    have: (1) Vehicle services including gas and/or alternative fuels, oil,
    and water; (2) Continuous operation at least 16 hours per day, 7 days
    per week for freeways and expressways, and continuous operation at
    least 12 hours per day, 7 days per week for conventional roads; (3)
    Modern sanitary facilities and drinking water; and (4) Public
    telephone.'' U.S. Dep't of Transp., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
    Devices Sec.  2J.01.10 (Dec. 2009).
        \42\ Cal. Dep't of Transp., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
    Devices Sec.  2J.01 (Nov. 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress might also consider the feasibility and potential benefits
    and costs of exempting EV charging stations and renewable power
    installations from federal restrictions on commercial activity in the
    interstate right-of-way. These restrictions have been identified as a
    barrier in reports, including the recent Transportation Research Board
    Report to Congress on the Future of the Interstate Highway report.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
    System: A Foundation for the Future, Transportation Research Board
    (Feb. 6, 2019), http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178485.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opportunities for Research and Development:
        While there are many exciting developments underway that are
    helping to expand the uses of EVs and other low-carbon transportation
    options, there are still technical and logistical barriers where
    federal support of pilot programs, research, or public-private
    partnerships might be helpful.
        As we scale up the use of new transportation fuels and technologies
    over time, research and pilot deployments can help ensure that federal
    funds are invested efficiently in projects and technologies that reduce
    emissions, provide energy security, and stimulate economic growth.
    Additionally, research programs can effectively identify issues that
    might arise in the future. For example, the federal government could
    support additional research into questions on how the different zero-
    emission or alternative fueling and charging infrastructures complement
    or interact with one another at individual sites or throughout the
    transportation system. There is significant investment in hydrogen
    fueling infrastructure in California and other states, due to the
    significant opportunity for hydrogen to serve as an energy-dense zero-
    tailpipe emission fuel source for vehicles.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ California Air Resources Board, California's Hydrogen
    Transportation Initiatives, https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/
    hydrogen/hydrogen.htm (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For electric vehicle charging, key questions include the
    opportunities for managed EV fast charging (e.g., providing options for
    drivers where the cost and speed of charging vary based on electric
    grid capacity). A related topic for additional research is the
    interaction of EV charging with on-site storage to minimize
    distribution grid impacts. Electrify America and Tesla are making major
    investments in on-site storage co-located with DC fast charging
    facilities. This is an area where transportation system research--in
    conjunction with battery storage research underway at the U.S.
    Department of Energy and U.S. national laboratories--could prove
    valuable.
                      zero-emission electric transit buses
        Moving beyond passenger vehicles, zero-emission transit buses
    provide opportunities to expand access to cleaner electric
    transportation, cutting GHG emissions in addition to the smelly and
    dangerous fumes that affect riders and communities, including those
    that have been disproportionately harmed by air pollution.
        Cities across the country have added electric buses to transit
    fleets and made commitments for additional procurements. Electric bus
    pilots are underway everywhere from Anchorage, Alaska,\45\ to Honolulu,
    Hawaii.\46\ Here in the District of Columbia, the District Department
    of Transportation has added 14 electric buses to its Circulator
    service, which serves commonly traveled routes in the District and
    costs only $1 to ride.\47\ In Texas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit is
    piloting electric buses on its free downtown D-Link route.\48\ These
    cities, and many others, are using phased pilots and early deployment
    to test this new technology and address any concerns related to bus
    performance, charging reliability, and operating costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Casey Grove, Alaska's First Electric Bus for Public Transit
    Read for Anchorage Streets, Alaska Public Media (Jan. 15, 2018),
    https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/01/15/alaskas-first-electric-bus-for-
    public-transit-ready-for-anchorage-streets/.
        \46\ Press Release, Electric Bus Demonstration Showcases
    Unstainable Ground Transportation Future for Hawaii, Hawaii.gov (Apr.
    11, 2018), http://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/electric-bus-demonstration-
    showcases-sustainable-ground-transportation-future-for-hawaii/.
        \47\ New DC Circulator Electric Buses, Circulator, https://
    www.dccirculator.com/new-electric-buses/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
        \48\ Dana Branham, Dart's Fleet of Electric Buses Roll Out in
    Downtown Dallas, Dallas News (July 10, 2018), https://
    www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2018/07/10/darts-fleet-electric-
    buses-roll-downtown-dallas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many cities have set ambitious economy-wide GHG emission reduction
    goals and are increasingly making commitments to fully electrify their
    transit fleets as a strategy to reduce transportation emissions. For
    example, Los Angeles, California, has committed to fully electrify its
    fleet by 2030;\49\ the Minneapolis and Saint Paul transit agency in
    Minnesota has announced a 2040 full electrification goal;\50\ and the
    New York Metropolitan Transit Agency--the largest transit fleet in the
    United States with more than 5,500 buses--has announced a target of
    transitioning to a zero-emission fleet by 2040.\51\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ Council File: 17-0739, LA City Clerk Connect (Nov. 9, 2017),
    https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/
    index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0739.
        \50\ Metro Transit's 100% Electric Bus Fleet Target Is a Big Step,
    Fresh Energy (Dec. 10, 2018), https://fresh-energy.org/metro-transit-
    100-percent/.
        \51\ Phil McKenna, New York City Aims for All-Electric Bus Fleet by
    2040, Inside Climate News (Apr. 26, 2018), https://
    insideclimatenews.org/news/26042018/nyc-air-pollution-electric-bus-
    public-transportation-mta-clean-technology
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While electric transit buses provide significant air quality and
    GHG reduction benefits, along with lower operating and maintenance
    costs, transit bus electrification is impeded by the higher upfront
    purchase cost of electric buses and charging infrastructure, a limited
    economy of scale in manufacturing, and additional routing and charging
    requirements for fleet managers and operators.
        To offset the higher upfront costs, many states are providing
    funding to transit agencies to support bus electrification. States such
    as Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia have identified transit bus
    electrification as a priority for investment with the funding received
    from the Volkswagen diesel emissions settlement. Rhode Island has
    already launched early deployments of electric transit buses purchased
    with VW settlement funding \52\ and has prioritized routes that travel
    through neighborhoods that currently suffer from higher levels of air
    pollution.\53\ While these state investments will help to grow the
    number of zero-emission buses on the road, the scale of funding
    distributed to states from the VW settlement--$2.9 billion over ten
    years, distributed across the 50 states and U.S. territories--will not
    be sufficient to meet states' clean energy and climate goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ State of Rhode Island Press Release, Raimondo, Congressional
    Delegation Unveil RIPTA's First Electric Buses (October 22, 2018)
    https://www.ri.gov/press/view/34479
        \53\ State of Rhode Island, supra note 52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit
    Administration's Low- or No-Emission (``Low-No'') Grant program has
    been instrumental in providing the funding needed by transit agencies
    to add zero-emission buses to their fleets. In the 2018 funding period
    alone, over $80 million in funding was awarded to support 52 electric
    transit bus projects in 41 states. The projects supported with this
    funding include electric bus deployment across a range of geographies,
    from the Philadelphia metro area--where the Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is adding electric buses--to rural
    Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will add
    electric buses to rural fleets statewide.
        The funding also allows transit agencies to innovative and explore
    different methods of recharging buses--whether at a central depot or
    in-route--as well as opportunities to power buses with renewable
    energy. For example, the 2018 FTA funding for Broward County Transit
    will not only replace aging buses with battery electric buses models,
    but will also include solar power installation.
        Due to the significant interest from cities and transit agencies,
    demand for electric bus funding from the ``Low-No'' Grant program far
    exceeds available funding levels. For fiscal year 2018, Congress
    appropriated an additional $29.45 million in funding--bringing the
    total to $84.45 million, but applications from transit agencies still
    exceeded 6 times the available funds.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ ``FTA received 149 eligible proposals from 42 states
    requesting $557 million in Federal funds.'' U.S. Department of
    Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fiscal Year 2018 Low or
    No Emission Grant Program Project Selections, (October 12, 2018)
    https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/funding/
    grants/grant-programs/118881/fy18-low-no-project-selections-and-
    guidance.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opportunity for Federal Leadership and Support
        Electric transit buses are already competitive with diesel buses on
    a total cost of ownership basis (when including fuel and maintenance
    costs), and will reach cost parity over the coming years.\55\ However,
    funding support and technical assistance are critical in the near term
    to offset the higher upfront costs and additional logistical
    challenges. As the cost of lithium ion battery packs continues to fall,
    and bus manufacturers increase the scale of production of electric
    transit buses, costs of buses will continue to decline, and electric
    transit buses may ultimately provide a lower cost alternative. In the
    near term, however, additional federal funding for converting
    combustion engine fleets to zero-emission electric propulsion would
    provide valuable support to local and state governments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
    Lower CO2, C40 (Mar. 29, 2018), https://c40-production-
    images.s3.amazonaws.com/other_uploads/images/1726_BNEF_C40_
    Electric_buses_in_cities_FINAL_APPROVED_%282%29.original.pdf?1523363881
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   zero emission ferries and marine transport
        In addition to electrifying passenger vehicles and transit fleets,
    states are exploring opportunities for zero-emission marine transport.
    Washington Governor Jay Inslee announced his Washington Maritime Blue
    2050 Initiative in 2017 to create and expand a sustainable ocean
    industry through the combined use of electric ferries and ships and
    zero-carbon-emissions port terminals.\56\ Washington State plans to use
    around 45 percent of its VW settlement money to fund the
    electrification of public vessels, with a particular focus on ferries,
    recognizing that in Washington State, ``ferries account for more than
    half of the air pollution generated by harbor vessels.'' \57\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ Tara Lee, Leading in the Maritime Sector: Washington Launches
    Maritime Blue 2050 Initiative, Washington Governor Jay Inslee (Dec. 12,
    2017), https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/leading-maritime-sector-
    washington-launches-maritime-blue-2050-initiative.
        \57\ The Washington State Plan notes that Converting diesel to all-
    battery electric ferries will significantly reduce diesel and carbon
    emissions, improve fleet reliability, virtually eliminate engine noise
    that can harm marine animals, and reduce ferry operating costs by up to
    20 percent. Brett Rude & Mike Boyer, State of Washington Volkswagen
    Beneficiary Mitigation Plan, Department of Ecology: State of Washington
    (Nov. 2018), https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/
    1802023.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hydrogen fuel cells may provide another viable option for zero-
    emission marine transport. A study undertaken by Sandia National
    Laboratories concluded in July 2018 that it is both technologically and
    economically feasible to build research vessels powered by hydrogen
    fuel cells.\58\ The first commercial ship running on hydrogen and
    producing zero pollution was built in 2017.\59\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ Sandia National Laboratories, Diesel Doesn't Float This Boat--
    Team Designs Zero-Emission Research Vehicle, Phys.org (July 2, 2018),
    https://phys.org/news/2018-07-diesel-doesnt-boatteam-zero-emissions-
    marine.html.
        \59\ Anna Hirtenstein, There's Now Vessel That Produces Zero
    Pollution, Bloomberg (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
    articles/2017-11-29/oceans-get-zero-emission-ship-in-step-toward-
    cleaner-cargo.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States could explore additional international
    partnerships for research and development and implementation. For
    example, Norway and Finland have deployed battery-electric ferries, and
    Norway is currently piloting hydrogen ferries.\60\ Norway has passed
    legislation to make its fjords zero emissions zones by 2026, only
    allowing electric ships into its waters.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \60\ Tjalve Magnusson Svedndsen, The First Hydrogen Ferry in
    Norway, Christian Michelsen Research, https://www.cmr.no/projects/
    10568/hydrogen-ferry/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
        \61\ Fred Lambert, Norway Is Making Its Fjords `The World's First
    Zero Emission Zone at Sea', Electrek (May 4, 2018), https://
    electrek.co/2018/05/04/elecitrc-ferries-norway-fjords-worlds-first-
    zero-emission-zone/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  decarbonizing medium- and heavy-duty trucks
        As the movement of goods on our country's highway corridors
    continues to increase with the growth of e-commerce, decarbonizing
    truck transport will be critical to meeting state and national climate
    commitments. For both long-haul and local delivery by heavy-duty and
    medium-duty vehicles, a number of low- or zero-emission vehicle and
    fuel types may serve different use cases.
        For reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, natural gas- and
    propane-fueled vehicles offer a promising and potentially low-cost
    alternative. For reducing GHG emissions, the federal government could
    play a key role in enabling the deployment of battery electric and
    hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
        Many vehicle and engine manufacturers have announced plans to
    release battery electric trucks over the coming years, and hydrogen
    truck pilots offer a promising alternative. The U.S. Department of
    Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has supported
    significant research and development efforts for hydrogen and fuel cell
    technologies, including through partnerships with U.S. national
    laboratories and private sector businesses, and has set ambitious goals
    for reducing the price of hydrogen fuel cells.\62\ This investment in
    hydrogen as a transportation fuel is as part of a broader opportunity
    role for hydrogen fuel in a decarbonized United State energy system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office Accomplishments and
    Progress, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-technologies-
    office-accomplishments-and-progress
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One critical challenge for both of these zero-emission technology
    types is the development of sufficient charging or fueling
    infrastructure along highway corridors. Similar to passenger vehicles,
    a minimum level of infrastructure coverage needs to be in place in
    order for the market to grow to the scale necessary to support private
    investment and unsubsidized growth.
        Heavy duty battery-electric trucks provide unique charging
    infrastructure and electric grid challenges. For example, the electric
    semi-truck specifications suggested by Tesla might require over 1 MW
    capacity charging per plug--equivalent to a Walmart SuperCenter. A
    truck stop depot with 10 of these chargers could have a peak electrical
    load similar to an industrial facility, but will often be located in a
    rural area far from available electrical power capacity.
        The federal government could play a critical role expanding
    research and pilot programs to determine the most cost effective and
    efficient means of providing this type of vehicle charging, including
    the role of stationary storage batteries and co-location of renewable
    power generation. This work could incorporate the freight corridor
    planning underway in many states through the FHWA Alternative Fuel
    Corridor program, and could engage key stakeholders, including electric
    utilities, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, and
    vehicle manufacturers.
              reducing emissions by providing greater mode choices
        In addition to supporting infrastructure to enable a transition to
    zero- and low-emission vehicles, the federal government can play a key
    role in reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled by improving
    transportation efficiency; by promoting more compact, livable
    communities; and by providing more transportation choices, including
    public transit, biking and walking. While states generally control land
    use planning decisions, the federal government has a critical role to
    play through its administration of transportation funding and
    infrastructure investment.
        Many states are confronting the challenge of reducing air pollution
    and emissions while experiencing increases in vehicle miles traveled.
    The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently released a report on
    the state's emissions over the last 25 years and strategies needed to
    meet the state's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The report
    found that while Minnesota has successfully reduced its overall
    emissions while growing its economy, the state missed its 2015 emission
    reduction target; and transportation is now the largest source of
    emissions in the state. The report suggests that the trends of
    residents driving more miles and preferring larger vehicles are
    preventing a greater reduction of emissions, and suggests that
    additional transportation mode choices can be an effective strategy for
    the state moving forward.\63\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ Anne Claflin & Fawkes Steinwand, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
    Minnesota: 1990-2016 7, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Department
    of Commerce (Jan. 2019), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/
    files/lraq-2sy19.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            state support for bicycle and pedestrian transportation
        There are many examples of state leadership in developing
    ``complete streets'' that allow for safe and efficient movement of
    pedestrians and bicyclists, in addition to vehicles. New Jersey has a
    nationally recognized complete streets policy that includes significant
    engagement with counties and municipalities. New Jersey Department of
    Transportation provides training to its own engineers and planners,
    along with those from local agencies, on complete streets policies. New
    Jersey Department of Transportation also provides incentives through
    its Local Aid and Economic Development grant program to municipalities
    that meet Complete Streets policy objectives.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \64\ Complete Streets: Workshop and Training, Department of
    Transportation, https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/
    completestreets/training.shtm (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many states' active transit projects are funded through federal
    programs, including the Capital Investment Grant program,
    Transportation Alternatives Program, and Surface Transportation Block
    Grant.
             public transportation and transit oriented development
        Investment in public transit, including light rail systems, bus
    rapid transit, traditional bus routes, and new mobility applications
    such as dynamic-routing micro-transit provide additional transportation
    choices and can stimulate economic development while reducing
    emissions. Cities and states throughout the U.S. are pioneering
    innovative ways of making transit more convenient and accessible, while
    harnessing the benefits of transit for community development and
    economic growth.
        In Dallas, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system has
    introduced the ``GoPass,'' a simple system that allows easy payment for
    different transit services while allowing frequent users to
    automatically take advantage of monthly or daily ride discounts when
    available.\65\ The GoPass was originally introduced nearly five years
    ago. DART introduced both the ``cash to mobile'' option and fare
    capping last year. These two items especially help low income
    populations. Last month, DART introduced GoPass 3.0 which begins to
    fully integrate other modes into the app, such as micro-transit
    services and scooters. The entire trip can be paid for on the app
    rather than bouncing back and forth between apps. This month DART is
    introducing Uber Pool as backup to the micro-transit services already
    offered, to make sure that the response times are maintained.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ When using a GoPass, transit riders ``never pay more than the
    price of a day pass in one day, or the price of a monthly pass in one
    month'' through an automated payment system. Dallas Area Rapid Transit,
    GoPass Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.gopass.org/customer-
    service/questions-answers
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Arlington, Virginia, where I live has seen significant economic
    development and population increases over recent decades, but has
    successfully decoupled this growth from greenhouse gas emissions by
    implementing transit-oriented development, in which mixed use
    developments are clustered near Metro stations.\66\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview, NOAA:
    National Center For Environmental Information (2019), https://
    www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To encourage more cities and regional governments to invest in
    critical public transit infrastructure, the federal government might
    consider increasing the federal match for public transit projects, from
    current levels of 50 percent (compared to 80 percent for road projects
    funded by the Highway Trust Fund).

                        Transportation System Resilience

        Despite innovation in the transportation sector and a shift to
    cleaner sources of electricity, including improved vehicles and fuels
    as a result of federal and state policy, we are already seeing the
    effects of climate change. Extreme weather events are becoming more
    frequent and intense, creating new challenges for infrastructure
    agencies that must consider how to prepare assets for these changing
    conditions and to do so on very limited budgets.
        Since 1980, the U.S. has experienced 241 extreme weather-related
    events with costs of more than $1 billion. The total estimated cost of
    these events adds up to more than $1.6 trillion. And the frequency and
    scale of these major disasters is increasing. Nearly one-third of total
    costs have come from events in just the past 5 years.\67\ In 2017
    alone, extreme weather events cost the U.S. over $300 billion, in large
    part due to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.\68\ These disasters
    have caused significant damages to infrastructure, which in some cases
    has led to years-long recovery efforts.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ NOAA, Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.
        \68\ Chris Mooney & Brady Dennis, Extreme Hurricanes and Wildfires
    Made 2017 the Most Costly U.S. Disaster Year on Record, Washington Post
    (Jan. 8, 2018) https://www.
    washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/08/hurricanes-
    wildfires-made-2017-
    the-most-costly-u-s-disaster-year-on-record/.
        \69\ For example, Vermont experienced an estimated $250-300 million
    in infrastructure damage resulting from Tropical Storm Irene. Vermont's
    challenges of rebuilding culverts more resiliently during the recovery
    period, due to barriers at the time in federal law and disaster
    recovery programs, is explored in the report. Lessons Learned from
    Irene: Climate Change, Federal Disaster Relief, and Barriers to
    Adaptive Reconstruction, Georgetown Climate Center (Dec. 20, 2013),
    https://www.georgetownclimate.org/reports/lessons-learned-from-irene-
    climate-change-federal-disaster-relief-and-barriers-to-adaptive-
    reconstruction.html. In New York, the many transportation-related
    impacts resulting from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, summarized in the
    report Transportation During and After Sandy, have led to numerous
    efforts to improve resilience in transportation infrastructure. Sarah
    Kaufman, et al., Transportation During and After Hurricane Sandy, Rudin
    Center For Transportation: NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
    (Nov. 2012), https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/
    sandytransportation.pdf. See, e.g., Post Hurricane Sandy Transportation
    Resilience Study in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, U.S.
    Department of Transportation (Oct. 2017), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
    environment/sustainability/resilience/publications/hurricane_sandy/
    fhwahep17097.pdf; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey--PATH
    System Resiliency and Recovery Improvements, Georgetown Climate Center:
    Adaptation Clearinghouse (Jan. 16, 2015), https://www.adaptation
    clearinghouse.org/resources/port-authority-of-new-york-and-new-jersey-
    path-system-resiliency-and-recovery-improvements.html. In Colorado,
    severe rains and flooding in September 2013 caused major road damage
    and wash-outs along US 34, which provides sole access to some areas.
    Recovery and reconstruction efforts extended into 2018, but resulted in
    a more resilient design of the highway. See US 34 Big Thompson Canyon,
    Colorado Department of Transportation, https://www.codot.gov/projects/
    floodrelatedprojects/us-34-big-thompson-canyon-1 (last visited Feb. 20,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As many of you know from the communities you represent, the human
    toll from these events is huge. In 2005, many members of my family,
    including my mother, sister and brother-in-law, aunt and uncle, lost
    homes in Katrina. The year before, my father Sidney Arroyo died during
    a stressful evacuation from Hurricane Ivan. The human and economic toll
    of these events is staggering. It is vital that we capture lessons on
    how to improve infrastructure and operations to get people out of
    harm's way in advance of storms and to build back differently as these
    events become more common and more severe.
        Our work in communities after Hurricanes Katrina, Irene and Sandy
    demonstrate opportunities to improve how communities rebuild after
    storms.
                             what states are doing
        Many states and local governments are learning from recent extreme
    events and are working to prepare their infrastructure systems for
    additional impacts of climate change. We are seeing more dedicated
    funding for resilient investments. Innovative steps include nature-
    based resilience strategies to help mitigate impacts of flooding and
    heat, new committees and task forces to examine climate change impacts
    and to design infrastructure to be more resilient, and new requirements
    to account for climate change in state or local planning and
    investments. For example, legislation and voter initiatives in
    Massachusetts, California, and Miami have committed funding for
    programs and projects that will build resilience in communities and
    infrastructure systems. In Massachusetts, state legislation authorized
    hundreds of millions of dollars for critical infrastructure protection
    and adaptation, implementation of the state's integrated hazard
    mitigation and climate adaptation plan, and other state and local
    resilience measures as part of a $2.4 billion package.\70\ Legislation
    in California (and subsequent voter approval) authorized over $4
    billion in bonds for conservation and resilience, parks and recreation,
    and water projects, including $443 million specifically for climate
    change preparedness and habitat resiliency, and $550 million for flood
    protection.\71\ And in Miami, voters approved a bond package with
    nearly $200 million for projects to mitigate impacts of sea-level rise
    and flooding.\72\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ An act promoting climate change adaptation, environmental and
    natural resource protection, and investment in recreational assets and
    opportunity, ch. 209, 2018 Mass. Sess. Laws.
        \71\ California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection,
    and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, Ch. 852, 2017-2018 Cal. Sess.
    Laws (subsequently approved by voters in June 2018 as Prop. 68).
        \72\ Adam Aton, Climate funding passes; vulnerable cities get new
    mayors, E&E News (Nov. 8, 2017), https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/
    2017/11/08/stories/1060065971.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        States and local governments are also showing commitment to
    resilience through planning and programs, task forces and studies, and
    new design requirements and development and zoning regulations. The
    Louisiana's Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments (LA SAFE)
    Program, initially funded through disaster recovery dollars in 2012,
    works with parishes to co-design customized projects and programs that
    will improve community resilience like ``complete streets'' and nature-
    based flood mitigation projects.\73\ California's Climate-Safe
    Infrastructure Working Group, established pursuant to legislation
    passed in 2016,\74\ completed its recommendations in 2018 for how the
    state can better integrate climate science into engineering and
    design.\75\ New York State established formal statewide sea-level rise
    projections by regulation in early 2018,\76\ implementing an important
    aspect of the state's Community Risk and Resiliency Act (2014), which
    is designed to integrate considerations of climate change impacts to
    proposed projects in certain funding and permitting processes overseen
    by state agencies.\77\ Maryland expanded its ``Coast Smart'' program in
    2018, now requiring that state-funded local projects (in addition to
    state capital projects) be sited and designed according to the state's
    ``Coast Smart'' criteria, which were also updated in 2018 pursuant to
    the legislation.\78\ And a range of local governments in places like
    Houston, Broward County, and New York City are implementing new
    floodplain and zoning regulations and design requirements to ensure
    that infrastructure investments and other development either avoid
    high-risk areas or are built to withstand future storms and
    conditions.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ Louisiana's Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments, LA
    Safe, https://lasafe.la.gov/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2019).
        \74\ Climate change: infrastructure planning, ch. 580, 2015-2016
    Cal. Sess. Laws.
        \75\ Paying It Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe Infrastructure
    in California, California Natural Resources Agency (Sept. 2018), http:/
    /resources.ca.gov/climate/climate-safe-infrastructure-working-group/.
        \76\ NY Envtl. Conserv. Law Sec.  490 (2018).
        \77\ New York Community Risk and Resiliency Act (S06617B),
    Georgetown Climate Center: Adaptation Clearinghouse (Sept. 22, 2014),
    https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/new-york-community-
    risk-and-resiliency-act-s06617b.html.
        \78\ For more information, see Georgetown Climate Center, Maryland
    HB 1350/ SB 1006--Sea Level Rise Inundation and Coastal Flooding--
    Construction, Adaptation, and Mitigation.
        \79\ Houston voted to update its Floodplain Management Ordinance,
    now regulating new development in the 500-year floodplain instead of
    just the 100-year. City of Houston, Ord. No. 2018-258 (Apr. 4, 2018).
    Broward County is now using ``future conditions'' maps that account for
    the impacts of sea-level rise on groundwater levels when approving
    drainage and other water management infrastructure, which will help
    ensure that infrastructure lasts in the future. Broward Cty., Fla.,
    Ordinance No. 2017-16 (May 23, 2017). In New York City, the Mayor's
    Office of Recovery and Resiliency developed new Climate Resiliency
    Design Guidelines to be used in the planning and design of city capital
    projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             what can congress do?
        In its recent report, the Committee for the Study of the Future
    Interstate Highway System highlighted the importance of preparing the
    Interstate Highway System and other roads and bridges for the impacts
    of climate change and more intense weather events.\80\ Congress should
    act on these recommendations to ensure that major federal
    infrastructure investments, including but not limited to the Interstate
    Highway System, are built to withstand flooding, increased heat, and
    other climate change impacts. Congress can build on steps already taken
    in MAP-21 and the FAST Act (integrating resilience and risk
    considerations in transportation planning processes), and in the
    Disaster Recovery Reform Act (authorizing a set-aside funding source
    from disaster expenses for pre-disaster mitigation grants for public
    infrastructure projects that will improve resilience, among other
    provisions designed to foster long-term resilience as part of disaster
    recovery).\81\ To ensure fiscal responsibility, recipients of federal
    funding should be required to consider how climate change will impact
    their infrastructure systems and assets in the future, and ensure that
    their investments are designed accordingly to withstand future
    conditions. States should be provided with the tools and information
    they need to adequately integrate these considerations into capital
    decision-making processes, and with strong incentives to engage in
    resilience planning and to modify codes and standards ahead of
    disasters to facilitate resilient rebuilding when funds are
    available.\82\ It is more important than ever to ensure that federal
    dollars are spent wisely and not wasted on investments that will not be
    built to last under future climate conditions and a ``new normal'' that
    includes increasingly severe weather events.
        In addition to infrastructure, we should understand that resilience
    to impacts depends on people as well and developing strategies to
    evacuate safely.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
    Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A
    Foundation for the Future (2018).
        \81\ Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018,
    H.R. 302, Div. D, 115th Cong. (2018). For example, the DRRA also
    clarifies that predisaster hazard mitigation funds may be used to
    establish and implement the latest hazard-resistant designs and
    criteria (modifying 42 USC 5133(e)), and it adds new evaluation
    criteria for predisaster hazard mitigation assistance awards, including
    the extent to which potential grantees have adopted the latest hazard-
    resistant designs and codes, and ``the extent to which the assistance
    will fund activities that increase the level of resiliency'' (modifying
    42 USC 5133(g)). It also clarifies that Public Assistance funds can
    reimburse costs of rebuilding facilities according to ``the latest
    published editions of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications,
    and standards. . .'' or ``in a manner that allows the facility to meet
    the definition of resilient'' (which is to be developed by FEMA
    rulemaking) (modifying 42 USC 5172(e)).
        \82\ Standards-setting organizations like the American Society of
    Civil Engineers have been engaging for several years in discussions
    about how to modify infrastructure design to account for changing risk
    profiles as a result of climate change. ASCE's Committee on Adaptation
    to a Changing Climate recently published a new Manual of Practice with
    guidance for engineers and others involved in infrastructure
    decisionmaking to assist with integrating adaptive design and
    minimizing lifecycle costs given a changing climate. Climate-Resilient
    Infrastructure: Adaptive Design and Risk Management, Committee on
    Adaptation to a Changing Climate, ASCE; Edited by Bilal M. Ayyub,
    Ph.D., P.E. 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Katrina, more than 1800 people who stayed behind died. Some
    didn't leave because of the difficulty in evacuating the year before
    during Ivan, Others didn't have affordable options for transportation
    or shelter, and still others didn't want to leave their pets behind
    after discovering that public transport and shelter options prohibited
    animals. Because of those hard lessons, Congress passed the Pet
    Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act--yes, ``PETS''--which no
    doubt has saved lives of countless pets and people in more recent
    storms.
        New programs like ``Evacuteers'' in New Orleans have sprung up to
    make sure people (and pets) can get out of harm's way, and portions of
    the I-10 twin spans, after sections were knocked out in Katrina, have
    been elevated.
        There is more to be done to prepare our communities for the changes
    we're experiencing now that will accelerate and worsen over time, even
    while states and cities work to do their share to tackle the emissions
    contributing to a changing climate.
        Thank you for considering how Congress might support them in these
    efforts.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Arroyo.
        Professor Lyon, you may proceed.
        Mr. Lyon. I wish to thank the chairman, ranking member, and
    other members of the committee for inviting me to today's
    hearing. My name is Tom Lyon, and I am a professor of economics
    at University of Michigan, with appointments in both the Ross
    School of Business and the School of Environment and
    Sustainability. The views I am presenting today are my own
    personal views and do not represent those of the university or
    any funders of my research.
        There is no question that U.S. infrastructure is in bad
    shape. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives U.S.
    infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus, with roads receiving
    a D. The time is ripe to come together to improve the
    situation.
        And it is wise to consider how infrastructure funding might
    affect greenhouse gas emissions. Total carbon emissions from
    the U.S. transportation sector rose 22 percent between 1990 and
    2017. And in 2017 transportation surpassed electricity as our
    largest emitter.
        My remarks today make two main points: first, market-
    oriented solutions offer incentives for innovation and cost
    reduction that can help to contain the social costs of
    addressing climate change; second, the history of U.S.
    Government policy for alternative fuels displays an
    inconsistency that illustrates why it is wise to be cautious
    about picking particular technology solutions.
        Economists have long advocated market-based solutions to
    environmental problems. This approach minimizes the total cost
    of achieving a given level of environmental protection, and
    provides dynamic incentives for innovation in pollution
    control.
        A famous example of a market-oriented policy is congestion
    pricing, used in London since 2003. A related example comes
    from Los Angeles, where single-occupancy vehicles can use the
    high-occupancy vehicle lane by paying a toll that depends on
    the level of highway congestion. Theseprograms use market
    mechanisms to reduce congestion at a much lower cost than
    building more highways.
        Another market-based policy is funding roads through a tax
    on vehicle miles traveled, as has been supported by Chairman
    DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves. Economic research suggests
    that if the current schedule of increases in fuel economy
    standards is maintained, and if the VMT, vehicle miles traveled
    tax, is differentiated for urban and rural driving, then the
    VMT tax is likely to outperform a gasoline tax.
        Market-based instruments allow for innovation and
    flexibility on the part of the private sector. This is
    especially important in the heavy truck market, which relies
    primarily on diesel fuel. Cummins and Tesla are producing
    electric heavy trucks. Toyota is testing heavy trucks powered
    by hydrogen fuel cells. Natural gas trucks are also being
    developed. It is too early to tell which of these fuels will be
    best, so it is important for policy to allow for flexibility.
    Mandating a specific technology could lock the industry into an
    inferior option.
        This brings me to my second point. U.S. policy towards
    alternative fuels has vacillated over time, as favored
    technologies rose and fell. Policy support has switched from
    methanol to natural gas to battery electric vehicles to
    hydrogen to hybrid electric vehicles to biofuels, and now back
    to battery electrics. This has sent confusing signals, making
    it hard for the auto industry to make long-term investment
    plans for alternative fuel vehicles.
        A market-oriented approach would take a modest view of
    Government's ability to lead the deployment of any particular
    technology. Mandating technology choices in downstream markets
    risks creating cycles of hype and disappointment, or creating
    lock-in to an inferior technology.
        When it comes to encouraging the adoption of electric
    vehicles, research suggests that financing electric charging
    stations is more effective than subsidizing vehicle purchases
    directly. However, there are many possible sources of funding
    for charging stations, and a thoughtful approach to creating
    public-private partnerships seems warranted.
        It may also be useful to require compatibility in charging
    standards across manufacturers, which would decrease
    duplicative investments and expand the size of theelectric
    vehicle market.
        In summary, economic analysis cautions against picking
    technological winners, and supports the use of market-based
    instruments that allow flexibility and encourage innovation.
    This is especially important for medium and heavy-duty trucks,
    where multiple technologies all offer promise, and for the
    deployment of fueling infrastructure for alternative fuels such
    as electricity.
        Thank you again for allowing me to share my views, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Lyon's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Testimony of Thomas P. Lyon, Dow Chemical
     Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce, University
                                  of Michigan
        I wish to thank the chairmen, ranking members and other members of
    the Subcommittees and full Committee for inviting me to today's
    hearing. My name is Thomas Peyton Lyon and I hold the Dow Chemical
    Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce at the University
    of Michigan, with appointments in both the Ross School of Business and
    the School of Environment and Sustainability. I am an economist by
    training, and at the Ross School my home department is Business
    Economics and Public Policy. At Michigan I teach an MBA-level graduate
    course entitled ``Energy Markets and Energy Politics.'' I have served
    as Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise and
    as Associate Director for Policy and Social Science at the UM Energy
    Institute. In the latter capacity I helped to launch the
    Transportation, Economics, Energy and Environment (TE3) conference,
    which for the last 5 years has brought together top academic
    researchers with leaders from industry and government to discuss these
    important issues. I have received research grants on transportation
    from the Sloan Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    I am currently the President of the Alliance for Research on Corporate
    Sustainability (ARCS), an international alliance of top business
    schools that have a commitment to understanding the links between
    business and sustainability.
        There is little question that U.S. infrastructure is in bad shape.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)'s 2017 Infrastructure
    Report Card gave U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of D+. Transit
    received a D^, Roads a D, and Bridges a C+; Rail topped the list at a
    grade of B. The relatively good performance of rail is largely due to
    private industry investment by the rail freight industry, although
    Federal funding also contributes. Passenger rail, in contrast, exhibits
    a ``large and growing backlog of capital needs.'' (ASCE, p. 75). ``More
    than two out of every five miles of America's urban interstates are
    congested and traffic delays cost the country $160 billion in wasted
    time and fuel in 2014. One out of every five miles of highway pavement
    is in poor condition.'' (ASCE, p. 77) ``The U.S. has been underfunding
    its highway system for years, resulting in a $836 billion backlog of
    highway and bridge capital needs . . . The Federal Highway
    Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway, and
    bridge improvements returns $5.20 in the form of lower vehicle
    maintenance costs, decreased delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved
    safety, lower road and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions
    as a result of improved traffic flow.'' (ASCE, p. 78) Similarly,
    ``Despite increasing demand, the nation's transit systems have been
    chronically underfunded, resulting in aging infrastructure and a $90
    billion rehabilitation backlog.'' (ASCE, p. 89)
        Total greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector
    rose from 1,469.1 million tons of CO2-equivalent (MMTCO2E) in 1990 to
    1,794.2 (MMTCO2E) in 2017 (USEPA, 2019, p. 2-3), an increase of 22
    percent. Although emissions dropped sharply in 2008 and 2009 as a
    result of the Great Recession, they have been rising again since 2013.
    In fact, as of 2017, the transportation sector in the U.S. has
    surpassed the electricity sector as the largest emitter of greenhouse
    gases, as shown in the figure below (from USEPA, p. ES-24). Light-duty
    vehicles account for 60 percent of transportation emissions, with
    medium- and heavy-duty vehicles accounting for 23 percent of the
    total.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-
    greenhouse-gas-emissions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        There are many opportunities to reduce transportation sector
    emissions, including reducing travel demand, making greater use of
    public transit, switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles, and adopting
    a wide range of alternative fuels such as electricity, hydrogen,
    biodiesel, and compressed natural gas. Emerging connected and automated
    vehicles (CAVs) offer opportunities to improve highway safety and fuel
    efficiency, although they may ultimately increase overall fuel
    consumption (Stephens et al., 2016).
        My remarks today will make two main points. First, market-oriented
    solutions offer incentives for innovation and cost-reduction that can
    help to contain the social costs of addressing climate change. Second,
    the history of U.S. government policy for alternative fuels displays an
    inconsistency that illustrates why it is wise for government policy to
    be cautious about picking particular technology solutions.
                     the value of market-oriented policies
        Economists have long argued for market-based instruments for the
    solution of environmental problems, such as emissions fees (Pigou,
    1920) or systems of tradable permits (Montgomery, 1972). The advantages
    of this approach are that it minimizes the aggregate cost of achieving
    a given level of environmental protection (Baumol and Oates, 1988), and
    provides dynamic incentives for the adoption and diffusion of cheaper
    and better pollution control technologies (Milliman and Prince, 1989).
    One of the most prominent applications of the approach was the U.S.
    sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program, which is credited with reducing
    acid rain in the Northeastern U.S. at a cost lower than initially
    projected (Schmalensee and Stavins, 2013).
        In the transportation sector, a prominent example of a market-
    oriented policy is the use of congestion pricing, as was famously done
    in London beginning in 2003 (Leape, 2006) and more recently in
    Gothenburg, Sweden (Hysing et al., 2015). Because London exempted
    hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), the congestion tax has also increased
    their use (Morton et al., 2017).
        A less familiar example comes from Los Angeles, where beginning in
    2013 the High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on Interstate I-10 has been
    converted to a High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) facility, under the city's
    ExpressLanes program (Bento et al., 2017). The program allows Single-
    Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) to travel in the HOV lane by paying a toll
    that ranges from $0.10 to $15.00 depending on the level of congestion
    on the highway. The toll is adjusted dynamically to keep travel speeds
    in the HOV lane at roughly 45 miles per hour. The program uses market
    mechanisms to reduce congestion at a much lower cost than highway
    expansion.
        Another market-based policy is funding roads through a tax on
    vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as has been supported by Chairman DeFazio
    and ranking member Graves.\2\ Oregon has experimented with such a
    policy, California has initiated a pilot project, and other States have
    shown interest as well (Langer et al., 2017). Economic research
    suggests that a VMT tax can have substantial benefits. Parry and Small
    (2005) calculate that the optimal VMT tax would be more economically
    efficient than the optimal gasoline tax, would raise more revenue, and
    would be better at reducing congestion and accidents than a gasoline
    tax. However, a gasoline tax would more directly target the
    environmental performance of vehicles, as well as the increased
    accident hazards created by driving heavier and less fuel-efficient
    vehicles (Anderson and Aufhammer, 2013). Langer et al. (2017) use a
    unique dataset on individual driver behavior to estimate the effects of
    a VMT, and conclude that its performance is likely to be very similar
    to that of a gasoline tax in terms of overall social welfare. However,
    if the Obama-era increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
    standards are maintained, and if the VMT is differentiated for urban
    and rural driving, then the VMT outperforms a gasoline tax.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/missouri-rep-sam-graves-
    consistent-support-vmt-funding-approach
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A crucial advantage of market-based instruments is that they allow
    for innovation and flexibility on the part of the private sector. This
    is of particular importance with regard to the heavy truck market,
    which currently relies primarily on diesel fuel. As mentioned above,
    medium-and heavy-duty trucks only produced 23 percent of the emissions
    from the transportation sector in 2016, but the relative impact of
    trucks is likely to increase over time as the efficiency of light-duty
    vehicles continues to improve (see the figure below, which is from
    USEPA 2019, p. 3-23).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Different companies are pursuing different technological solutions
    for reducing carbon emissions from trucks. Cummins and Tesla are
    producing electric heavy trucks.\3\ Toyota is testing heavy trucks
    powered by hydrogen fuel cells.\4\ Natural gas trucks could also offer
    climate advantages, but these are dependent on reduced leakage of
    methane across the supply chain and engine efficiency improvements
    (Camuzeaux et al., 2015). It is too early to tell which of these fuels
    will prove to be best in particular uses, so it is important for policy
    to allow for flexibility as innovation advances. Mandating a particular
    type of technology for these vehicles could lock the industry into an
    option that ends up being less than optimal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2017/08/29/take-that-
    tesla-diesel-engine-giant-cummins-unveils-heavy-duty-truck-powered-by-
    electricity/#7dabd12278f1
        \4\ https://www.trucks.com/2017/10/12/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-
    electric-truck-hits-road/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      history of alternative fuels policy
        U.S. policy toward alternative fuels has vacillated over time as
    favored technologies become the ``fuel du jour'' and then lose ground
    to a new alternative. The pattern is illustrated in the following
    figure (from Melton et al., 2016, p. 3).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        President Reagan was a promoter of methanol, a fuel that quickly
    fell out of favor. A few years later, California imposed a zero-
    emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, with the expectation that this would
    drive deployment of electric vehicles, but the policy had little impact
    on actual deployment. Hydrogen fuel cells attracted attention with the
    passage of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and
    Demonstration Act of 1990, whose purpose was to ``accelerate efforts to
    develop a domestic capability to economically produce hydrogen in
    quantities that will make a significant contribution toward reducing
    the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels.'' The Partnership for a
    New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) was launched in 1993, with the goal
    of producing a new set of highly fuel-efficient vehicles, and
    emphasizing hybrid diesel-electric vehicles. Each of the big domestic
    manufacturers produced fully operational concept cars that got at least
    72 miles per gallon, but a lack of ongoing support meant that none
    actually made it to market. Government attention shifted back to
    hydrogen in 2003 with President George W. Bush's ``Hydrogen Fuel
    Initiative,'' which provided $1.2 billion of funding to develop
    hydrogen fuel cells. This was bolstered by the FreedomCAR and Vehicle
    Technologies Partnership between the Department of Energy and the U.S.
    Council for Automotive Research (consisting of Ford, GM, and Chrysler).
    At around the same time, however, political attention began to turn to
    biofuels, and the 2002 Renewable Fuels Standard provided strong policy
    support for corn-based ethanol, the climate benefits of which have been
    questioned by numerous authors (DeCicco et al., 2015; Hill et al.,
    2016). In 2007, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an
    executive order creating a low-carbon fuel standard, and the climate
    benefits of this policy have also been questioned (Holland et al.,
    2009).
        This history of jumping from one favored technology to another in
    rapid succession has sent a confusing set of signals to the automobile
    industry, making it difficult for the auto industry to make long-term
    investment plans for alternative fuel vehicles. As Melton et al. (2016,
    p. 8) point out, ``goals are often announced . . . without
    consideration for factors such as supply constraints, rate of
    innovation adoption, and consumer acceptance.'' It is little wonder
    that these government-led calls to action might be considered non-
    credible by industry actors and investors.
        What lessons are to be drawn from this experience? One response
    would be to build government capacity in technology assessment and
    forecasting, hoping to render future government programs more credible
    (Melton, et al., 2016). A market-oriented approach would take a more
    modest view of government's ability to lead the deployment of any
    particular technology. Of course, it is widely acknowledged that
    government needs to play a key role in fundamental research and
    development (Jaffe et al., 2005), and that this may entail funding a
    wide range of promising early stage technologies. However, attempts to
    dictate technology choices to downstream markets run the risk of either
    creating cycles of hype and disappointment (Melton et al., 2016) or
    creating ``lock in'' to an inferior technology (Cowan, 1990). An
    alternative could be to create more research tournaments by offering
    prizes for technological breakthroughs (Taylor, 1995), such as the
    Breakthrough Prizes funded by Silicon Valley leaders.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/11/news-
    breakthrough-prizes-2019-award-winners-biology-physics-math/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What might these considerations imply for the financing of electric
    charging stations, a potentially important infrastructure policy? Li et
    al. (2017) find that funding charging stations instead of subsidizing
    vehicle purchases would have been twice as effective in encouraging the
    adoption of electric vehicles. This is promising, but it is not obvious
    that such funding must be provided by the Federal Government. There are
    many possible sources of funding for charging stations, including
    vehicle manufacturers such as Tesla, electric utilities,\6\ employers,
    retail establishments, and municipalities, as well as State and Federal
    Governments. In light of this array of options, a thoughtful approach
    to creating a public/private partnership seems warranted. It is also
    worth noting that the less costly policy of mandating compatibility in
    charging standards would decrease duplicative investment in charging
    stations by car manufacturers and increase the size of the electric
    vehicle market (Li, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/constancedouris/2017/11/08/who-
    should-pay-for-electric-vehicle-chargers-who-should-profit/
    #4c8518d34aa5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, economic analysis cautions against picking
    technological winners and supports the use of market-based instruments
    that allow flexibility and encourage innovation. This is especially
    important for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, where multiple
    technologies all offer promise, and for the deployment of fueling
    infrastructure for alternative fuels such as electricity.
                                   references
        American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure Report Card
    2017. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/
    02/Full-2017-Report-Card-FINAL.pdf
        Anderson, Michael L., and Maximilian Auffhammer. ``Pounds that
    kill: The external costs of vehicle weight.'' Review of Economic
    Studies 81, no. 2 (2013): 535-571.
        Baumol, William J., and Wallace E. Oates, The Theory of
    Environmental Policy. Second edition. New York: Cambridge University
    Press, 1988.
        Bento, Antonio, Kevin Roth, and Andrew Waxman. ``Avoiding traffic
    congestion externalities? The value of urgency.'' University of
    Southern California Working paper, 2017.
        Camuzeaux, Jonathan R., Ramo'n A. Alvarez, Susanne A. Brooks,
    Joshua B. Browne, and Thomas Sterner. ``Influence of methane emissions
    and vehicle efficiency on the climate implications of heavy-duty
    natural gas trucks.'' Environmental Science & Technology 49, no. 11
    (2015): 6402-6410.
        Collantes, Gustavo, and Daniel Sperling. ``The origin of
    California's zero emission vehicle mandate.'' Transportation Research
    Part A: Policy and Practice 42, no. 10 (2008): 1302-1313.
        Cowan, Robin. ``Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological
    lock-in.'' The Journal of Economic History 50, no. 3 (1990): 541-567.
        DeCicco, John M., Danielle Yuqiao Liu, Joonghyeok Heo, Rashmi
    Krishnan, Angelika Kurthen, and Louise Wang. ``Carbon balance effects
    of U.S. biofuel production and use.'' Climatic Change 138, no. 3-4
    (2016): 667-680.
        Holland, Stephen P., Jonathan E. Hughes, and Christopher R.
    Knittel. ``Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards?''
    American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1, no. 1 (2009): 106-46.
        Hysing, Erik, Lotta Frandberg, and Bertil Vilhelmson.
    ``Compromising sustainable mobility? The case of the Gothenburg
    congestion tax.'' Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58,
    no. 6 (2015): 1058-1075.
        Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A tale
    of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy.''
    Ecological Economics 54, no. 2-3 (2005): 164-174.
        Langer, Ashley, Vikram Maheshri, and Clifford Winston. ``From
    gallons to miles: A disaggregate analysis of automobile travel and
    externality taxes.'' Journal of Public Economics 152 (2017): 34-46.
        Leape, Jonathan. ``The London congestion charge.'' Journal of
    Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (2006): 157-176.
        Li, Jing. ``Compatibility and investment in the U.S. electric
    vehicle market.'' Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management (2019).
        Li, Shanjun, Lang Tong, Jianwei Xing, and Yiyi Zhou. ``The market
    for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design.''
    Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4,
    no. 1 (2017): 89-133.
        Melton, Noel, Jonn Axsen, and Daniel Sperling. ``Moving beyond
    alternative fuel hype to decarbonize transportation.'' Nature Energy 1,
    no. 3 (2016): 16013.
        Milliman, Scott R., and Raymond Prince, ``Firm incentives to
    promote technological change in pollution control,'' Journal of
    Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989): 247-65.
        Montgomery, W. David. ``Markets in licenses and efficient pollution
    control programs.'' Journal of Economic Theory 5, no. 3 (1972): 395-
    418.
        Morton, Craig, Robin Lovelace, and Jillian Anable. ``Exploring the
    effect of local transport policies on the adoption of low emission
    vehicles: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge and Hybrid
    Electric Vehicles.'' Transport Policy 60 (2017): 34-46.
        Pigou, Arthur Cecil, The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan
    and Company, 1920.
        Schmalensee, Richard, and Robert N. Stavins. ``The SO2 allowance
    trading system: the ironic history of a grand policy experiment.''
    Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, no. 1 (2013): 103-22.
        Stephens, T.S., J. Gonder, Y. Chen, Z. Lin, C. Liu, and D. Gohlke.
    Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs
    of Connected and Automated Vehicles. National Renewable Energy Lab.
    (2016) Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-67216.
        Taylor, Curtis R. ``Digging for golden carrots: An analysis of
    research tournaments.'' The American Economic Review (1995): 872-890.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
    Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2017. (2019) EPA-530-P-19-001.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Professor Lyon.
        Next, Mr. Prochazka, you may proceed. But first, let me
    just say that I apologize for getting your name placard wrong.
    We are going to fix that in a minute. Please proceed.
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Graves, and distinguished members of the committee. And my last
    name is often mispronounced, so at least we got that correct
    today.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Prochazka. So I want to thank you all for the
    opportunity to talk about this important issue. As a son of a
    dad who spent 25 years working for the FAA, my experience
    started real young with transportation.
        So I am the vice president of the Electrification
    Coalition, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to
    accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles around the
    country in an effort to reduce the economic and national
    security threats posed by U.S. oil dependency. We are a sister
    organization of Securing America's Future Energy, which leads a
    broader approach with the same core mission, and works for all
    fuels.
        You have a copy of my written testimony, and I am happy to
    answer questions after. But today's hearing is an opportunity
    to summarize a few key points: one, the hope that EVs can be a
    bipartisan issue; two, EVs are going to help diversify our
    transportation fuels; three, there are successes from around
    the country to highlight; and four, we hope to share several
    policy recommendations that could support EV adoption.
        Currently 92 percent of the U.S. transportation sector is
    powered by oil. Supply is determined by a cartel, and traded on
    an unfair and unfree oil market, meaning disruption anywhere
    affects prices everywhere. We need aggressive policy
    interventions that are going to diversify transportation fuels,
    an issue that should be at the top of every lawmaker's list.
        Through transportation electrification, we can power the
    way we move, while also improving our economic and national
    security. Electricity is diverse, American-made, low-cost,
    ubiquitous, and stable. And when used for transportation, it is
    fundamentally cleaner than internal combustion engines,
    regardless of the source. And as the grid gets cleaner, so do
    EVs.
        And not only do EVs reduce pollution, oil dependence, and
    cost, they have incredible acceleration, and are actually fun
    to drive.
        EV adoption is also growing rapidly, last year hitting 1
    million sold, and in 2019 will have almost 50 models available.
    Battery costs are dropping. Charging is getting faster. And now
    buses, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles, and class 8 vehicles
    are going electric.
        Despite the advantages of electrification, barriers both
    real and perceived remain. Consumer knowledge is low. Upfront
    costs can be higher. Local, State, and Federal policies can
    remain in flux. But the Electrification Coalition and others
    are working to reduce these barriers at all levels.
        In Orlando we worked with area theme parks and Enterprise
    Rent-a-Car to launch the Nation's first EV rental car program,
    providing an extended EV test drive. In Fort Collins and
    Loveland we launched Drive Electric Northern Colorado, our
    first accelerator community. By coordinating fleet transition,
    increased charging, and consumer education in one location, we
    accelerated adoption to three times the national average.
        The Electrification Coalition was also the lead
    implementation partner for the Smart City Challenge. Seventy-
    eight cities responded, offering innovative ideas to electrify
    transportation, showing that communities were hungry for
    solutions. Seven finalists were selected: Portland, San
    Francisco, Denver, Austin, Kansas City, Columbus, and
    Pittsburgh. And now all are leading examples for
    electrification. The winner, Smart Columbus, and with our
    partnership, is now a thriving EV ecosystem that is
    substantially increasing EV adoption.
        Our daily commutes are also going electric. Greensboro,
    North Carolina, has become one of the largest fleets on the
    east coast, recently launching 16 buses. It is going to
    eventually eliminate 2 million gallons of diesel.
        In Chicago, for every bus they deploy, they expect to save
    about $25,000 in annual fuel costs. Imagine extending that to
    the 70,000 city buses and 400,000 school buses operating
    nationwide. If just half were to go electric, it would save $6
    billion annually, and cut over 400 billion gallons of lifetime
    diesel use.
        And in partnership with Climate Mayors, a group of 400
    mayors, we launched the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing
    Collaborative, which provides tools to make transition easier.
    From Cape Canaveral to Houston, L.A., and San Diego, they have
    committed to purchase over 500 EVs in the next year.
        We have several main recommendations. One, we should retain
    30D, the Federal tax credit to purchase EVs. With some of the
    companies already reaching the cap, we support lifting the cap
    with a stakeholder-negotiated sunset.
        Charging infrastructure must meet an electric future.
    Funding DOT Alternative Fuel Corridors program can improve
    signage, expand nationwide charging, and show consumers
    considering an EV that charging is increasing, nationwide. We
    should also renew and extend the 30C Federal tax credits per
    additional EV charging.
        We also need to expand electric bus adoption. We recommend
    low- or zero-interest loans that can demonstrate the payback of
    lower operational costs. Programs like the FTA's Low or No
    Emmission grant program should be continued and expanded, and
    we must also look for opportunities to create incentives and
    paths to accelerate medium and heavy-duty vehicle
    electrification.
        Each year the U.S. military spends at least $81 billion to
    protect global oil supplies. Roughly--it is roughly 28 cents
    for every gallon we use. Policies that diversify our
    transportation fuels are a small price, compared with the
    opportunity to strengthen our economic and national security, a
    goal everyone should support.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate and
    look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Prochazka's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Ben Prochazka, Vice President, Electrification
                                   Coalition
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
    of the Committee,
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.
    My name is Ben Prochazka, and I am the Vice President of the
    Electrification Coalition, a nonpartisan, non-profit group of business
    leaders committed to promoting policies and actions that facilitate the
    deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale in order to combat the
    economic and national security dangers caused by our nation's
    dependence on oil. The Electrification Coalition is comprised of
    leaders representing the entire value chain of the electrified
    transportation system. These leaders believe federal infrastructure
    policy can and must do much more to accelerate our economy's transition
    away from oil as the only transportation fuel which we believe is
    critical to providing choice to consumers and businesses and
    strengthening our economy and national security.
        The Electrification Coalition is a sister organization of Securing
    America's Future Energy, or SAFE. For over a decade, SAFE has been
    committed to strengthening America's national and economic security by
    reducing U.S. oil dependence. While we are here today to talk about
    electric vehicles (EVs) and the EC's continued role in their adoption,
    SAFE supports efforts to bring greater fuel diversity to U.S. consumers
    and businesses attempting to remain fuel neutral when possible but
    assist certain fuel types as necessary. In 2006, SAFE formed the Energy
    Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a nonpartisan group of business and
    former military leaders in support of long-term policy toward this
    goal. The ESLC is co-chaired by Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and CEO of
    FedEx, and General James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine
    Corps (Ret.).
        Today's timely hearing provides an opportunity for us to share some
    examples of early market successes of EVs and challenges to EV
    adoption, explain why EVs should have strong bipartisan support, and to
    encourage this committee to help accelerate EV adoption (including
    transit buses, passenger, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles) and to
    increase the number of available charging station locations and signage
    across the country.
            the challenge of u.s. oil dependence and transportation
        The United States is the single-largest oil consumer in the world.
    We consume, as a nation, approximately one-fifth of daily global
    supply, 70 percent of which is used to power our transportation system.
    Since 92 percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. transportation
    system comes from oil, businesses and consumers have no alternatives
    available at scale when oil prices spike. With the uniquely global
    nature of oil pricing, a supply disruption anywhere impacts prices
    everywhere. This is exacerbated by the opaque and unfree oil market
    dominated by the OPEC cartel, which controls 83 percent of the world's
    proven oil reserves.
        Such market manipulation often leads to rapid fluctuations in oil
    prices--both upwards and downwards--and wreaks havoc on our businesses,
    our cities, and the average American's pocketbook, ultimately straining
    the entire U.S. economy. Although oil prices were comparatively low in
    2018, the volatile nature of the oil markets means American household
    budgets will almost certainly be pressured by higher prices in the
    near-to-medium-term future--and likely with little warning--and that
    the tax cut given by President Trump just as tax cuts by Presidents
    Bush and Obama will be sent to OPEC members and to purchase higher cost
    oil than to the pockets of average Americans.
        Additionally, higher oil prices significantly added to the U.S.
    federal debt between 2002 and 2012, and every U.S. recession over the
    past 40 years has been preceded by, or coincided with, an oil price
    spike. Despite the recent increase in domestic oil production, the
    United States sent more than $133 billion abroad in 2018 to pay for
    oil, often to countries that neither share American strategic interests
    nor values. The economic importance of oil also creates adverse
    national security challenges. Notably, more than 50 percent of daily
    oil supplies pass through one of seven major chokepoints, many in
    unstable regions, particularly the Middle East. In addition, the U.S.
    military spends at least $81 billion per year to protect global oil
    supplies--accounting for 16 percent of DoD base budgets. If this cost
    is spread over the roughly 19.8 million barrels of oil consumed daily
    in the U.S., the implicit subsidy for petroleum consumers comes out to
    $11.25 per barrel of crude oil, or $0.28 per gallon.
           why electric vehicles are the solution to oil dependence:
        Electric vehicles have the potential to dramatically reduce our
    nation's oil dependence. By utilizing electricity to charge rapidly
    improving battery technology, we can power our transportation sector
    with a diverse, domestic, price stable, and fundamentally scalable
    energy supply. In addition, this approach is fundamentally cleaner even
    when the electricity is generated by coal but as we have seen in the
    last few years the mix of fuels to power electricity continues to get
    cleaner.
        Electric vehicles provide a range of other benefits, which are
    addressed in detail later in this testimony but can be briefly
    mentioned here. Fewer moving parts means there are lower maintenance
    costs for EVs, while also allowing local and state governments to meet
    air quality challenges like non-attainment zones. Additionally, thanks
    to the ubiquity of U.S. electricity infrastructure, much of the
    nationwide fuel delivery network for EVs is already in place.
                     state of the electric vehicle market:
        The vehicle manufacturing and charging infrastructure industry have
    seen important progress in recent years as investments have grown, with
    several OEMs committing billions more dollars to develop new models.
    Today, 50 light-duty EV models are already available to American
    consumers and cumulative light-duty EV sales growing quickly, as we
    recently surpassed 1 million units in the United States since January
    2011. This is also being matched with increased investments from the
    private sector and utilities to expand the number of charging stations
    and speed of the chargers, reaching almost 50,000 chargers at the end
    of 2020.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Electrified transportation is rapidly expanding in the commercial
    and transit sectors as well, with plug-in hybrid and battery electric
    trucks ranging in size from Class 1 to Class 8 already operating on
    city streets around the country. Today there are electric delivery
    vehicles carrying packages for FedEx and UPS, plug-in electric garbage
    trucks operating in Seattle and Sacramento, a Class 8 yard truck in
    Buffalo, and 16 electric buses bringing commuters to work in
    Greensboro, NC. Those 16 buses in Greensboro alone are estimated to
    eliminate nearly 2 million gallons of diesel usage. Considering there
    are approximately 70,000 city buses and 400,000 school buses in the
    U.S., the potential for fuel savings and air quality improvements
    nationwide are tremendous. The commercial and transit sectors are
    increasingly driving electric--and Americans are increasingly seeing
    the shift happening on their daily commutes, as more than 13 percent of
    all transit agencies either have EV buses in service or on order.
        We look forward to 2019 as a key transitional year when available
    light-duty EVs meet more consumer needs while approaching cost parity
    over the life of the vehicle with petroleum-powered vehicles.
    Additionally, there are exciting signs from industry of a growing list
    of vehicle options in almost every segment of the market, providing an
    electric vehicle solution for almost every lifestyle.
        While growth in the EV market is promising, there is still
    significant work that must happen to ensure EVs can meaningfully
    improve the economic and national security of the United States by
    providing the needed fuel diversity in transportation. Transitions like
    this are difficult, there is no guarantee of success, and there is much
    to be done to make sure we accelerate these critical changes, but there
    are tremendous signs of hope and the stakes cannot be higher.
              the electrification coalition's accelerator programs
        From coast to coast, the EC has worked with federal, state, and
    local policymakers to create scalable and replicable programs across
    the United States to accelerate the adoption of EVs.
        Our work has included deep learning experiences in cities and
    through public and private sector partnerships in Colorado, Georgia,
    Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York. Our
    efforts have expanded access to infrastructure, created an EV rental
    car program with Enterprise Rent-a-Car, launched regional and national
    bulk procurement initiatives that can reduce the administration and
    real costs of vehicle acquisition, and initiated the nation's first
    full ecosystem efforts that united diverse partners through ``EV
    accelerator'' communities that serve as models for successfully driving
    EV adoption. These initiatives have provided us with the opportunity to
    develop a growing list of case studies and best practices that will
    make it easier for the next communities to drive adoption at even
    greater rates.
        To realize these gains, the Electrification Coalition has worked
    tirelessly at the local and state levels to bolster EV adoption. In
    2013, the Electrification Coalition created Drive Electric Northern
    Colorado, its first accelerator community. Accelerator communities are
    cities or regions where all of the necessary public and private
    stakeholder partnerships are combined with the appropriate business
    environment, regulatory support, and consumer education to achieve
    substantially higher EV sales. The first accelerator community achieved
    EV sales three times the national average by implementing this combined
    approach. The accelerator community model was later replicated in
    Rochester, NY, and its success has encouraged New York to launch
    similar communities across the state.
        In addition, the Electrification Coalition worked with the Florida
    Energy Office and major private sector partners in Orlando such as
    Enterprise Rent-a-Car to create one of the nation's first EV rental
    programs, called Drive Electric Orlando. This program has already
    provided thousands of the state's visitors with first-hand experience
    in driving EVs, thereby building confidence in and comfort with the
    technology, dispelling myths, and allowing drivers to discover the
    overall benefits of EVs.
        On a larger scale, the Electrification Coalition is acting as a
    technical and strategic advisor to Smart Columbus, the winner of the
    U.S. DOT's Smart City Challenge. This $50 million endeavor--funded
    through $40 million from U.S. DOT and $10 million from the Paul G.
    Allen Family Foundation--is breaking down the barriers to EV adoption
    in the Midwest and working to significantly accelerate EV adoption by
    consumers and fleets. Smart Columbus is simultaneously sharing and
    implementing national best practices, leveraging over $510 million in
    private-sector investment, and developing new innovations to achieve
    substantially increased EV adoption in the Columbus region.
        Further demonstrating the local-level EV programs, the
    Electrification Coalition is engaged with several initiatives to spur
    collaboration and information sharing between and among U.S. and
    international cities. These include the Mobility Innovation Challenge
    and the Global Pilot EV Cities Initiative. Through these initiatives we
    have learned that cities are facing immense transportation challenges
    for which electrification provides an immediate and achievable
    solution.
        The EC is also the technical advisor for the Climate Mayors EV
    Purchasing Collaborative, a nationwide bipartisan collaboration of
    mayors who are committing to electrify city fleets. This initiative is
    designed to reduce the barriers to electrification for our nation's
    municipal fleets, thereby accelerating the transition. Already, 19
    founding cities and two counties have publicly committed to the
    purchase of 376 EVs, representing more than $11 million in EV
    investment.
        At the state level, the EC developed the Zero Emissions Vehicle
    (ZEV) State Scorecard to provide a single, comprehensive, and data-
    driven ranking of the key policies being implemented in ZEV MOU states
    to support increased EV adoption. As the ZEV MOU states are among the
    nation's leaders in policies that accelerate the adoption of EVs, the
    scorecard provides the ability to assess the policies and actions that
    most effectively impact EV adoption at the state level.
        This is all necessary because while EV purchases have increased,
    they are yet to reach a tipping point. Perception issues continue to
    persist, as high numbers of consumers have neither driven an EV nor
    know about the lower fuel and maintenance costs they offer. Similarly,
    auto dealerships often don't prioritize EV sales with strong knowledge
    about the available EV models, meaning electric cars are not being
    integrated into showrooms. Attracting consumers to EVs will also help
    solve current infrastructure issues, as every vehicle sold will
    contribute to a developing value chain system that feeds into
    infrastructure investment, creating jobs and boosting local economies
    in the process.
          electricity is diverse in source and domestically produced:
        There could not be a more domestic or bipartisan solution to the
    issue of oil dependence in our transportation sector than vehicle
    electrification.
        Electricity is generated from a diverse set of largely domestic
    sources. These sources include nuclear, coal, natural gas, and
    renewables such as wind, water, and solar. An electrified
    transportation sector can maximize the electric grid's diverse
    generation capacity and, when the availability of resources for
    generating electricity change, electricity generation can shift to
    power EVs with other alternatives. Moreover, whereas oil supplies are
    subject to a wide range of geopolitical risks, domestic and localized
    electricity production unquestionably benefits local economies while
    creating jobs for American workers.
        Operating a vehicle on electricity is considerably less expensive
    and energy-intensive than operating a conventional internal combustion
    vehicle. In large part, this is due to the higher efficiency of
    electric motors. Conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles
    convert only approximately 20 percent of the energy stored in gasoline
    into power for the wheels. In contrast, EVs convert approximately 60
    percent of the electrical energy from the grid into power for the
    wheels. Miles traveled by EVs also emit less CO2 and other emissions
    than vehicles powered by petroleum fuels. As noted, this is true even
    with today's mix of electricity-generating resources in the U.S.--which
    will only get cleaner as alternative generation options are integrated
    into the grid.
        Additionally, North Carolina is home to one of the world's largest
    deposits of lithium, a core component of EV battery technology.
    Millions of dollars have been raised and invested in recent months to
    further expand production of this strategic mineral in the state, and
    is an example of how effective policies have the potential to leverage
    emerging investments from the private sector.
                     electricity prices are low and stable:
        Electricity prices are substantially less volatile than gasoline or
    diesel prices, increasing by an average of less than 2 percent per year
    in nominal terms since 2000. The electric power system is designed to
    meet peak demand at any time from existing generation sources--meaning
    throughout most of the day, and particularly at night, consumers demand
    significantly less electricity than the system can deliver. Assuming
    that charging patterns are well-managed, the system has substantial
    spare capacity to meet new demand from EVs parked at homes and other
    locations during nighttime hours.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This low cost and price stability, which stands in sharp contrast
    to the price volatility of oil or gasoline, exists for at least two
    reasons.
        First, the retail price of electricity reflects a wide range of
    costs, only a small portion of which arise from the underlying cost of
    the source. The remaining costs are largely fixed. This is
    significantly different from gasoline, where the cost of crude
    represents a significant percentage of the cost of retail gasoline.
        Second, although real-time electricity prices can be volatile
    (sometimes highly volatile on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis),
    they are nevertheless relatively stable over the medium and long term.
    Therefore, in setting retail rates, utilities use formulas that will
    allow them to recover their costs, including occasionally high peak
    demand prices for electricity, but which effectively insulate the
    retail consumer from the hour-to-hour and day-to-day volatility of the
    real-time power markets.
        By isolating the consumer from price volatility, electric utilities
    are providing EV drivers the very stability that oil companies cannot
    provide to consumers of gasoline.
                the power sector has substantial spare capacity:
        Because large-scale storage of electricity has historically been
    impractical, the U.S. electric power sector is effectively designed as
    an 'on-demand system.' In practical terms, this has meant that the
    system is constructed to be able to meet peak demand from existing
    generation sources at any time. However, throughout most of a 24-hour
    day--particularly at night--consumers require significantly less
    electricity than the system is capable of delivering. Therefore,
    assuming charging patterns are appropriately managed, the U.S. electric
    power sector has substantial spare capacity that could be used to power
    electric vehicles without constructing additional power generation
    facilities. In fact, the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory found that the existing grid has enough capacity to
    accommodate more than 150 million EVs without significant system
    upgrades.
        Unlike many proposed alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, the
    nation already has a ubiquitous network of electricity infrastructure.
    No doubt, electrification will require the expansion of charging
    infrastructure, additional functionality, and increased investment in
    grid reliability, but the power sector's infrastructural backbone--
    generation, transmission, and distribution--is already in place.
                   challenges to electric vehicle transition:
        We have yet to reach a tipping point in EV adoption due to a number
    of persisting barriers to widespread consumer uptake. EV adoption rates
    are influenced by many factors, including the training and enthusiasm
    of automotive dealers, low vehicle availability in certain markets and
    vehicle classes, consumer knowledge, and low gasoline prices.
    Electrifying our transportation sector is an immense and urgent
    challenge. And while cities and states around the country are
    intensifying efforts to rapidly increase EV adoption, there are
    significant opportunities for federal infrastructure policy make an
    even greater impact.
        This hearing provides a great opportunity to share some policy
    recommendations that the we believe can help accelerate the EV market.
    Below we have identified the current barriers to adoption and key
    policy recommendations to address them.
                            initial purchase price:
        The upfront costs of EVs have long acted as a deterrent to EV
    purchases. Although prices of electric models have traditionally been
    higher than their ICE counterparts, prices are rapidly dropping as
    battery technology becomes cheaper. In 2008, battery prices were as
    high as $1,000/kWh and there were relatively large production
    inefficiencies due to lack of scale. Greater battery production is now
    underway, driving battery prices below $150/kWh today. Many experts
    believe that once battery prices reach $100/kWh, EVs will become
    completely cost competitive with internal combustion engines.
        Incentives like the 30D federal tax credit for purchasing EVs
    remain critical to fostering greater adoption at this early stage, and
    improvements to the 30D tax credit can make it even more effective. The
    current cap of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer does not align
    industry incentives with factors such as early adoption or rapid
    technological advancement--first movers should be rewarded, not
    penalized. In order to enjoy the significant energy security benefits
    of widespread transportation electrification, it is vital that we
    reform 30D by raising the cap--and establish a sunset date--in order to
    continue incentivizing increased EV production and ultimately
    widespread EV adoption.
                             consumer preferences:
        As oil prices fell in 2015, sales of less fuel-efficient light
    trucks dramatically increased. By the end of 2018, light trucks
    represented nearly 70 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United
    States on an annualized basis. In terms of the early EV market,
    consumer preferences have also largely been ignored, as the vast
    majority of EVs available have been light-duty sedans. However, a wider
    range of models is now becoming available, with offerings at all points
    across the consumer market including SUVs and trucks. As an example,
    Ford recently announced plans to release an all-electric version of its
    highly popular F-150 truck.
                             infrastructure needs:
        Similarly, infrastructure needs must be expanded along with the
    availability of models. Range anxiety is decreasing as battery capacity
    improves, but this concern must be addressed with incentives, policies,
    and pilot programs to continue the build-out of EV chargers and, more
    broadly, charging corridors spanning the United States. To this end,
    one key policy lever is the 30C federal tax credit, which covers one-
    third of the cost to purchase and install charging infrastructure
    (valued up to $1,000 in homes and up to $30,000 in commercial
    applications).
                      encouraging faster ev bus adoption:
        Beyond the private passenger vehicle market, electric buses are
    already beginning to meet some of the demands of transit systems in the
    U.S. However, we believe policymakers have the opportunity to
    accelerate the adoption of EV buses by addressing some of the barriers
    that transit agencies currently face. We should encourage the adoption
    of EV buses through federal financing mechanisms such as low-interest
    or zero-interest loans to public entities. This will help to address
    the realities of state and city budgeting, which often prioritize the
    lowest upfront capital expenditures (e.g., purchasing buses with
    internal combustion engines) with a tradeoff of higher overall lifetime
    operational costs versus electric buses. As a result, long-term fuel
    and maintenance costs are not factored into initial purchasing
    decisions--which overlooks the key long-term benefits of electric
    buses.
                    supporting community engagement efforts:
        Besides federal support, there are a number of impactful policy
    options at the state and local levels. These include both monetary
    incentives, most commonly in the form of vehicle purchase incentives,
    and other non-financial incentives. It is incredibly important to
    ensure consumers are aware of the programs that are available to them,
    as they are unlikely to purchase EVs if they are unaware of the
    technology, how it can fit their lifestyle, and the potential savings.
        In order to combat consumer misunderstanding of the technology,
    industry and advocates such as the EC have used several strategies to
    raise consumer awareness. These include campaigns to increase awareness
    of charging infrastructure (e.g., adequate and highly-visible signage)
    and to convey to consumers the value benefit of electrification, such
    as the money that can be saved on fuel over time.
                          change at the federal level
        These initiatives described previously have proven to be very
    effective at the local level, with the promise of further success.
    However, improvements in infrastructure policy at the federal level can
    have a multiplier effect on such initiatives, allowing not only the
    nationwide replication of these projects but also a meaningful
    expansion in both their scope and scale.
        Congress and the Administration should continue to support the 30C
    and 30D federal tax credits, which support critical R&D efforts and
    incentivize consumer adoption respectively at this nascent stage of the
    industry's development. Retention of the $7,500 federal purchase
    incentive is vital to continuing to build momentum because some
    automakers have entered the tax credit's phase-out stage. We support
    lifting the cap on the total number of vehicles covered by the tax
    credit, and then a sunsetting to be negotiated by the stakeholders.
    Affordability should form a major part of these negotiations.
        As mentioned earlier in this testimony, electrifying city and
    municipal bus fleets would be a vital step forward in reducing oil
    dependence and enhancing U.S. energy security. To encourage this
    transition, we recommend prioritizing low-cost loans as an attractive
    financing solution to EV bus purchases, as city budgets implicitly
    penalize electric options by prioritizing upfront costs in their
    purchasing processes. In addition, further expanding the U.S.
    Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration Low or
    No-Emission Bus Competitive Grant Program, and other related
    initiatives, would act as a critical deciding factor for municipalities
    considering the switch to electric buses. Finally, the Federal Highway
    Administration's continued support of bus programs through the FAST Act
    must also be maintained. We are encouraged to hear the FAST Act
    received full funding in recent spending bills.
        Very importantly, federal policy is required to expand our nation's
    network of charging infrastructure, and allay persistent consumer fears
    over range and charging anxiety. Expanding the FHWA Alternative Fuel
    Corridors program should be integral to this effort. In addition,
    greatly improving signage directing drivers to EV chargers would also
    prove highly beneficial. The presence of such signage would not only be
    helpful to current EV drivers, but also demonstrate to other drivers
    considering the switch to an EV that the requisite charging
    infrastructure is available.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
    committee. I look forward to your questions.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Prochazka.
        Ms. Young, you may proceed.
        Ms. Young. Thanks to Chairman DeFazio for calling this
    hearing.
        Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Carbajal, members of the
    committee, before we begin I would like to acknowledge that we
    at A4A join the entire aviation community in expressing our
    deepest sympathies for the families and loved ones of the
    crewmembers aboard Atlas Air flight 3591.
        We also appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
    important role infrastructure management plays in addressing
    the climate change threat.
        The U.S. airlines have a decidedly strong fuel efficiency
    and greenhouse gas emissions record that is often overlooked or
    misstated. Although we drive over 10 million U.S. jobs, $1.5
    trillion in economic activity, and 5 percent of the Nation's
    GDP, we account for only 2 percent of the Nation's greenhouse
    gas emissions inventory.
        While this percentage is far less than most sectors--for
    example, less than the 17 and 28 percent shares attributed to
    passenger vehicles and power plants--we take our role in
    controlling greenhouse gas emissions very seriously. In fact,
    between 1978 and 2017, the U.S. airlines improved their fuel
    efficiency by more than 125 percent, saving over 4.6 billion
    metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking more than
    25 million cars off the road each of those years.
        These numbers are not happenstance; we have achieved this
    record by developing and deploying technology, operations, and
    infrastructure advances central to providing safe and vital air
    transport as efficiently as possible within the constraints of
    our current air traffic management system.
        Indeed, for the past several decades, our airlines have
    invested billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines,
    innovative technologies like winglets, cutting-edge flight
    management software, improved ground operations, and other
    measures. And I commend you to my written testimony for
    detailed descriptions of these initiatives, including
    deployment examples from A4A members.
        But despite our strong record to date, we are not resting
    on our laurels. Since 2009, A4A and our members have been
    active participants in a global aviation coalition that
    committed to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiencies
    through 2020, with a goal to achieve carbon-neutral growth in
    international aviation, starting in 2021.
        Further, we are working towards an additional aspirational
    goal to achieve a 50-percent net reduction in carbon dioxide
    emissions in 2050. The initiatives we are taking to meet these
    goals are designed to responsibly limit our greenhouse gas
    emissions contribution, while allowing commercial aviation to
    continue to serve as a key contributor to the U.S. economy.
        The efforts of our airlines are vital to these innovations.
    But so too are the public-private research and development
    partnerships we have with FAA and NASA.
        In addition to driving further fuel efficiency and
    emissions savings through improved technology operations and
    infrastructure, we are dedicated to deploying commercially
    viable, sustainable, alternative jet fuel, which could be a
    game-changer. We have made huge strides through our Commercial
    Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, farm-to-fly initiative,
    and other programs, such that United Airlines already is taking
    commercial supply of such fuel at Los Angeles International
    Airport. And Alaska, FedEx, Southwest, Jet Blue, and American
    all have agreements to support their future deployment of such
    fuel.
        Moreover, we support both international aviation greenhouse
    gas emissions agreements reached in 2016 under the
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The first of these
    agreements established a fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide
    certification standard for future aircraft, while the second
    represents the first and only market-based measure for
    greenhouse gas emissions from an individual business sector.
        The U.S. Government played a key leadership role in shaping
    these agreements, consistent with a mandate under Public Law
    112-200. While rejecting the unilateral approach the European
    Union was taking, that law directed U.S. officials to conduct
    international negotiations to pursue a global approach to
    addressing aircraft emissions. The two ICAO agreements, which
    are intended to be in lieu of unilateral measures, are broadly
    supported by the aviation industry, and we continue to look
    forward to working with Congress and the administration on
    their implementation.
        We are confident that the measures we are taking will
    reduce aviation's emissions footprint even further, while
    allowing commercial aviation to continue to provide an
    invaluable service to our Nation and its economy. However,
    there is a complementary role for the Federal Government to
    play.
        Specifically, we seek support from Congress and the
    executive branch in three key areas: first, business-case-based
    implementation of the next generation air transportation
    system, NextGen, prioritizing existing equipage; second, stable
    policies to further support making sustainable alternative jet
    fuel commercially viable; and third, continuation and proper
    funding of aviation environmental research and development
    programs.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we
    look forward to working with you on these important issues.
        [Ms. Young's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Nancy N. Young, Vice President, Environmental
                      Affairs, Airlines for America (A4A)
        On behalf of our A4A members, thank you Chairman DeFazio, Chairman
    Larsen, Ranking Member Graves and Ranking Member Graves for the
    opportunity to testify today. As you know, the U.S. airlines have a
    tremendous fuel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions record, accounting
    for 2 percent of the nation's GHG emissions inventory while driving 5
    percent of its GDP. In fact, between 1978 and year-end 2017, the U.S.
    airlines improved their fuel efficiency by more than 125 percent,
    saving over 4.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent
    to taking 25 million cars off the road each of those years. And we
    carried 34 percent more passengers and cargo in 2017 than we did in
    2000, while emitting no more CO2.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fuel savings facts are from data from the U.S. Department of
    Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Carbon dioxide
    savings and equivalencies were calculated using EPA tools at:
    www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These numbers are not happenstance. As an industry, we have
    achieved this record by driving and deploying technology, operations
    and infrastructure advances to provide safe and vital air transport as
    efficiently as possible within the constraints of our air traffic
    management system. Indeed, for the past several decades, airlines have
    dramatically improved fuel efficiency and reduced CO2 emissions by
    investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative
    technologies like winglets (which improve aerodynamics), and cutting-
    edge route-optimization software. But despite our strong record to
    date, A4A and our member airlines are not stopping there nor are we
    resting on our laurels.
        Since 2009, A4A and our members have been active participants in a
    global aviation coalition that committed to 1.5 percent annual average
    fuel efficiency improvements through 2020, with a goal to achieve
    carbon neutral growth in international aviation from 2020, subject to
    critical aviation infrastructure, technology, operations and
    sustainable fuels advances by government and industry. Further, we are
    working toward an additional aspirational goal to achieve a 50 percent
    net reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to 2005 levels.
        The initiatives we are undertaking to further reduce our GHG
    emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our fuel
    consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts
    while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key
    contributor to the U.S. economy. A4A and our members are keenly focused
    on these initiatives, both at the national and international levels. We
    welcome this hearing on Federal infrastructure policy to help address
    climate change as there is a critical role for the Federal Government
    to play in advancing aviation infrastructure, technology and energy
    policy to complement our efforts.
      the u.s. airlines are extremely ghg efficient and are committed to
                      further limiting their ghg footprint
        The U.S. airlines have a decidedly strong GHG emissions track
    record that is often overlooked or misstated. We contribute just under
    2 percent of the nation's GHG emissions inventory. To put that into
    context, as illustrated in Figure 1 below, passenger vehicles (cars and
    light duty trucks) account for over 17 percent and power plants for 28
    percent of the total inventory. The picture is similar when viewed on a
    global basis with worldwide commercial aviation contributing
    approximately 2 percent of man-made GHGs.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Air Transport Action Group, Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders
    (2018), available at https://aviationbenefits.org/media/166344/
    abbb18_full-report_web.pdf (citing the 2017 Global Carbon Project,
    Global Carbon Budget, available at https://www.icos-cp.eu/GCP/2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FIGURE 1. THE U.S. GHG INVENTORY BY SECTOR \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
    1990-2016 (April 2018), Table ES-6: U.S. [GHG] Allocated to Economic
    Sectors at ES-24; Table A-119: Total U.S. [GHG] Emissions from
    Transportation and Mobile Sources at A176-77.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        At the same time, U.S. commercial aviation is vitally important to
    local, national, and global economies, supporting a large percentage of
    U.S. economic output. Indeed, in 2014, commercial aviation drove 10.2
    million U.S. jobs, $1.5 trillion in economic activity and 5 percent of
    our nation's GDP.\4\ And in 2017, U.S. air-travel exports of $41
    billion helped fuel $211 billion in other U.S. travel and tourism
    exports.\5\ Comparing the U.S. airline industry's economic output to
    its GHG output, it is clear that commercial aviation is an extremely
    GHG-efficient economic engine.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S.
    Economy (Nov. 2016), available at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
    publications/media/2016-economic-impact-report_FINAL.pdf.
        \5\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transactions (ITA)
    Table 3.1--U.S. International Trade in Services Lines 8, 12 and 1,
    available at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/
    iTable.cfm?ReqID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&6210=1&6200=51, and
    http://travel.trade.gov/research/reports/recpay/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our global aviation coalition continues to meet our 2009 commitment
    of a 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency improvement, and we are
    working on our goal to achieve carbon neutral growth in international
    aviation from 2020, subject to critical aviation infrastructure and
    technology advances achieved by government and industry. As detailed
    below, our primary focus is on getting further fuel efficiency and
    emissions savings through new aircraft technology, operations and
    infrastructure improvements and sustainable alternative jet fuel
    (SAJF). In addition, consistent with the mandates in Public Law 112-
    200, A4A and our member airlines have supported two significant
    international fuel efficiency and GHG savings agreements adopted in
    2016 under the auspices of the United Nations body that sets standards
    and recommended practices for international aviation, the International
    Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Notably, industry and government
    collaboration remains critical to our efforts.
       examples of technology, operations and infrastructure initiatives
        With fuel being one of the highest and most volatile cost centers
    for airlines--and every penny of increased fuel price equating to an
    additional $200 million fuel bill per year--the U.S. airlines'
    environmental and economic interests in saving fuel and reducing
    emissions align. Accordingly, the U.S. airlines have been able to
    deliver tremendous economic output while reducing our emissions through
    reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations on the
    ground and in the sky. Indeed, today's airplanes are more
    technologically advanced--they are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel
    than ever before--and airlines are flying them in ways that take
    maximum advantage of the technology within the constraints of our
    current air traffic management (ATM) system. This flight optimization
    reduces fuel burn and environmental impacts. Some examples of the
    advancements that have resulted in the U.S. airlines' 125 percent fuel
    efficiency improvement since 1978 and will continue to support
    improvements include:
          Upgrading Fleets. With recently improved finances, the
    U.S. airlines and aircraft operators have been able to invest billions
    of dollars to upgrade their fleets with newer, quieter aircraft that
    produce less noise and fewer emissions. For example, U.S. airlines
    purchased more than 480 new aircraft in 2017, with more than 1,550
    additional planes expected in the coming years. Our airlines have also
    made significant investments in winglets, altering fan blades, and
    other measures that improve aerodynamics. By way of example, in 2017,
    Alaska Airlines finalized installation of split scimitar winglets on
    all of its eligible 737 aircraft. With such winglets enabling aircraft
    to be approximately 4.5 percent more fuel efficient than those without
    winglets, Alaska improved average fuel efficiency by over 34,000
    gallons per aircraft each year. And Alaska's new 737NG aircraft are
    modified when they receive them, making the aircraft as fuel efficient
    as possible upon entry into service.\6\ Accordingly, in 2017, Alaska's
    scimitar winglets modification saved an additional 4.5 million gallons
    of fuel, equating to a reduction of 42,633 metric tons of CO2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ This and other fuel and emissions savings initiatives are
    detailed in Alaska's sustainability report, available at http://
    www.flysustainably.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AlaskaAirReport-
    Final-092418.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Introduction of Innovative, Cutting-Edge Technologies and
    Improved In-Flight Operations. Our airlines also are investing billions
    of dollars in technologies to enable more efficient flight paths. For
    example, the airlines have undertaken equipage for Required Navigation
    Performance (RNP) and Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures,
    which provide navigation capability to fly a more precise path into and
    out of airports.\7\ A4A airlines also have deployed increasingly
    sophisticated software to analyze flight paths and weather conditions,
    allowing aircraft to fly more direct, efficient routes where the ATM
    system is able to accommodate them.

        \7\ In fact, Alaska Airlines pioneered the application of RNP
    technology during the mid-1990s to help aircraft land at some of the
    world's most remote and geographically challenging airports in the
    State of Alaska.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           A4A airlines continue to do all they can within the existing ATM
    system to utilize programs to optimize speed, flight path and altitude,
    which not only reduces fuel consumption and emissions in the air but
    avoids wasting fuel waiting for a gate on the ground. In addition to
    pursuing the use of RNP approach procedures at additional locations,
    A4A carriers--such as UPS Airlines at its hub in Louisville--have
    worked with FAA to pioneer protocols for optimized profile descents
    (OPDs) (also referred to as ``continuous descent arrivals''), which
    reduce both emissions and noise, and we are doggedly pursuing
    implementation of OPDs where the existing ATM system allows.
    Demonstrating that the efforts extend to the smallest details of
    airline operation, our members also have worked on redistribution of
    weight in the belly of aircraft to improve aerodynamics and have
    introduced life vests on certain domestic routes, allowing them to
    overfly water on a more direct route.
          Improved Ground Operations. A4A airlines also are
    employing single-engine taxiing when conditions permit, redesigning
    hubs and schedules to alleviate congestion and converting to electric
    ground support equipment (GSE) when feasible. For example, as part of
    Southwest Airlines' ongoing program to modernize its GSE fleet, the
    company invested $7.9 million in electric vehicles in 2017.\8\ Further,
    our airlines are improving ground operations by plugging into electric
    gate power where available to avoid running auxiliary power units
    (APUs). By way of example, American Airlines' ``Fuel Smart'' program is
    securing emissions reductions by such means, as well as washing engine
    components for maximum efficiency, and other initiatives.\9\ Similarly,
    while Hawaiian Airlines already provides external gate power to its
    narrow-body fleet between the Hawaiian Islands, the airline has made
    significant headway toward its goal of having gate power available to
    its entire wide-body fleet within 3 minutes of arrival as aircraft fly
    between Hawaii, 11 U.S. gateway cities and 10 international
    destinations, with the potential to reduce Hawaiian's APU usage by an
    estimated 30 minutes per flight, saving some 620,000 gallons of fuel
    annually and cutting CO2 emissions by 5,933 metric tons.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See Southwest Airlines, ``One Report'' (2017), available at
    http://southwestonereport.com/2017/stories/electricity-sparks-fuel-
    savings/.
        \9\ See American Airlines, 2017 Corporate Responsibility Report,
    available at http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/doc_downloads/crr/
    CRR-Report-2017.pdf. In addition to achieving savings in costs and GHG
    emissions, Fuel Smart translates a portion of its APU fuel savings into
    a donation to the Gary Sinise Foundation for the purposes of providing
    travel for active duty military members, veterans, first responders and
    their family members in need. Since Fuel Smart launched in 2010,
    American has generated nearly $4 million in contributions through the
    program, helping more than 6,800 service members and their families
    travel to receive the support they need.
        \10\ See Hawaiian Airlines' Airport Operations Lowering Fuel Use,
    Carbon Emissions, available at https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/
    releases/hawaiian-airlines-airport-operations-lowering-fuel-use-carbon-
    emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Reducing Onboard Weight. A4A airlines continue to
    exhaustively review ways, large and small, to reduce aircraft weight--
    removing seat-back phones, excess galley equipment and magazines,
    introducing lighter seats and beverage carts, stripping primer and
    paint and a myriad of other detailed measures to improve fuel
    efficiency. For example, by replacing flight bags with flight crew
    tablets, UPS reduced the weight associated with these critical
    materials by 70 pounds, with the reduced fuel burn equating to 1,400
    metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ See UPS 2017 Corporate Sustainability Progress Report
    available at https://sustainability.ups.com/media/2017_UPS_CSR.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the above types of measures, A4A and our members
    continue to partner with FAA, NASA, research entities and other
    aviation stakeholders to advance research, development and deployment
    of breakthrough technologies and operational and infrastructure
    advances. The Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions & Noise or ``CLEEN''
    program is a key initiative in this regard. This FAA-industry public-
    private partnership is focused on near-to-medium term aircraft engine
    and technology breakthroughs for lower emissions and noise, enhanced
    energy efficiency and aviation alternative fuels. The program, which
    requires a one-to-one match of private dollars, has enabled the
    development of new technologies such as the Adaptive Trailing Edge
    (ATE) on the aircraft wing, providing up to a 2 percent reduction in
    aircraft fuel burn and a 1.7 decibel reduction in aircraft noise; the
    Twin Annular Premixed Swirler (TAPS) II advanced engine combustor,
    yielding significant reductions in emissions of oxides of nitrogen
    (NOx); and geared turbofan engine technologies, contributing to a 20
    decibel aircraft noise reduction and a 20 percent fuel burn reduction.
        Another critical program is the FAA Center of Excellence for
    Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment (ASCENT), the university-
    based research vehicle for the FAA to discover, analyze, and develop
    science- and technology-based solutions to support the growth of the
    U.S. aviation industry by addressing the energy and environmental
    challenges the industry faces. This program also requires a one-to-one
    match of private-to-Federal funding and supports work by 16 university
    partners across the country. In addition to providing a better
    understanding of aviation environmental impacts that shape industry and
    government energy and environmental work, ASCENT's applied research has
    helped with the development of air traffic procedures and airport
    infrastructure configuration to enhance the efficiency of U.S.
    aviation.
        And for advanced, future airframe and engine technologies, the
    aviation industry collaborates with NASA through its Aeronautics
    Research (ARMD) program, which is considering transformative
    configurations, including light weight, high aspect ratio wings;
    unconventional structures; advanced propulsion; and electrified
    aircraft propulsion, among other radical concepts.
    The Development and Deployment of SAJF
        Recognizing that improving fuel efficiency with today's petroleum-
    based energy supply can only take us so far, A4A and our members are
    dedicated to developing commercially viable, environmentally friendly
    alternative jet fuel, which could be a game-changer in terms of
    aviation's output of GHG emissions while enhancing U.S. energy
    independence and security.
        To be sustainable, alternative jet fuel must meet three core
    criteria. It must be demonstrated to be (1) as safe as petroleum-based
    fuels for powering aircraft; (2) more environmentally friendly than
    petroleum-based fuels; and (3) capable of being produced to provide
    cost-competitive, reliable supply. A4A and our members have been
    working with government partners and other stakeholders in a concerted
    effort to meet these criteria--and we have made tremendous progress,
    having moved from test flights to commercial and military flights with
    SAJF. But we must continue to tackle each challenge, using every tool
    to attain full viability.
        As the challenges to standing up a self-sustaining aviation
    alternative fuels industry cut across multiple disciplines--from
    aviation, to agriculture, fuel production, investment capital,
    logistics and beyond--no one initiative or program can do it all. Yet,
    the U.S. aviation industry determined early on that a coordinating body
    would be needed to establish a clear vision and leverage the efforts
    across initiatives. Accordingly, in 2006, A4A, FAA, the Aerospace
    Industries Association (AIA) and Airports Council International-North
    America (ACI-NA) co-founded the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
    Initiative (CAAFI) to serve as the driving and coordinating force for
    the industry's efforts. ``CAAFI's goal is to promote the development of
    alternative jet fuel options that offer equivalent levels of safety and
    compare favorably on cost with petroleum-based jet fuel, while also
    offering environmental improvement and security of energy supply.''
    \12\ Through CAAFI, we have worked to address and overcome the
    challenges to commercial-scale deployment of SAJF--ensuring safety and
    environmental benefit while working to achieve supply reliability and
    cost-competitiveness.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ See www.caafi.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SAJF--Ensuring Safety
        No matter what issue or challenge we face, airlines never lose
    sight of their core mission: safety. Our fuels must meet rigorous
    specifications that ensure safe operation, whether in the icy cold at
    30,000 feet or while filling tanks on the ground at airports crowded
    with activity. Accordingly, before an alternative fuel can be approved
    for commercial use, it must meet rigorous safety and performance
    standards set out in the applicable specification, which is controlled
    by ASTM International, an organization devoted to the development and
    management of standards for a wide range of industrial products and
    processes. This specification, in turn, is included in FAA product
    approvals and required air-carrier manuals.
        One of CAAFI's most significant contributions to date has been the
    development of the approval process for alternative jet fuels through
    ASTM. Not surprisingly, the original jet fuel specification, ASTM
    D1655, titled ``Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels,''
    covered only jet fuels derived from specific fossil-fuel sources. The
    CAAFI team worked within ASTM to identify means for gaining approval of
    jet fuels derived from alternative feedstocks provided that those fuels
    are equally safe and effective.\13\ As a result, in August 2009, after
    completing its rigorous review process, ASTM approved D7566, ``Aviation
    Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons.'' This specification
    allows for alternatives that demonstrate that they are safe, effective
    and otherwise meet the specification and fit-for-purpose requirements
    to be deployed as jet fuels, on par with fuels under ASTM D1655. It is
    structured, via annexes, to accommodate different classes of
    alternative fuels when they are demonstrated to meet the relevant
    requirements. As shown in Figure 2, we now have five approved
    ``pathways'' for SAJF production, and more are currently undergoing the
    rigorous review and approval process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ CAAFI worked within ASTM to issue a specific standard to
    facilitate the approval of alternative jet fuel made from varying
    feedstocks and production processes, ASTM D4054, ``Standard Practice
    for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel
    Additives.''

              FIGURE 2. Approved SAJF ``Pathways'' Under ASTM D7566
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date of
     Pathways/Process   Feedstock Examples      Approval      Blending Limit
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fischer-Tropsch-----Biomass (forestry---2009-------------Up to 50%------
     Synthetic           residues,
     Paraffinic          grasses,
     Kerosene (FT-SPK)   municipal solid
                         waste)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hydroprocessed      Oil-bearing         2011             Up to 50%
     Esters and Fatty    biomass (e.g.,
     Acids (HEFA-SPK)    algae, jatropha,
                         camelina,
                         carinata)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hydroprocessed      Microbial           2014             Up to 10%
     Fermented Sugars    conversion of
     to Synthetic        sugars to
     Isoparaffins (HFS-  hydrocarbon
     SIP)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FT-SPK with         Renewable biomass   2015             Up to 50%
     aromatics (FT-SPK/  such as municipal
     A)                  solid waste,
                         agricultural
                         wastes and
                         forestry
                         residues, wood
                         and energy crops
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alcohol-to-Jet      Agricultural        2016             Up to 30%
     Synthetic           wastes products    (plus added
     Paraffinic          (stover, grasses,   feedstocks
     Kerosene (ATJ-      forestry slash,     2018)
     SPK)                crop straws)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By meeting the rigorous jet fuel specification and fit-for-purpose
    requirements, sustainable alternative jet fuels are demonstrated to be
    ``drop-in'' fuels, completely compatible with existing airport fuel
    storage and distribution methods and airplane fuel systems.
    Accordingly, they do not carry added infrastructure costs for airlines,
    fuel distributors or airport authorities, enhancing prospects for their
    commercial viability.
    Ensuring Environmental Benefit
        We also have made tremendous progress on demonstrating whether a
    particular alternative jet fuel provides environmental benefit relative
    to petroleum-based fuel. As carbon is fundamental to powering aircraft
    engines, this and the CO2 generated upon combustion cannot be
    eliminated from drop-in jet fuels, but they can be reduced, either
    through increasing the per-unit energy provided in the fuel, reducing
    carbon somewhere along the ``lifecycle'' of the fuel, or some
    combination of the two. Indeed, there can be emissions all along the
    ``life'' of the fuel--from growing or extracting the feedstock,
    transporting that raw material, refining it, transporting the finished
    fuel product and using it. By examining the emissions generated at each
    point in the lifecycle, one can ensure that the emissions benefits that
    are sought are in fact real and do not create emissions ``dis-
    benefits'' along the way.
        Ensuring the environmental benefit of alternative aviation fuels is
    critical to A4A and its member airlines. Accordingly, as far back as
    2008, we agreed on a set of alternative fuels principles, which include
    a commitment that the alternative fuels we accept need to have reduced
    lifecycle GHG emissions compared to today's fuels and not compete with
    food production. In that commitment, we agreed to work through CAAFI to
    ensure this. Accordingly, CAAFI's Sustainability Team,\14\ which I co-
    lead along with Dr. James Hileman of the FAA, has developed and
    supported seminal guidance on the methodologies for lifecycle analysis
    of alternative aviation fuels \15\ and case studies that use these
    methodologies.\16\ SAJF has been demonstrated to achieve up to an 80
    percent lifecycle GHG savings relative to petroleum-based fuel.\17\ In
    addition, a comprehensive assessment under the Transportation Research
    Board's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) confirms that the
    use of SAJF can reduce more than just GHG emissions, including
    emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon
    monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon emissions, and NOx.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ CAAFI's Sustainability resources are available at: http://
    www.caafi.org/focus_areas/sustainability.html.
        \15\ See ``Framework and Guidance for Estimating Greenhouse Gas
    Footprints of Aviation Fuels (Final Report) (2009, AFRL-WP-TR-2009-
    2206); see also Young, CAAFI Environment Team: Developing Tools & Means
    to Address Environmental Issues (April 16, 2013), available at http://
    www.caafi.org/files/presentations/
    Environment_Young_ABLC_Apr17_2013.pdf.
        \16\ See, e.g., Stratton, Wong & Hileman, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels (April 2010).
        \17\ International Air Transport Association, Sustainable Aviation
    Fuels: Fact sheet, available at https://www.iata.org/pressroom/
    facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-alternative-fuels.pdf.
        \18\ See Transportation Research Board, ACRP Project 02-80: ``State
    of Industry Report on Air Quality Emissions from Sustainable
    Alternative Jet Fuels,'' at 5 (April 2018) (available at http://
    www.trb.org/Aviation1/Blurbs/177509.aspx).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While seeking emissions benefits from SAJF, A4A and its members
    also recognize that use of such fuels must not create environmental
    problems in other areas. SAJF must be produced in a fashion meeting all
    relevant environmental criteria, including land use, water management
    and the like. Put another way, the production, transport and use of
    these fuels generally must be deemed ``sustainable.'' Accordingly,
    CAAFI also has provided peer-review guidance on making sure relevant
    sustainability criteria are met.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See CAAFI, Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental Sustainability
    Overview (July 2013), available at http://www.caafi.org/information/
    pdf/Sustainability_Guidance_Posted_2013_07.pdf. CAAFI also provides a
    step-by-step overview of sustainability review processes on its webpage
    at http://www.caafi.org/focus_areas/sustainability.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fostering Supply Reliability and Commercial Viability
        As noted by Bill Harrison, Technical Advisor for Fuels and Energy
    at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, scaling up supply and making
    SAJF cost-competitive may well be the most significant challenge to its
    full-scale commercial deployment.\20\ A key role that A4A and its
    member airlines are playing as end-users of such fuels is to send
    appropriate market signals to would-be producers, the farmers and
    others who generate energy feedstock, and investors in the alternative
    fuels industry.\21\ Further, A4A entered into a ``Strategic Alliance
    for Alternative Aviation Fuels'' with the U.S. Department of Defense's
    Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-Energy, which previously was known
    as the Defense Logistics Agency's Defense Energy Support Center) to
    further encourage alternative fuel producers to include SAJF in their
    product slate. Our vigorous pursuit of SAJF has sent an unmistakable
    signal: U.S. airlines are committed to making SAJF viable and will do
    their part to overcome the obstacles that may stand in the way. But we
    recognize that we cannot do it alone. Ongoing commitment in public-
    private partnerships is needed to get the alternative aviation fuels
    industry over the cusp, just as was the case when the Federal
    Government jump-started the Internet, satellite systems and other
    backbone infrastructure--working with industry to help make these
    ventures self-sustaining.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Harrison, Alternative Fuels: How Can Aviation Cross the Valley
    of Death (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Master's Thesis, 2008).
        \21\ One of many such signals is a ``how to'' document on how
    alternative aviation fuels producers can work with airlines on purchase
    agreements. This document, ``Guidance for Selling Alternative Fuels to
    Airlines,'' is available on the CAAFI website at http://www.caafi.org/
    files/CAAFI_Business_Team_Guidance_Paper.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While CAAFI has focused on supply reliability and commercial
    viability, other public-private partnerships and initiatives have been
    needed to spur investment in this new supply chain. Perhaps most
    notable in this regard is the Farm to Fly initiative, which A4A, the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Boeing created in 2010 to
    help meet the direction set in the 2008 Farm Bill that U.S. programs
    aimed at energy crops should be equally available for air
    transportation fuels as for ground transportation fuels.\22\ Indeed,
    the aim of the original Farm to Fly initiative was ``to accelerate the
    availability of a commercially viable sustainable aviation biofuel
    industry in the United States, increase domestic energy security,
    establish regional supply chains and support rural development.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Conf. Rpt. 110-627, on H.R. 2419; p. 911, May 13, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The initial Farm to Fly initiative helped make accessible to
    farmers, fuel producers, airlines and military aviation a number of the
    tools and programs that had been available to ground-based alternative
    fuels for some time. It also resulted in a two-part report in January
    2012 which offered a blueprint for continuing to advance opportunities
    for Rural America and the aviation sector through aviation
    biofuels.\23\ Moreover, the initial Farm to Fly initiative helped spawn
    two regional initiatives to foster the development and deployment of
    alternative jet fuels derived from sustainable biomass grown in the
    United States. The first of these, the Sustainable Aviation Fuels
    Northwest (SAFN) initiative, led in part by A4A member Alaska Airlines,
    together with the Port of Seattle, Port of Portland, Spokane
    International Airport, Boeing and Washington State University, found
    that an aviation biofuels industry can be commercially viable in the
    Pacific Northwest and identified four, particularly promising
    feedstocks; oilseeds, forest residues, municipal solid wastes and
    algae; for generating advanced aviation biofuels.\24\ The second, the
    Midwest Sustainable Aviation Biofuels Initiative (MASBI), led in part
    by A4A member United Airlines, Boeing, Honeywell's UOP, the Chicago
    Department of Aviation, and the Clean Energy Trust, developed
    recommendations to help ``achieve the potential economic,
    environmental, and energy security benefits that can be delivered from
    a robust sustainable aviation biofuels industry in the Midwest.'' \25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ See Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity,
    available at http://www.airlines.org/Documents/usda-farm-to-fly report-
    jan-2012.pdf; see also Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in
    Prosperity: Putting Aviation at the Forefront of the President's
    Biofuels Targets, Part II. Industry Recommendations, available at
    http://www.airlines.org/Documents/Farm_to_Fly_Recommendations-A4A-
    Boeing-Jan2012.pdf.
        \24\ See SAFN, Powering the Next Generation of Flight, available at
    http://www.safnw.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SAFN_2011Report.pdf.
        \25\ See MASBI, Fueling a Sustainable Future for Aviation,
    available at http://www.masbi.org/content/assets/MASBI_Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In April 2013, we launched Farm to Fly 2.0, bringing in additional
    stakeholders and expanding the supply chain reach. Although the Farm to
    Fly initiative has been important for bringing together tools and the
    various participants in the aviation alternative fuels supply chain,
    there would be no such initiative without the Energy Title programs
    under the Farm Bill--the most recent version of which is the
    Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. While the 2018 Farm Bill included
    a number of energy programs, some of which are accessible to those in
    the supply chain for providing SAJF, we urge Congress to fully fund
    programs like the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) and the
    Biomass Research and Development Program (BRDI) to leverage the
    investments that the U.S. Government and the private sector have
    already made and provide the stability needed for further progress.
        While challenges remain, our joint efforts are bearing fruit. For
    example, United Airlines began using commercial quantities of SAJF at
    Los Angeles International Airport in 2016 pursuant to an off-take
    agreement with AltAir Fuels to purchase up to 15 million gallons of
    SAJF over 3 years. United has also made a $30 million equity investment
    in Fulcrum BioEnergy, which includes provisions to co-develop up to
    five facilities and purchase at least 90 million gallons of SAJF per
    year over 10 years.\26\ FedEx and Southwest Airlines have similarly
    committed to each purchase 3 million gallons per year from Red Rock
    Biofuels, and JetBlue has signed a 10-year off-take agreement with SG
    Preston for up to 10 million gallons per year. Further, both Alaska
    Airlines \27\ and American Airlines \28\ have signed Memoranda of
    Understanding with Neste for coordination and potential future
    deployment of SAJF. Moreover, while airlines purchase and manage all
    fuel purchases, they are increasingly partnering with airports and
    other stakeholders to help assess the potential for deployment of SAJF
    at particular airports in areas where SAJF production is being
    considered and may be commercially viable. For example, Alaska Airlines
    partnered with Boeing and the Port of Seattle on an infrastructure
    study for potential future deployment of SAJF at Seattle-Tacoma
    International (Sea-Tac) \29\ and several airlines have entered into
    Memoranda of Understanding with Sea-Tac and San Francisco International
    Airport (SFO) to explore potential SAJF coordination opportunities. In
    addition, in 2017, United and Atlas Air joined various foreign airlines
    and Chicago O'Hare International Airport in a special ``Fly Green Day''
    commercial deployment of SAJF.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Details on United Airlines' SAJF program are available at
    http://crreport.united.com/our-environment/sustainable-fuel-sources.
        \27\ See Alaska Airlines Press Release, available at https://
    newsroom.alaskaair.com/2018-09-10-Alaska-Airlines-and-Neste-grow-
    innovative-partnership-to-fly-more-sustainably.
        \28\ See Neste Press Release, available at https://www.neste.com/
    neste-and-american-airlines-collaborate-explore-opportunities-
    renewable-fuel-use.
        \29\ The infrastructure report is available at https://
    www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/
    Aviation_Biofuel_Infrastructure_Report_Condensed.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although these initial purchase and cooperative agreements for SAJF
    deployment are promising, two critical observations capture why we
    cannot be complacent in our efforts. First, these projects would not
    exist without the public-private partnerships we have engaged in to
    date. And second, while meaningful to the parties involved, they still
    are relatively small scale, largely because producing SAJF to meet the
    rigorous jet fuel specification is a higher hurdle than the equivalent
    for alternative ground-based fuels. Accordingly, to expand upon these
    projects and spur more, we must continue to employ all the tools and
    partnerships we have identified and created to date and take further
    action to lay the foundation for all supply chain elements to become
    self-sustaining.
    industry-supported icao agreements on fuel efficiency and co2 emissions
                          from international aviation
        Although the U.S. airlines' financial and environmental objectives
    have continually prompted fuel and GHG emissions savings, several
    countries have imposed or threatened to impose on international
    aviation unilateral carbon emissions trading, taxing and charging
    schemes, which are siphoning away from aviation the very funds the
    industry needs to purchase new, more fuel efficient aircraft and take
    other steps to meet our fuel efficiency and emissions savings goals. In
    fact, as of 2013, the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) had estimated
    that $7 billion in such charges already were being levied on airlines,
    with more introduced or proposed since.
        One of the most onerous of the unilateral measures has been the
    European Union's imposition of its emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) on
    international aviation. Despite international opposition from the
    outset, beginning in 2009, the EU required airlines and aircraft
    operators (including U.S. airlines and aircraft operators) with flights
    to European States and territories to monitor and report to the EU
    their emissions for the entirety of each individual flight to, from and
    within the EU, as a prelude to the emissions trading obligation that
    was due to begin in 2012. As a result of the pressure put on the EU
    from the U.S. and other countries, most significantly from the U.S.
    adoption of the ``European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition
    Act'' (PL-112-200), the EU ``stayed'' the extraterritorial application
    of the EU ETS to international aviation through year-end 2016, to take
    into account the progress in ICAO on an agreement for handling
    aviation's CO2 emissions from international flights. In December 2017,
    the EU approved legislation to extend the stay until year-end 2024,
    again making the stay subject to ICAO action, this time with respect to
    progress on implementation of agreements reached in 2016 on aviation's
    international CO2 emissions.
        A4A greatly appreciated the leadership of this Committee in
    approving the ``European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition
    Act'' in 2012. Significantly, in addition to recognizing that the
    unilateral action of the EU in imposing its ETS on U.S. aircraft
    operators was unlawful and inappropriate, the statute directed that
    DOT, FAA and other appropriate U.S. officials ``use their authority to
    conduct international negotiations . . . to pursue a worldwide approach
    to address aircraft emissions, including the environmental impact of
    aircraft emissions.'' Consistent with this directive, the U.S. played a
    significant role in developing two ICAO agreements to support aviation
    GHG emissions goals and stave off the proliferation of unilateral
    emissions taxes, charges and trading schemes--one agreement for a fuel
    efficiency and CO2 certification standard for future aircraft and
    another to establish an international carbon offsetting system to help
    the industry work toward achieving carbon neutral growth in
    international aviation from 2020. Both of these agreements, which are
    supposed to be implemented in lieu of unilateral measures, are broadly
    supported by A4A, our members and the broader U.S. aviation industry.
    The ICAO Fuel Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Certification Standards for
            Future Aircraft
        ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, which
    includes representatives from the U.S. EPA, FAA and State Department,
    the aviation industry, and environmental non-governmental organizations
    (NGO's), worked to develop, and then in 2016 proposed for adoption, a
    set of fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions certification standards for
    future aircraft. The standards, which were approved by ICAO's governing
    body (the ICAO Council), confirm an agreed level of fuel efficiency for
    future aircraft, which equates to CO2 emissions reductions. The
    standards applicable to new-type design large aircraft (i.e., aircraft
    used by airlines) are slated to go into effect in 2020, while the
    standards for the future manufacture of existing-type large aircraft
    (also referred to as ``in-production aircraft'') are slated to go into
    effect in 2023.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ The standards for smaller aircraft (those with less than 60
    tons of maximum takeoff weight) have lower levels of stringency and
    slightly different effective dates, recognizing that flight physics
    complicate the adoption of certain of the more effective fuel-
    efficiency technologies into such aircraft.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although some countries automatically incorporate ICAO standards
    into their laws, the United States adopts ICAO emissions standards
    through rulemaking, typically with EPA adopting the underlying
    standards and FAA adopting rules to certify aircraft to the standards.
    As aviation is a global industry, with airlines and aircraft operators
    operating internationally and aircraft manufacturers selling their
    aircraft in international markets, it is critical that aircraft
    emissions standards continue to be agreed at the international level
    and implemented by ICAO Member States.
        A4A and our members support having EPA and FAA incorporate the ICAO
    fuel efficiency and CO2 certification standards into U.S. law. Indeed,
    U.S. aircraft manufacturers will not be able to have their aircraft
    certified to the standards--a prerequisite for the manufacturers to be
    able to sell their aircraft in the international market--unless the
    United States adopts them into U.S. law. Further, if U.S. aircraft
    manufacturers cannot have their products certified to the
    internationally agreed standards, U.S. airlines will not be able to
    purchase these aircraft for international service.
    The ICAO Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
            Aviation
        A4A and its members also supported the work that was undertaken in
    ICAO to develop proposals for a ``global market-based measure,'' in the
    form of an international carbon offsetting system, to help work toward
    the industry's goal to achieve carbon neutral growth in international
    aviation from a 2020 baseline. This measure, the ``Carbon Offsetting
    and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation'' (CORSIA), has two
    parts. First, CORSIA requires that all 192 ICAO Member States have
    their aircraft operators monitor and report to them their international
    CO2 emissions under a common set of rules beginning on January 1, 2019.
    Second, CORSIA includes an offsetting obligation, which is slated to
    commence on covered international routes beginning in 2021 and continue
    through 2035.
        The emissions target under the CORSIA agreement is to help support
    carbon neutral growth on the international flights of operators from
    the countries that are in the system. All are motivated to achieve
    emissions savings through technology, sustainable alternative jet
    fuels, operations and infrastructure measures, although the carbon
    offsetting requirement kicks in to help fill any gap toward meeting the
    goal.
        While all countries were obligated to begin requiring emissions
    monitoring data from their aircraft operators as of the beginning of
    2019, the offsetting system is slated to be implemented in phases, with
    the first 6 years of the offsetting system, 2021 through year-end 2026,
    being implemented amongst countries on an ``opt-in'' basis. After that,
    the offsetting obligation becomes mandatory for all ICAO Member States
    except the least developed countries and those with very low levels of
    international aviation activity. Although countries have until June
    2020 to opt into the first phase of the offsetting provisions, as of
    January 2019, 78 countries, representing seventy-seven percent of
    international aviation activity, including the United States, had
    already signed up to participate from the beginning.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ ICAO keeps a list of the countries that have signed up for the
    opt-in phase on its website at https://www.icao.int/environmental-
    protection/CORSIA/Pages/State-pairs.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Very importantly, only the flights to and from the covered
    countries will be subject to the offsetting requirement. In other
    words, there is a mutual exemption from the offsetting requirement on
    flights to and from countries that either are not in the two 3-year
    opt-in phases or are exempt for the duration of the system. This is
    critical to avoid competitive distortion, satisfy the non-
    discrimination provisions in the international aviation treaty and
    ensure that U.S. operators are not disadvantaged by the United States'
    opting in to the CORSIA offsetting obligation in the non-mandatory
    phases.
        Critically, the agreement states that the CORSIA is to be ``the''
    market-based measure applying to international aviation GHG emissions,
    precluding countries from imposing unilateral carbon measures on
    international flights from other countries.
        In June 2018, the ICAO Council adopted a package of standards and
    recommended practices (SARPs) for implementing CORSIA. As with the ICAO
    CO2 standard for future aircraft, it is up to the Member States of ICAO
    to implement these ICAO provisions. FAA and DOT have existing statutory
    and regulatory authority that allow them to adjust the fuel reporting
    requirements that currently apply to U.S. aircraft operators through a
    rulemaking to comport with the expected ICAO emissions monitoring
    standards. However, given the short time between ICAO adoption of the
    SARPs and the January 1, 2019 effective date of the emissions
    monitoring provisions, FAA and DOT were unable to issue a rulemaking
    before then. Accordingly, A4A has worked with FAA and other aircraft
    operator associations to commence the monitoring provisions under a
    voluntary agreement and we await the DOT/FAA announcement of this
    approach. Additionally, new, appropriately tailored legislative
    authority will be needed for DOT/FAA to apply the 2021+ CORSIA
    offsetting obligation to U.S. aircraft operators. We would very much
    like to work with this Committee on a tailored approach to implement
    the CORSIA SARPs over the course of the next couple years.
        congress and the administration should complement the airline's
     initiatives to advance aviation infrastructure, technology and energy
                                     policy
        We are confident that the measures A4A and our members are taking
    will continue to limit and reduce aviation's carbon footprint, while
    allowing commercial aviation to continue to provide an invaluable
    service and be a key contributor to our nation's economy. However,
    support from Congress and the executive branch is needed in three key
    areas to complement the airlines' concerted efforts: (1) business-case-
    based implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
    (NextGen) prioritizing existing equipage; (2) stable policies to
    further support making SAJF commercially viable; and (3) continuation
    of aviation environmental research and development programs.
        As recognized by the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC)
    in 2010, ``NextGen will enable the [National Airspace System] to safely
    and efficiently accommodate greater numbers of aircraft, from large
    commercial airliners to smaller general aviation (GA) aircraft, while
    reducing the overall environmental impact and energy use of civil
    aviation.'' \32\ Indeed, while A4A member airlines are doing all they
    can to promote efficiencies within the current ATM system, completing
    the transition to a satellite-based system will significantly reduce
    the inefficiencies that are inherent in the outdated, radar-based air
    traffic control system--saving up to 12 percent of fuel burn and
    emissions. Not only is an optimally functioning ATM system
    indispensable to ensure safety and the wellbeing of our industry, our
    nation's economy, the air traffic control workforce and airline
    customers, it is also critical to the environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ U.S. DOT, Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, Final Report,
    at 15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As noted, in addition to enhancing U.S. energy independence and
    security, commercially viable, environmentally friendly SAJF could well
    be a game changer for the industry's GHG emissions. The aviation
    industry and would-be alternative jet fuel suppliers are on the cusp of
    creating a viable alternative jet fuel industry, but government support
    is needed in the near term to provide financial bridging and other
    tools necessary to help us get over the cusp. It is critical that
    Congress and the Administration continue to fund the programs under the
    Energy Title of the Farm Bill and support public-private initiatives
    such as CAAFI, the Farm to Fly initiative, and ASCENT.
        Further, as recognized by the FAAC, ``aviation-related R&D
    investments are vital for a high technology economy and enable
    solutions that can decrease emissions, create good jobs, increase U.S.
    competitiveness, and provide substantial enhancements to mobility that
    benefit the public.'' \33\ As noted, FAA, NASA and the U.S. aviation
    industry are already partnering on a wide range of research and
    development projects through the CLEEN, ASCENT and NASA ARMD programs.
    These programs, which also include research dollars for FAA to maintain
    leadership in the ICAO environmental standard-setting process, are
    critical. While the agencies appear to be committed to continuing them,
    their funding has been under attack. We urge Congress to continue to
    fully support and fund the FAA and NASA aviation environmental research
    programs. This is vital to U.S. aviation competitiveness and the
    leadership role the U.S. plays in driving appropriate aviation energy
    and environmental standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Id. at 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        As an industry, aviation is a small part of the nation's GHG
    footprint, but we have nonetheless strived to reduce our impact through
    technology, operations, infrastructure and alternative fuel advances to
    provide safe, vital, efficient, and environmentally sustainable air
    transport within the constraints of our air traffic management system.
    We will not rest on our laurels in light of this record but will
    continue to invest where appropriate to maximize environmental benefits
    while supporting our nation's economy. We look forward to working with
    this Committee on policy initiatives to complement our efforts.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, I look forward to
    your questions.

        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Young. We will now move on to
    Member questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes,
    and I will start by recognizing myself.
        Dr. Sperling, thank you for your testimony and leadership
    in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As we both are aware,
    California has been a leader in the fight against climate
    change. We have shown that protecting our environment and
    improving the economy are not mutually exclusive.
        In your testimony you state that, from California's
    experience, ``we cannot meet our [carbon emission reduction]
    goals without reenvisioning the way we plan and build [our
    communities].'' Can you expand further on what you meant by
    that?
        What are some of the ways the Federal Government can
    support efforts to better coordinate transportation policy,
    housing policy, and job access at the State and local levels?
        Mr. Sperling. Thank you. So there are a couple things. One
    is, as I said, there is a lot of innovation happening in
    transportation.
        So one of the things that can be done is creating programs
    to support many of these new initiatives, pilot projects,
    demonstration projects, because we need experimentation, and we
    don't really know--as we go all these shared economy ideas,
    automation, how it--connecting it with transit, with
    microtransit, with micromobility--all of these concepts are
    brandnew. Ten years ago we weren't doing any of this.
        And so how do we do them and merge them with
    electrification, as well? So that--one program--that is one
    idea.
        The other big idea would be we need a better way of linking
    transportation funding to reward communities, cities, MPOs, for
    basically doing the right thing, in terms of investing in these
    more efficient and low-carbon strategies. And I would note that
    almost everything we do for greenhouse gas reduction and
    climate are the same things we would do for an efficient
    transportation system. And so restructuring some of that
    funding so that we break down the silos, we help transit link
    up with these in public-private partnerships, and just
    rewarding them for making the investments that are necessary to
    get lower carbon cities.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Dr. Sperling.
        Ms. Young, thank you for your time here to discuss how our
    Federal infrastructure policy could help mitigate and adapt to
    the growing threats of climate change. As many of us are aware,
    the climate crisis is probably one of the biggest challenges of
    our lifetime.
        U.S. airlines have increased their fuel efficiency by more
    than 125 percent between 1978 and 2017, and they have moved 28
    percent more passengers and cargo in 2016 compared to the year
    2000, using 3 percent less fuel.
        In your testimony you discussed the economic incentives
    that airlines have to reduce their carbon emissions and fuel
    consumption. Can you expand further on the benefits to our
    environment and economy?
        Ms. Young. Oh, well, thank you very much for the question.
    We are very proud that our economic interests align hand in
    hand, really, with our environmental interests. Essentially, as
    you know, jet fuel is the number-one or number-two cost for
    airlines in any given year, and our airlines compete with each
    other, head to head. So the better you do with shepherding your
    fuel to good use, and hence saving greenhouse gas emissions,
    the more competitive you are.
        So that is why, as I testified in my written testimony, our
    airlines have long been deploying an array of measures without
    Government mandates, things like, certainly, buying new
    aircraft, now that our financial situation has turned around
    after the scourge of 9/11 and SARS and the downturn, but also
    really focused with our partners--airports, air navigation
    service providers, manufacturers--in making sure that we drive
    technology, operations, and infrastructure in all aspects to be
    fuel efficient.
        I think another example that goes beyond fuel efficiency--
    because there is only so far you can go with that--is
    sustainable alternative jet fuel. Very quickly, in 2006 we
    recognized that, really, the focus on alternative fuel was on
    the ground-based fuels. So we basically helped create, with the
    airports, the manufacturers, FAA, and others, basically, a
    market and a way to develop and deploy these fuels. And you are
    seeing that bear fruit today.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Young. I will now recognize
    Representative Gibbs for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
    to make a couple of comments quick before my questions about,
    you know, the markets are driving the innovation. And some of
    the witnesses' testimony have said that, where we have seen
    vast improvements in airlines cutting their CO2 emissions, more
    fuel efficient. We are seeing manufacture aviation cutting
    their--80 percent life cycle fossil fuel, more efficient
    planes, and--as was stated.
        Highways, we are seeing more efficient vehicles, more types
    of vehicles. American Trucking Associations has achieved
    significant greenhouse gas emissions, about 23 percent. We are
    seeing a 25-percent improvement in greenhouse gas reductions,
    fuel efficient gains over 2018 levels. Moving forward, it is
    improving.
        Maritime transportation seeing--they have a goal to reduce
    their CO2 emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050. So there is
    a lot of good things done, and the market has been driving it.
        My first question to Ms. Young is dealing with the Green
    New Deal. Talk about how it would affect the U.S. economy by
    the airlines. And we are seeing the airlines and other modes
    making these good improvements to efficiency. How would this
    Government intervention--would that hinder innovation, or --
    what would you--your viewpoint on that?
        Ms. Young. Well, thank you very much for the question. I
    think it is probably no surprise to you or others on the
    committee that Airlines for America has a lot of concern about
    any plan where the rhetoric around it is saying that we are
    going to eliminate air travel. And we think that that would be
    a bit concerning to the more than 157 million Americans who
    flew last year.
        But what I can tell you--and I think you picked up on it in
    your question--is that we already are motivated and are doing a
    number of the things that are suggested as measures in that
    Green New Deal, things like ourselves developing and deploying
    sustainable alternative jet fuel, really innovating in
    technology and operations and infrastructure. And we are doing
    that without a Government mandate.
        So I think, from our perspective, there are a lot of good
    ideas that we have been employing, and that is the way to
    continue to go for----
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes. So basically, you are saying the market is
    driving this, and when you are more fuel efficient it helps
    your bottom line anyway, so you don't need Government coming
    and telling you. Of course, in this case, this proposal is just
    to eliminate your industry, which is an absolute disaster.
        Mr. Lyon from Michigan, you talk about it in your
    testimony, about mandating lock-in--different, inferior
    technology, and you talk a lot about market-driven initiatives,
    which I am--of course, I am a strong advocate for. Can you
    elaborate about how certain technologies may have grown by the
    market versus where there has been Government mandates and--the
    comparison between--you talked about it a little bit in your
    testimony. Can you elaborate?
        Mr. Lyon. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think it is a
    very complex and intertwined set of forces, actually. I mean
    you look at electric vehicle deployment, for example, and
    markets have played a crucial role in moving that forward. But
    at the same time, Government has played an absolutely central
    role, as well, with subsidies for vehicle adoption and R&D
    funding.
        So I think it is hard to disentangle these two and say it
    is all of one or all of the other.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. I just--you know, I--because you said in
    your testimony--you talked about when certain things are
    mandated, you know, it locks in--the possibility of locking in
    an inferior technology, because technologies change. And I
    think you agree that Government has got to be careful, how they
    do that.
        Mr. Lyon. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gibbs. Because, you know, sometimes, when it comes to
    on the regulatory side of Government, we usually are behind
    what is actually happening. We are always trying to catch up,
    and--but I concur with you that when you have the markets
    driving it--and I think what you are trying to say, where there
    is some--maybe some Government help, and where it is
    appropriate, as long as it doesn't create artificial
    consequences or, you know--that go against what the market is
    trying to--I think that is what you are trying to say.
        Mr. Lyon. Yes, I am trying to say we should allow for as
    much flexibility as possible in technological choices going
    forward, so that we don't prematurely lock into something and
    we look back on it and say, oh, gosh, we shouldn't have locked
    into--I mean the classic example on this is the light-water
    nuclear reactor, right? There are a lot of other nuclear
    designs that people now think are much superior, but we locked
    into that one very early on. And you know, it has kind of
    stalled out the industry in some ways.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK, I appreciate the testimony. The only thing I
    would just say quickly before my time is up is we got to be
    careful. We let the market function and when it is appropriate,
    Mr. Chairman, we can do things. But we shouldn't be trying to
    address social change on what we are trying to do to build
    infrastructure. I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Next we will go to Representative Larsen.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Young, in your testimony you talked about NextGen
    flight procedures and so on. Have the airlines, as an industry,
    done any estimates on how much fuel has been saved by deploying
    performance-based navigation or required navigation
    performance? Or, if not a number, can you speak to it?
        Ms. Young. So when we are able to fully deploy RNP
    performance-based navigation procedures, we can save a
    considerable amount of fuel and, hence, reduce emissions that
    way. The numbers are a little bit hard to true-up across the
    country because, as you know, the next generation air
    transportation system implementation has been sort of piece by
    piece.
        But as I note in my written testimony, I mean, there is
    around 12 percent estimated inefficiencies in the system that
    could be gained by full transition to PBN, NextGen, and we
    support doing that.
        Our members have been innovating in the different airspace
    areas using these procedures for some time, including Alaska
    Airlines, that initially developed a number of the procedures
    way back when to address some of the challenges of flying in
    Alaska.
        So it is certainly something we want to continue to drive
    forward on, and that is why we are recommending that this
    committee continue to work closely with FAA to make sure that
    we modernize our airspace.
        Mr. Larsen. On the fleet updates to improve aircraft
    efficiency, you've worked with manufacturers to make that
    happen, and you mentioned a few changes to aircraft design:
    winglets, there are also new engines coming out.
        I have a question for you, because in a couple weeks we
    will be looking at--on the Aviation Subcommittee we will be
    looking at the future of aviation, trying to look out 30 years
    or so. I am not asking you to predict what is going to happen,
    it is kind of hard to predict. But if you had a wish list, what
    would be the next thing for airlines and manufacturers to make
    flying more efficient so there is less fuel used and planes are
    using less fuel?
        Ms. Young. Well, thank you for that question. We do work
    very closely with the manufacturers, and that is a critical
    part of our program for achieving our emissions goals.
        So through a number of things like moving to composite
    materials, there is still room there. Moving--our jet turbine
    engines are extremely fuel efficient, but Pratt & Whitney and
    GE and others have found ways to continue along those lines.
        And you mentioned winglets. Those--you know, it may be
    surprising to people. Those are on the tips of the wings. What
    you see tipping up there can bring, you know, 4 percent or more
    additional fuel efficiency. So we are really taking sort of, in
    the near term, those kinds of approaches.
        But working with the manufacturers and FAA and its CLEEN
    program, and NASA and its programs, we are looking at things as
    advanced as hybrid electric aircraft.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes.
        Ms. Young. We are looking at other materials. There are
    discussions--we are not sure that we are going to be able to go
    there, but in changing the entire way the aircraft is designed
    to be a different shape and more aerodynamic. But those are
    really the long-term programs.
        And if I could stress, the programs that are funded for FAA
    to work with us, and public-private programs, are one-to-one
    dollar matches. They bring a lot of bang for the buck. Those
    focus on the nearer term breakthroughs that airlines and
    airports and manufacturers can make.
        NASA has a program with us that is the long-term one, and
    it is basically, again, a one-to-one match. So it is good bang
    for leveraging the best in aviation.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you. The CLEEN program has been mentioned
    a couple of times, and I just want to thank the Members who
    were here last year to amend the FAA bill to put that program
    back in place and encourage others to support it in the future,
    if we get there.
        In my time remaining I just want to know, from Mr.
    Prochazka and Dr. Lyon if there is a conflict between you all
    in terms of calling for continuing tax cuts for EV and for EV
    technology, versus relying on the market to place where those
    EV charging stations are, much like we rely on the market to
    place gas stations. Should the market lead or should Federal
    tax credit policy lead?
        And I will yield back.
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. So, you know, I
    think at this point we are just scratching the surface, in
    terms of the opportunity for market impacts on infrastructure
    across the country. We are seeing huge investment from
    investor-owned utilities. We are seeing even oil companies that
    are buying infrastructure companies and starting to invest in
    them in significant ways. And I think that it is saying a lot
    about what that future might hold.
        At the same time, there are needs for, at this point,
    incentives to still exist to help encourage the early-stage
    part of this investment. So, while we might have 50,000
    chargers across the country that are deployed, things like the
    alternative fuels corridor are going to be critical, and the
    funding for that to expand charging.
        We also need to retain the tax credits, so 30C, because
    that is an important driver for businesses. So it can start the
    process for their investment. And I think we are going to see
    the long-term impact in fuel savings over time.
        Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Lyon, if you could submit your response
    in writing, that would be great. We are trying to adhere to the
    time limit we are allocating for everyone.
        Mr. Lyon. OK, will do.
        Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Larsen, I hope that is OK. We will move
    on now to Representative Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panel.
        You know, judging by Ms. Young's testimony, it looks like
    companies and industries are already being environmentally
    conscious. Ms. Young's comments about how innovation has
    propelled the airline industry to reduce their carbon footprint
    is something that I think needs to be looked at and monitored
    by others. I hope other private companies will continue the
    progress that your industry has shown us.
        Additionally, electric automobile manufacturers are joining
    new and innovative partnerships, and are changing the way we
    travel. In fact, just outside my district by about two blocks
    in Normal, Illinois, the company Rivian is looking to produce
    electric trucks and SUVs, and they just announced a $700
    million partnership with Amazon.
        So my question to those on the panel is why do we need a
    top-down approach to environmental regulation, when industries
    are already adapting?
        And I would like to start with Ms. Young at A4A because of
    your testimony and your experience.
        Ms. Young. Well, thank you for the question. I mean you
    have heard a lot about market-based measures today, and the
    best of those are really the natural ones, where you are
    already driven by the existing market situations to do drive
    technology, operations, and infrastructure, as we have to get
    fuel efficiency.
        We have pretty aggressive goals, as well. And one of the
    international agreements that we are supporting would further
    backstop the work that we are doing to make sure that, on an
    international level, aviation meets those types of aggressive
    goals.
        So I think, you know, you want to use the market the way
    that it is. And essentially, interfering with that can get
    negative results.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Ms. Young.
        Mr. Prochazka, with your coalition, I would like to hear
    your response. And I am glad they got your name plate right. I
    have the same problem a lot of times with my last name.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Prochazka. Well, I can tell. Maybe later we can talk
    about how to pronounce it.
        Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. Actually, I grew
    up in Kankakee, Illinois, and so I have driven through Normal
    and been through the Bloomington area quite a bit.
        You know, I think in this case we are responding to the
    idea that we still have an unfair and unfree oil market. And so
    that is part of the reason that there needs to be incentives to
    encourage electric vehicle adoption.
        We are in a place where, if national oil companies and
    cartels are controlling the flow of oil, then it leaves
    American businesses and consumers with few choices when oil
    prices spike or when supply is cut off. And so I think, if
    anything, electrifying our transportation sector has got to be
    part of the solution. It is not the only solution, but it needs
    to be part of the solution.
        And ultimately, it is going to give us the best choice.
    When you plug into the grid, it doesn't matter how those
    electrons are produced. It can be coal, it can be wind, it can
    be solar, it can be any of those. But ultimately, at this
    point, it gives us the best opportunity for fuel choice.
        Mr. Davis. But we need baseload generating facilities to be
    able to power a new electric vehicle economy. Correct?
        Mr. Prochazka. Most definitely.
        Mr. Davis. OK.
        Mr. Prochazka. There is a study from the National Renewable
    Energy Lab and PacifiCorp that shows, basically, that we could
    put 150 million vehicles on the road and not have a huge impact
    to our grid. But there is a large opportunity.
        Mr. Davis. Well, I have actually been out to the Tesla
    facility and ridden in one of their test semis. And that is a
    discussion we have to have in the future. And thank you for
    your testimony.
        I want to address before my time runs out environmental
    reviews. I am not opposed to environmental reviews. As a matter
    of fact, it was an environmental review in Springfield,
    Illinois, that unearthed the site where we found artifacts that
    were part of the 1908 race riots that was credited as being the
    birthplace of the NAACP. I want to make that a national
    historic site.
        But with that said, 3 weeks ago we had, sitting at that
    table right there, the mayor of Los Angeles, Mr. Garcetti, and
    our former colleague, the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, who
    both told us that we need to be speeding up the regulatory
    process so that projects in their communities and their States
    can actually be ready and shovel-ready quicker.
        So to anybody else who wants to pick this question up, you
    know, what can we do to make sure we do what these two local
    officials asked us to do?
        Mr. Sperling, you are from California. What don't you take
    a shot?
        Mr. Sperling. OK, I will take a shot. We have even a worse
    problem. By the way, we have something in common, too: my
    university and your name, Davis.
        Mr. Davis. That is right, that is right.
        Mr. Sperling. You know, we have an--on top of the EIS NEPA
    reviews we have our own State, and it has been misused, really,
    for NIMBY-ism purposes. And it has been used to block all kinds
    of projects. I think even the most progressive Democrats, or at
    least many of them, would acknowledge that. And we do need to
    fix that.
        And there is--it is blocking a lot of progress, a lot of
    investments that need to be made, including a lot of
    infrastructure investments.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Sperling.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carbajal. I will recognize Representative Brownley.
        Ms. Brownley. I thank the panel for being here. I have been
    looking forward to this hearing.
        And Dr. Sperling, I am going to ask you a question because,
    one, you are--I can pronounce your name; and two, you are from
    California. And please send my best regards to Mary Nichols
    when you return home.
        You talked in your opening comments about aligning
    environmental goals with transportation goals, and I know, you
    know, in California I think we have had a very successful
    program, the California Sustainable Communities program. And I
    just--I wanted--if you could, talk a little bit about that
    particular program.
        And I want to drill down a little bit more and talk about
    where the sort of carrots and sticks are to incentivize.
        Mr. Sperling. I will give you the quick answer, and then
    you can elaborate. And that is we did pass a law in 2008 known
    as SB75, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act,
    and it assigned targets to every metropolitan area to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger travel.
        And in some ways it was successful, in that it changed the
    debate. It really got the transportation community, in
    particular, aware that what we are trying to achieve with
    climate policies really was very well aligned with what they
    were trying to achieve, in terms of better investments in
    infrastructure and better planning.
        But what it failed at is it did not have any substantive
    carrots or sticks. And that is where we are. That has kind of
    motivated much of my testimony, is we need to create those
    carrots because we need the communities, if they are going to
    invest in putting in more chargers, or if they are going to
    build protected bike paths, or if they are going to invest in
    transit, that they need to be rewarded. And if they do changes
    on land use, they need to be rewarded because they don't have
    the resources.
        And so that is kind of my biggest plea, you know. It is
    both Federal to this committee, as well as to the State, is
    somehow restructure transportation funding so it acknowledges
    and rewards these environmental goals, as well as the pure VMT
    population type goals.
        Ms. Brownley. And I certainly understand, and we all like
    carrots more than we like sticks. But what suggestions do you
    have around the stick portion?
        Mr. Sperling. Yes, the--you know, I spent a lot of time
    talking to mayors and city councils about some of these new
    ideas. And the reality is they have very few resources
    available.
        I guess the good news is they are easy to--and I put this
    word in quotes--to be ``bribed.'' They are very easy to bring
    resources, to--you know, a small amount of resources will
    motivate changes in behavior. But our cities, they have been
    strapped, they have been--you know, for so many years they have
    been--you know, they have had their funding cut back so much
    they don't have a lot of capacity and resources.
        And so, any program that does target--you know, that--like
    getting rid of some of the silos with transit so that transit
    money can be used for public-private partnerships, as well as
    to support the operations of the transit operators, you know,
    there are so many kinds of ideas. And as I said earlier,
    programmed to support investments in pilot projects and
    demonstrations.
        Sacramento in particular, but Los--all the major cities
    have major initiatives. But they don't have any funding stream
    to support it.
        Ms. Brownley. Are there any good examples of
    experimentation in California that has come from private
    industry? Or if you are saying there is--the resources aren't
    there----
        Mr. Sperling. Yes, yes, I would say many companies are
    experimenting in a very small way, including car companies. Car
    companies are helping electrify Uber and Lyft cars, and they
    are doing that mostly on their own, so far.
        There are various kinds of programs for van pools,
    electrifying van pools. Some of it is subsidized, but there are
    some companies that are taking the initiative. So there are
    some.
        But the problem is--and it is just like--you know, I will
    go back to this discussion about electric vehicles. Every major
    car company in the world is fully committed to electrifying.
    This is not a question any more. They have got the supply
    chains, they have got the technology. They are just waiting for
    some--either consumers to switch their behavior, or incentives
    to be created. And they are going to be moving forward in a
    major way.
        And it is the same thing with all of these kinds of ideas,
    you know, the change happens slowly. Institutions have been,
    you know, unchanging--especially transportation institutions--
    for so long, that they don't have the capacity and creativity.
    So the companies come along, they have ideas, but they run into
    road blocks over and over again about how to get that funding
    and to get the permits and so on.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal. Next I recognize Representative Perry.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel
    for your presence today. All of us in the position of
    policymaking are searching for the best relevant data to use to
    make the policies, and we are all interested in a better,
    cleaner environment, whether it is the water, the air, or the
    climate, in general.
        My questions go to Ms. Arroyo.
        In your written testimony you make the claim the Fourth
    National Climate Assessment's findings, along with those in
    2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC
    report, are clear and should be a call to immediate action.
    While the claims are very clearly stated in these reports, the
    underlying data, to me, is a bit murkier, and I want to explore
    that a little bit.
        These claims are based on the theory that global average
    surface temperature or gas has increased with greenhouse gas
    emissions. Validating this theory requires both a valid global
    average surface temperature record and the use of the proper
    mathematical methods typically called structural analysis. I
    think you would agree with that.
        My concern is whether either of these necessary conditions
    has been met.
        An August 1981 article in the journal Science, authored by
    Dr. James Hansen et al. calls into question both of these
    points.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the article for
    the record.
        Mr. Carbajal. Without objection.
        [The article is on pages 159-169.]
        Mr. Perry. In this article, Hansen et al. states,
    ``Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to
    the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere
    and ocean areas poorly represented, and the smaller number of
    stations for earlier times.''
        They go on to state the time history of warming obviously
    does not follow the course of the CO2 increase, indicating that
    other factors must affect global mean temperature. In other
    words, the correlation was not present.
        The fact is that over the period of 1900 to date, the year
    1900 to date, for very significant portions of the globe, there
    was really no surface temperature data at all. And yet in 2019
    we have a global average surface temperature record going back
    to the 1880s. It seems obvious that the IPCC and NCA4 would
    have to overcome these obstacles in order to provide such clear
    findings that are viewed to be a call for immediate action.
        My question in particular, and specifically to you, is the
    following: If you were to become convinced that the published
    official gassed data were not, in fact, a reliable depiction of
    the circumstance, would we then have to conclude that the
    climate models that are now tuned to replicate the fabricated
    global average surface temperature pattern are not able to
    provide reliable projections of the future state of the
    climate?
        Ms. Arroyo. So, Congressman, I have worked on climate
    change for 20 years, exclusively. And my first introduction to
    climate change was 30 years ago, when I was representing
    Governor Buddy Roemer on a task force of the National Governors
    Association that, on a bipartisan basis, already thought that
    the science was compelling enough to issue a report that said
    that both States and the Federal Government should be
    addressing this.
        The impacts have only become more severe and more obvious,
    based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme events.
    CO2 levels are rising. That is documented. We have been having
    measurements in Mauna Loa for many years, but of course we have
    the ice core record and other records that go back millennia.
        We know that we are at CO2 levels that have never been
    experienced since millions of years ago, and that is going to
    lead to dramatic impacts like sea level rise and more intense
    and frequent storms, et cetera, et cetera.
        So, you know, you can maybe find a study or scientist in a
    certain area that might quibble with that. There was some
    issues earlier that got reconciled because of the orbit of the
    devices, the satellites that take the record----
        Mr. Perry. But I want--the gas temperature readings and the
    lack of information, especially from the Southern Hemisphere,
    from the turn of the century to present, what about that?
        Ms. Arroyo. I am not familiar----
        Mr. Perry. Why is that not relevant?
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. With that particular study. But
    what I am familiar with is the scientific record which is, on a
    published, peer-reviewed basis, overwhelming. That was what the
    IPCC scientists from all around the world look at. That was
    what our own Federal Government scientists used in the national
    climate assessment. This was the fourth such assessment that
    has been done.
        And so I think you can cherry-pick and find a study that
    might make an alternative point, but we are living in a world
    that everybody objectively knows is different from the world
    that we were born into. And that is because the emissions of
    climate--polluting gases like CO2 that are being pulled out of
    the earth and put into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.
    And we are seeing changes that are much faster and more severe
    than we even anticipated 30 years ago, when I started looking
    at this issue.
        So I am happy to take a look at that report. But having
    worked on this for 30 years on a bipartisan basis, I don't see
    any reason----
        Mr. Perry. But you are happy----
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. To doubt the science.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. To look at the report.
        Ms. Arroyo. Happy to look at the report----
        Mr. Perry. And if you find, indeed----
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. But I don't see any reason to
    doubt the----
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. That the gassed data is
    insufficient, based on a insufficient number of stations, you
    would be critical of the gassed findings at that----
        Ms. Arroyo. I would be happy to look at the weight of the
    evidence. But just like when we are looking at our health, if a
    doctor says that you have a serious disease, and recommends a
    severe course of action, you might want to look at other
    experts. And so I would look at it along with the other
    scientific----
        Mr. Perry. All right, my time has expired. I thank you.
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. Reports out there. Thank you.
        Mr. Perry. Thanks, Chairman.
        Mr. Carbajal. Next I would like to recognize Mr. Espaillat.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
    will be for Professor Lyon.
        Clearly, matters like congestion pricing, reducing
    congestion and emissions is sort of like joined at the hip with
    our ability to provide reliable public transportation. And all
    of this is sort of like a very deep pocket problem, right? How
    do we get the finance to promote public transportation and
    reduce emissions and congestion?
        And you mentioned, for example, congestion pricing, which
    has been around for some time in London, but there is also the
    tolling of roads and bridges, and, obviously, increasing the
    gas tax. Which do you see to be the most effective means of
    capturing the revenue to finance an important project to reduce
    congestion and emissions and to create greater and greener and
    more reliable means of public transportation?
        Mr. Lyon. Well, thank you for the question. And I would be
    happy to follow up with some written testimony that gives more
    details.
        But my first thought on this is that a VMT tax is very
    promising, in terms of its ability to raise revenue. It is
    probably going to be more successful than a congestion tax,
    just because congestion is a more localized phenomenon. And
    there has been some research suggesting that a VMT tax could be
    very effective in revenue raising. So I would say let's start
    with that, anyway.
        Mr. Espaillat. But how has the congestion pricing program
    worked in London?
        Mr. Lyon. I think it has been very effective, in terms of
    reducing congestion, increasing average speeds. And those
    things reduce fuel consumption, which reduces pollution,
    because there is a lot of pollution that occurs from trucks and
    cars just being stalled in traffic.
        Mr. Espaillat. Ms. Arroyo, my next question is to you. You
    refer to green infrastructure. There are communities across
    America, particularly urban communities, where you see very
    high levels, for example, of asthma amongst children, and other
    respiratory diseases.
        Now, if we are going to go ahead with a green
    infrastructure, the first question is do we have the workforce
    ready and prepared to take on that job?
        And the second question is if we do have the workforce
    available, are we willing to develop a workforce that would
    then--in those particular neighborhoods that have been
    adversely affected by this phenomenon, right, the problem with
    asthma and other respiratory illnesses, are we willing to
    provide a level of reparation for those communities that have
    been adversely affected and create jobs--in many cases,
    prevailing wage jobs--for young people and other people in
    those neighborhoods?
        Ms. Arroyo. Thank you for the question. So a lot of
    communities that we work with from around the country are
    interested in some of the benefits of investing in what is
    called green infrastructure from both an urban heat, island
    mitigation standpoint to have, you know, cooler roofs,
    permeable pavements, more trees, urban canopy, and things like
    that, but also because they are a place for the water to flow.
        So when we do see some of these heavier rain events like we
    are seeing now in this era of climate change, there is a place.
    For example, you know, water gardens that are being installed
    in my mother's old neighborhood of Gentilly, which is a very
    racially mixed, you know, largely elderly population in that
    community. So some of the places that have not rebuilt, in
    terms of homes, they are having places for water to go, but
    also places where people can recreate and have cobenefits from
    that, which will also contribute to better local air quality,
    better resilience from conventional rain events, job
    opportunities, training opportunities.
        This is something that, for example, the DC government has
    worked on in a partnership with folks that have been
    underemployed, and trying to train them in a program called DC
    Water Works--which is sort of like a, you know, like a little
    play on words--to try to train people to install things like
    solar panels over reservoirs, and things like that. So it is
    very much something that is of interest to a lot of the cities
    that we work with, including my own home town of New Orleans.
        Mr. Espaillat. Do we have the workforce right now? Let's
    say if this is to happen a year from now. Are we ready? Are we
    ready to take this on?
        Ms. Arroyo. I mean I think it would be a wonderful thing
    for the committee to consider investing in, because this really
    can create local jobs that cannot be exported. And this can
    happen in every community.
        Where I live now, in Arlington, Virginia, there is a lot to
    be done in terms of urban forestry to counteract some of the
    kind of, you know, cutting down of the mature trees to build
    some of the kind of big houses that tend to be what developers
    do right now.
        And so I think that it is just a wonderful solution, and it
    can train a workforce for sustainable employment, and something
    that everybody can be proud of.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carbajal. I would like now to recognize Mr. Babin.
        Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you, witnesses, for coming up here, giving us your--what you've
    found over your careers.
        First off, I want to say thank you to Ms. Young. You
    mentioned the Atlas Air crash of flight 3591. That actually
    went down in my district. I visited that site yesterday. It was
    a devastating scene. And I just want to say thank you to all
    the first responders, Federal and State, folks that are out
    there trying to piece that back together. It is a terrible,
    terrible thing to behold.
        The first question I would like to ask is to Professor
    Lyon. Can we actually assume that other countries, many of
    which are developing countries, would opt out of cheap energy
    sources for more and expensive cleaner sources? Is that a
    realistic expectation for us? Professor?
        Mr. Lyon. Probably, without some kind of international
    support, that may be difficult.
        I mean you look at what China has done over the last, you
    know, 20 years. They have built an enormous fleet of giant coal
    plants which burn fairly dirty, inefficient coal. So it looks
    like India is on track to build a lot of coal going forward,
    also. So it seems like, to me, that countries that have
    advanced further economically, like the United States, and that
    have contributed more to the global warming gas emissions over
    time, may have a moral duty to help those countries leapfrog
    some of that dirty technology.
        Dr. Babin. Well, the--I think one of the things that I have
    seen and talked about with other folks is that we continue to
    see companies that sell their brand as renewable, green, and
    environmentally friendly. But when you look at the fine print,
    we see that a lot of these products are actually made in China,
    where greenhouse gas emissions are through the ceiling.
        And so it is--I think, unless there is some kind of
    incentive, it is hard for me to imagine that third-world
    developing countries would do that. And then, to saddle
    American taxpayers with that duty, as you said, seems to be a
    long stretch for the American taxpayers.
        OK, my next question for Ms. Arroyo, the United States cut
    862 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2017,
    which was a 14-percent decline. Over the same period, global
    emissions rose 26 percent. India increased its carbon dioxide
    emissions by 1.3 billion tons, and China increased its
    emissions by 4 billion tons, a 70-percent increase. The United
    States could continue cutting carbon dioxide emissions, but
    clearly the greenhouse gases could and would continue to
    increase. The United States doesn't seem to be the problem.
        And so, is the solution to spend trillions of dollars,
    increase energy costs here in our country, cut jobs, raise
    taxes on hard-working American families, and jeopardize our
    strong economy at this point in time? Ms. Arroyo?
        Ms. Arroyo. So the U.S. emissions this last year have
    actually spiked up 3 percent. And clearly, we can't do it
    alone.
        I will say that the States and the cities that we work with
    are enjoying multiple benefits from their own investment in a
    clean energy economy of the future. Those States have put into
    place things like very popular renewable portfolio standards.
    Many of those States have met and exceeded those standards, and
    gone further. So that is what has driven our ability to move to
    cleaner electricity sources that are generally very popular and
    reduce conventional air pollution and create local jobs that
    can't be exported, once again.
        So a combination of standards at the State and also the
    Federal level. In the last administration we saw vehicle
    standards and we saw, you know--efforts to reduce standards
    from the power sector through the Clean Power Plan are part of
    the solution, but there is other reasons that are contributing
    to that, including private-sector leadership and all of that.
        That is not to say that the rest of the world doesn't have
    to do its job. And clearly, the rest of the world came together
    in Paris in 2015, and made commitments, as well as the United
    States made commitments.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. I just--it seems to me it
    is hard. Just as I said on my first question, Americans are
    going to be the ones to suffer, while other countries continue
    to lower their prices at the cost of the environment and the
    American family.
        Dr. Sperling, I think we can all agree on the need for
    better infrastructure in the United States, but let's look at
    the details of how our infrastructure is built. Whether it is
    dams, bridges, or highways, they all require concrete. Cement
    or concrete is made by heating limestone, which reduces down to
    about two-thirds of the original limestone weight. The other
    third goes up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
        In other words, making concrete emits carbon dioxide. Do
    you propose that we eliminate the production of concrete,
    therefore eliminating the creation of better and stronger
    infrastructure, which I think everybody in this room, I think,
    is in favor of increasing our infrastructure and making us more
    competitive, globally?
        Does getting rid of cement seem productive to you? Is that
    that important?
        Mr. Sperling. That----
        Dr. Babin. I would like to hear what you have to say.
        Mr. Sperling. That is not what I would----
        Dr. Babin. Dr. Sperling?
        Mr. Sperling. No, that is not what I would suggest. And----
        Dr. Babin. Dr. Sperling--OK.
        Mr. Carbajal. Could you please submit your response in
    writing? We are trying to adhere to the time limits, so I
    really would appreciate it.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Next we will go to Representative Mucarsel-
    Powell.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for the witnesses, for being here this morning.
        I represent, I believe, one of the most beautiful districts
    in the country, Florida 26, which includes the Florida Keys,
    and parts of Miami-Dade County. We are definitely ground zero
    for the effects of climate change and sea level rise. And we
    have seen, year after year, storms strengthening, crumbling
    infrastructure. Our coastline is eroding, due to these strong
    storms and also sea level rise.
        So I know that we have been speaking this morning that the
    science is clear, and in order to stave off the worst effects
    of climate change we need to drastically reduce carbon dioxide
    emissions, and we need to do it very quickly. And I know that
    there are many ways that we can do this. One is transitioning
    over to electric vehicles.
        So my question right now is to Mr. Prochazka and Ms.
    Arroyo. Maybe you can both answer this question.
        Right now, in the southern part of my district in Miami-
    Dade County, we have a huge issue of, you know, transportation,
    lack of access to transportation for the people living in the
    district that have to commute to work. It is taking them 2
    hours, maybe sometimes even more. We have been trying to get
    rail in South Dade, and I met just recently last week with the
    transportation board that approved a fast rapid bus system.
    Apparently, it is the first one that is being built in the
    county. I have seen projects in other countries that seem to
    have been successful.
        So one of my questions, Ms. Arroyo or Mr. Prochazka, if we
    are going to have--one of the questions that I asked was if
    they were going to have electric buses. And they responded that
    electric buses posed two major issues: one, that they were much
    more expensive than traditional buses; and the second is that
    they are concerned with their ability to install enough
    charging stations.
        So what can we in Congress do to address this impediment
    for local communities?
        Ms. Arroyo. Thank you for the question. So we mentioned the
    grants program earlier that the Federal Transit Administration
    has been using to support investment in electric buses in 41
    States. Also, many States and cities are using VW settlement
    money from the scandal with the VW cheating devices on the cars
    to invest in electric buses. So that is how they are trying to
    buy down the cost upfront. Because over the life span of the
    bus, it is actually more on par with conventional gasoline or
    diesel.
        But obviously, getting into the bus in the first place,
    Federal incentives can play a role there, just like the VW shot
    in the arm, or the FTA grant program helped. So pilot programs
    like that are one part of the solution.
        And the charging--certainly, if a number of buses charge in
    the same place at night, for example, that is something that
    needs to be worked out. It was worked out here in DC, with the
    Circulator buses, with Pepco, so you need to work with the
    utilities on that. But that is something that is already
    doable.
        Mr. Prochazka. I will keep my remarks very brief. And I
    will say that supporting FTA's efforts to allow for bulk
    purchasing and joint procurement will go a long way. And so it
    can reduce the administrative and cost burdens associated with
    bus acquisition. And so I think there is opportunities for
    cities to convene and create those moments. And I think bus
    manufacturers are also really excited about those kinds of
    opportunities.
        Secondly, there is an opportunity to think about low- and
    zero-cost loans. And so the idea is that buses will pay back
    over time. So electric buses have significantly lower fuel
    costs, but oftentimes city budget and transit agency budgets
    prioritize low cost upfront. And so, if we can provide
    mechanisms to reduce that incremental cost difference, the
    buses will pay back over time. And, in fact, I think we will
    see it--will pay back even more than the upfront costs cost at
    the beginning.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. That is exactly what I fear, because
    they are so much more expensive that they are going to try to
    just use regular gasoline-charged buses.
        And my second question, my followup question, was what
    would be the ultimate impact if the transportation board in
    Miami were to just stick with regular gas buses? What--you
    know, what would be the effects on air quality, the health of
    our communities down in South Dade?
        Mr. Prochazka. I will just briefly mention that it is hard
    to--you know, I don't know the answer specifically for your
    community.
        I will say that the big challenge is that if you purchase a
    diesel bus right now it is going to be on the road for 10 or 12
    years. And so that is a choice that will have already been
    made. And that pollution and the impacts and fuel costs at that
    point are sunk.
        And so I think it is really important to make sure that the
    communities prioritize EV buses now, because it is going to
    save in the future.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. I yield back my time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Carbajal. I would like to recognize Mr. Garret Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you all for being here. Good morning. I appreciate your
    testimony this morning.
        The title of this hearing is ``Examining How Federal
    Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate
    Change.'' I want to make note that last year this committee--
    well, I guess in 2017, it became law in 2018--this committee
    passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and that legislation,
    in my opinion, did move us in a direction of resiliency, of
    making wise investments, recognizing that the current approach
    toward disasters, where we spend exponentially more money after
    a disaster, rather than actually being proactive and making
    principled investments on the front end, is a flawed policy.
        And we made substantial changes to help make our Nation
    more resilient, preparing for the future. And I think this was
    one area where we had made incredibly flawed decisions that
    cost our taxpayers. And I would love to tell you millions or
    billions, but well in excess of $1 trillion in disaster
    recovery costs that could have been saved if we had made the
    right investments and decisions on the front end.
        That being said, Ms. Young, I want to ask a question, just
    make sure I understand something. In your testimony you made
    reference--and I remember Mr. Calio in this room recently made
    a similar statement about a significant reduction in fuel
    efficiency. Were those required? Those reductions, were they
    required, the fuel efficiency, or the savings?
        Ms. Young. No, Congressman. The significant improvement in
    fuel efficiency--we have made 125 percent since 1978--has been
    really driven by our own market interests. We are very, very
    proud that our environmental and economic interests in saving
    fuel align. And that has, since 1978, saved 4.6 billion metric
    tons of carbon dioxide. And we are committed to continuing and
    improving on that record.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
        Mr. Sperling, I was previously the chairman of the Water
    Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and have done tens of
    billions of dollars in water resource projects and other
    infrastructure projects in my home State of Louisiana.
        I visited California, had a great time with my friend, Mrs.
    Napolitano, over there. One of the things that I just found
    remarkable, both on water resource projects and transportation
    projects, was, quite frankly, the increased cost of projects in
    California, in many cases. And it appeared--and I want to be
    clear--I am not certain, but it appeared in some cases that
    that was a result of requirements that California imposed on
    itself in regard to different environmental-type requirements
    under the--what is it, CEBA? California Environmental
    Protection Act? CEPA, excuse me.
        How does the State of California determine which
    requirements are cost effective versus those that may not be,
    that are just providing a universal or systemic requirement?
    Does that question make sense?
        Mr. Sperling. Yes, it does. But that is not one I could
    answer. I could try to get an answer for you.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. That would be great. Just two
    other things.
        Mr. Chairman, I recently read an analysis based on some EIA
    data that found that if we migrate entirely to zero-emissions
    vehicles, that we will actually see an increase--not a
    decrease, but an increase--in sulfur dioxide and particulates,
    in oxides of nitrogen, and other emissions, rather than a
    reduction. And I found that interesting. I think it is
    something that we probably ought to dig into a little bit more,
    to make sure that we truly understand the outcomes.
        And I also want to be clear that I have actually purchased
    an electric vehicle, so I am certainly sensitive to--thank you
    very much. I appreciate that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But--so I am certainly sensitive
    to the technologies, and very interested in what the future
    holds.
        But I found that statistic interesting. It actually looked
    like it was going to be an increase in certain emissions,
    rather than what I think folks would believe to be a decrease.
    And this is comparing zero-emission vehicles to new combustion
    engines, and I think that, once again, we need to be very
    careful and deliberate about how we move forward.
        Last thing, Mr. Chairman. In looking at an analysis just of
    subsidies and tax credits in the State of California alone,
    which--keeping in mind these technologies, solar, zero-
    emissions vehicles, and others, in many cases they are more
    expensive than other approaches--it appears, for the State of
    California alone we are approaching $100 billion in subsidies
    and credits. And going back to Professor Lyon's testimony, I
    think we need to make sure that we are making cost-effective
    solutions and policies.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thanks. I will recognize Mrs. Fletcher.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for holding
    this important hearing today. And I would like to thank all the
    witnesses for being here to testify, and share their thoughts
    with us.
        Climate change, as we all know, is driving extreme weather
    events across the country. It is a crisis that we are ready and
    we need to address. Certainly, my district, in Houston, Texas,
    is no stranger to those weather events. And we are committed to
    addressing this challenge at home in Houston.
        One of the things that we know is that the power sector
    used to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. And,
    thanks to advances in natural gas and renewables, U.S.
    emissions from the power sector have been on a downward trend.
        So the transportation sector now accounts for just under 30
    percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and I have appreciated
    your testimony on issues relating to transportation this
    morning.
        The first question I have is for Mr. Prochazka. I am so
    sorry if I mispronounced that.
        But one of the things that we have seen is we have seen the
    effects of low-cost natural gas in the power sector lowering
    emissions. And I wanted to hear from you. You talked a lot
    about electrification. But what potential is there for natural
    gas vehicles, especially as fleet vehicles? What are you seeing
    in that area?
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And I am much
    more of an expert on electric vehicles than I am on natural
    gas. However, my sister organization, Securing America's Future
    Energy, has created a policy paper that focuses on a
    transportation strategy for the U.S. And so it focuses on all
    fuels.
        And if I may, I would love to submit that as part of the
    followup testimony, because I think it says a lot of great
    things about what other fuels might do to--and in this case,
    mostly to reduce the impacts of oil in terms of our economic
    and national security. So I would, in this case, defer to that.
        [Mr. Prochazka has submitted the following post-hearing
    supplement to his testimony:]

        Per your request, I am submitting with this letter a digital copy
    of the report I mentioned to you during the hearing, titled ``A
    National Strategy for Energy Security: The Innovation Revolution.''
    This report was published by the Electrification Coalition's sister
    organization, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) in 2016. It
    examines how the adoption of natural gas and other alternative fuels in
    the transportation sector would contribute to enhanced economic and
    national security, and outlines a strategy with actionable steps for
    enhancing fuel diversity. [The report is retained in committee files
    and is available at: http://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/
    06/SAFE-National-Strategy-for-Energy-Security-2016.pdf.]
        The report contains several policy recommendations for accelerating
    the adoption of natural gasvehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles
    that may be of particular interest to you:
    Light Duty Vehicles
          Increase federal research and development investments in
    automotive-grade batteries and natural gas storage tanks. Plug-in
    electric vehicles (PEVs) and natural gas vehicles (NGVs) each have high
    incremental costs compared to conventional vehicles, due primarily to a
    single component in each vehicle: batteries in PEVs and storage tanks
    in NGVs. The government should dedicate additional research and
    development (R&D) dollars to improving the performance and cost-
    competitiveness of these two components.
          Initiate a National Accelerator Community Program. AFVs
    [alternative fuel vehicles] require the support of new networks and are
    only likely to succeed if accompanied by changes throughout multiple
    products, systems, and industries. SAFE's experience in Northern
    Colorado demonstrates the success that experiential marketing and
    community-based programs can have in accelerating AFV adoption. Such
    communities help spur faster and higher rates of adoption and become
    models for others to follow. To this end, SAFE recommends establishing
    a fuel-neutral National Accelerator Community Program for AFVs. The
    program should develop a process to select 20 communities on a
    competitive basis, with successful applicants demonstrating the
    broadest community support and the most promise of deploying AFVs in
    large numbers as demonstrated by PEV sales.
          Support creation of non-monetary incentives for advanced
    fuel vehicles. Incentives that offer vehicle owners added convenience
    have proven a major factor influencing vehicle purchasing decisions.
    These may include free or lower-cost access to high-occupancy vehicle
    and toll lanes, workplace charging or refueling, the construction of
    plug-in ready parking garages and lots, vehicle emissions testing
    exemptions, and free parking.
          Increase federal deployment of advanced fuel vehicles.
    With over 400,000 non-tactical vehicles and over $1.2 billion dollars
    in annual fuel costs, the federal government has an enormous
    opportunity to help promote the use of AFVs and advanced fuels. Such
    adoption would demonstrate that AFVs can meet a wide range of
    transportation applications, generating important data and lessons.
    SAFE recommends the federal government take the following steps to
    increase federal fleet-wide AFV use: work with states to make bulk
    vehicle purchases, encourage the General Services Administration (GSA)
    to join in seeking to lower the cost of AFVs at all levels of
    government; increase the use of E85 in the federal flexible-fuel
    vehicle fleet; right-size charging infrastructure; and incorporate AFVs
    into the next-generation Post Office Fleet.
    Long-Haul Trucks
          Create incentives for medium- and heavy-duty advanced
    fuel vehicle purchases. While NGVs, in particular, have seen impressive
    market share growth in certain applications-transit buses and refuse
    trucks being prime examples-penetration into freight and delivery
    markets has been slower. SAFE recommends that Congress pass tax credits
    for advanced fuel medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Tax credits should be
    established that offer, at a maximum, $25,000 for dedicated AFVs
    weighing between 14,000 pounds and 26,000 pounds, and $40,000 for
    dedicated AFVs weighing more than 26,000 pounds. The precise amount
    should be determined, and recalculated on a quarterly basis, using the
    price differential (DGE) between diesel and the applicable advanced
    fuel. The credit should decline by 25 percent for every 50 cents per
    gallon difference in fuel price.

           The credit should be allowed for vehicles placed in service
    after December 31, 2015, and before January 1, 2021, to promote faster
    adoption and limit costs. For vehicles placed in service in calendar
    year 2020, the credit would be limited to 50 percent of the otherwise
    allowable amount.
          Congress should establish a grant system for the
    installation of CNG and LNG fueling stations along high-priority
    corridors. The federal government can facilitate the creation of a
    network of natural gas fueling corridors that will obviate the range
    concerns of long-haul truck owners and fleet managers. LNG would
    benefit especially from such a policy; its high energy density makes it
    attractive to operators traveling long distances carrying heavy
    cargoes. Without sufficient LNG refueling stations on the National
    Highway Freight Network, companies without the volume to justify
    building their own stations have largely refrained from switching from
    diesel.

           SAFE recommends that natural gas refueling infrastructure be
    prioritized along corridors that are responsible for a large proportion
    of long-haul medium- and heavy-duty trucking. Through the establishment
    of a grant system, Congress can ensure that fueling stations exist no
    more than 200 miles apart alongside the more than 51,000 miles of the
    National Highway Freight Network.
          Congress should pass a two-year extension of the
    Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit. In December 2015, Congress passed
    legislation that extended the Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit
    through December 31, 2016. This credit provides $0.50 per gallon for
    CNG, LNG, and propane autogas, among other advanced transportation
    fuels. The current extension is short-term and creates tremendous
    uncertainty for investment in longer-term projects. SAFE urges Congress
    to pass a twoyear extension of the Alternative Fuel Excise Tax Credit
    so that such uncertainty is eliminated.
          Establish a diesel gallon equivalent standard in order to
    create consistency and clarity in the marketing and dispensing of CNG
    and LNG fuel. The opportunity to save on fuel costs is a major
    motivation for car and truck fleet owners to switch from petroleum to
    natural gas and other alternatives. This shift depends, however, on the
    fuel cost savings being transparent and easily understood by truck
    operators and fleet owners. Simplicity and clarity in fuel measurement
    can do much to aid consumer acceptance of an alternative fuel like
    natural gas. For this reason, the National Conference of Weights and
    Measures (NCWM) should approve the creation of a uniform diesel gallon
    equivalent (DGE) standard as the primary unit for dispensing and
    pricing LNG. Similarly, the NCWM should vote to allow for CNG to be
    measured and priced in DGE where sold primarily to medium- and heavy-
    duty vehicles.
          States and localities should establish their own
    incentive programs, particularly around regional and urban goods
    movement. Many states and regions have established advanced fuel heavy-
    duty vehicle incentives. Most are financial incentives for the purchase
    of vehicles or construction of fueling infrastructure. For example, the
    New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is
    providing incentives for alternative fuel trucks and buses. DOT Tiger
    and DOE Clean Cities grants should be made eligible for these local
    programs to support state and municipality efforts nationwide.

           Localities should also consider non-traditional incentives, such
    as access to HOV lanes, preferred delivery times for advanced fuel
    delivery vehicles, preferential treatment in the awarding of local
    government freight contracts, adjusting urban freight facility zoning
    rules to reward the use of advanced fuel freight vehicles, allowing
    access to municipal advanced fuel fueling stations, and assisting
    freight operators with obtaining federal grants and other incentives
    for advanced fuel medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

        Mrs. Fletcher. OK, thank you, I appreciate that. And I
    would like to see that paper. I believe in my own district
    there are companies that have transitioned to entirely natural
    gas fleets, so I think that that is a growing area of
    opportunity.
        And I think, Ms. Arroyo, did you have a followup comment to
    that, or an answer to the question?
        Ms. Arroyo. I was just going to say that they are
    especially good for reducing emissions of criteria pollutants,
    natural gas and propane vehicles.
        From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, battery,
    electric, and hydrogen offer more promise.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK, thank you. That is helpful. I think, in
    general, you know, one of the things that we have seen--and we
    have heard some testimony earlier about some public-private
    partnerships, or efforts that we are seeing from industry. And
    so I would like to hear from anyone on the panel who wants to
    accept about where industry is leading, and how the Government
    can help amplify those efforts.
        I know there were some questions about that earlier, but
    where can the Government be of assistance in making sure that
    those efforts are being amplified?
        Mr. Prochazka. So I will actually answer this question, if
    I may. And it is Prochazka, just to demystify.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
        Mr. Prochazka. Get rid of the C, much easier. So thank you
    for the question.
        Actually, you know, and Houston is a perfect example. It is
    one of the energy centers of the country. And, in fact,
    CenterPoint Energy right now is working with great effort to
    convene a broad community of stakeholders that represents both
    public and private-sector members of the community, and in
    partnership with the city of Houston to figure out how to
    rapidly accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles.
        And I think those kinds of examples are springing up all
    over the country, where utilities and cities are getting
    together and recognizing that these are both great economic
    opportunities, because they can leverage huge investment
    locally from the private sector, and you can match that with
    Federal dollars.
        And so I think the idea would be for every dollar that can
    be contributed to that through infrastructure, tax credits,
    vehicle tax credits, et cetera, that you are going to see the
    payback from those investments, maybe two or three or fivefold
    from the investments from the private sector.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
        Ms. Young. Yes, I would like to add, from our perspective,
    you have heard a little bit today where we have talked about
    the CLEEN program. And I want to say what that acronym stands
    for: The Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise program.
    And that is an FAA industry public-private partnership to
    really advance technology operations and infrastructure.
        And I wanted to note the acronym, what it means, for--
    because it focuses on fuel alternatives. It focuses on
    greenhouse gas emissions, noise, synergistic issues in the way
    that we fly our aircraft.
        Mr. Sperling. And I will just add one more, and that is
    with transit operators working with what we call the TNCs,
    Lyft, Uber, Via, where they are collaborating to provide
    service in areas that are less dense, and do it much more
    efficiently than a conventional transit operator can do. And
    there is many examples of that around the country.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
        Ms. Titus [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I appreciate the panel coming today. On the aviation
    sector, thank you for your great information on that, Ms.
    Young. And indeed, we see more and more greater efficiencies
    with aircraft and fuel type and everything each year. So I
    think there is a lot to be proud of in that area, and that is
    what mystifies me, is that it ever improves, with improving
    aircraft and the materials they are making them out of, and the
    winglets you talk about.
        I don't see winglets on every plane yet, so I know you get
    that little plus for making the vortex, however that works.
    But, you know, that--you are rapidly improving. And so, to hear
    plans out there to eliminate the airline industry and
    notwithstanding I will never see high-speed rail go from
    California to Hawaii--so I don't know how that is going to
    work--but that said, I commend you in that area.
        We haven't heard much about freight rail in this committee
    today, which indeed, itself, is one of the most efficient ways
    of moving any kinds of materials across the country, as you
    get--freight by rail achieves 479 miles on a gallon of fuel per
    ton. That is pretty amazing. All we hear about in California is
    we have to keep pursuing this high-speed rail boondoggle, which
    now has been downsized to the Valley, itself.
        So I am sure there is people clamoring out there to get
    from Merced to Bakersfield 33 minutes faster than Amtrak would
    accomplish the same thing on a grade A rail at its maximum
    capacity. So why we are spending billions of dollars on that--
    and we have given up on the whole concept, the voters passed--
    when they barely passed the $10 billion bond about 10 years
    ago. It mystifies me. So I hope we can have some rethinking on
    that, because our transportation system really needs to have
    its emphasis on stuff that people can use: improved highways,
    et cetera.
        So when we talk about moving freight, we also have at the
    local level a very important need for truck traffic, and the--
    because, basically, the motto is if you got it, a truck brought
    it. When, you know, you get to your local level.
        So in California we have some very difficult standards on
    the trucking industry there that CARB has a habit of passing a
    bill and waiting for the technology to catch up later. It
    mandated, I think back in 1990, that 10 percent of cars sold
    would have to be zero emissions by the year 2000. Well, they
    had to back off from that because battery technology and car
    technology never caught up to a mandate by whim of a State
    legislator. So we have that, with the difficulty with diesel
    trucks in the State, trying to catch up and being retrofitted
    with these devices that cost tens of thousands of dollars that,
    in many cases, were catching fire in these retrofits.
        So I don't know what the positive is there. I have had
    anecdotes where people talk to me where they have these devices
    fitted to some of their hay equipment, and their--up and down
    the road they have to stop what they are doing every once in a
    while and run the vehicle from actually working speed up and
    down the road in order to let the filter burn its way out, and
    then go back to work.
        So this retrofitting doesn't always fit the program. It is
    when--and Caterpillar actually pulled out of California from
    supplying diesel engines. Can you imagine? Every guy, every
    cafe you go into, somebody is wearing a cap that says Cat
    Diesel Power, and them being out of the diesel business in
    California for a time. So this is what happens when you make
    mandates.
        So I would like to hear from Mr. Lyon here. What we are
    talking about is allowing technology, allowing the market to
    work. And if we allow that to happen, things like eliminating
    the excise tax on heavy trucks, allowing more of these newer
    trucks to be sold instead of trying to retrofit by the force of
    mandate, what would that look like for the market? What would
    it look like to improving the fleet?
        Mr. Lyon. It is a great question. I wish I had the data at
    my fingertips to give you a really good answer on that. And I
    would be happy to respond in more detail with a----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, what we have is the Federal excise tax
    in relation to the amount of dollars it generates to help
    infrastructure is pretty small, but you have a pent-up market
    there, especially driven by mandate--truckers that can afford
    it that are not just mom-and-pop but, you know, $120,000,
    $130,000 trucks. The FET adds, you know, $10,000, $15,000,
    $20,000 to the price of that. Do you think that would be a
    great incentive to move more new vehicles? By eliminating----
        Mr. Lyon. Like I said, I don't really know the details of
    the tax structure there in California.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, it is national FET on that, so----
        Mr. Lyon. I don't know. I mean it does seem like, to me,
    that trucks cause a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on
    roads. And so it may be perfectly reasonable to tax them at a
    higher VMT rate than light-weight vehicles. But that is not to
    say that----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, they are paying a lot more weight fee--
    --
        Mr. Lyon [continuing]. The current tax rates are----
        Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Than everybody else, too. So they
    carry their share on that, and generally end up with more of
    the bill.
        So, well, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We now recognize Mr. Allred for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today and sharing your insights with
    us on how we can create a more sustainable transportation
    solution to combat climate change.
        I represent parts of Dallas and the suburbs of Dallas to
    the north, a district that encompasses some thriving job
    markets, great colleges and universities, bustling arts and
    cultural scene. And we also are experiencing extremely rapid
    growth. We have more than 100,000 people a year moving from out
    of State just to my region. And that growth has led us to have
    some unique challenges that we need to address as we try to
    mitigate the congestion on our roads, and combat our greenhouse
    gas emissions.
        In addition to those congestion issues, Texans are also
    grappling with frequent and intense extreme weather events, as
    my colleague, Mrs. Fletcher, mentioned, in Houston. But also in
    north Texas we have experienced record droughts and extremely
    high temperature patterns. And now, more than ever, I think it
    is important that we invest in resilient infrastructure that is
    built to withstand the stresses of uncertain weather
    conditions. And I look forward to working with the members of
    this committee to do that.
        I also want to just recognize the city of Dallas and our
    mayor, led by Mayor Mike Rawlings, and their efforts to move
    Dallas forward to address climate change, and to make Dallas a
    global leader in that area in a way that also is consistent
    with meeting our infrastructure needs.
        And I want to respectfully disagree with some of the
    statements that have been made about high-speed rail. There is
    a very promising high-speed rail project between Dallas and
    Houston that is largely privately funded that I think will be a
    model for the rest of the country, and one that I think will be
    an economic boon for Texas. And, as I said, other areas may try
    to replicate what we are doing there.
        Ms. Arroyo, in your testimony you mention that cities
    across the country are reducing air pollution by increasing
    transportation options like investment in public transit, bike,
    and pedestrian facilities, and new mobility solutions. Do you
    feel that investments in high-speed intercity passenger rails--
    rail systems--could contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions?
        Ms. Arroyo. So thanks for that question. And a shout out to
    Dallas. As you saw, I held up DART as an example, because they
    are, you know, just doing such innovative work to make it
    seamless for people to use transit. And if you go around the
    world on your travels, you see that other countries have
    managed to find ways to invest in high-speed rail.
        I am not an expert on what exactly is happening in a
    particular place like California or Texas, but I think for
    certain, you know, metropolitan areas, connecting those routes
    will be really important to get some of the folks off of the
    interstates, which are clogged and have some challenges
    associated with them, in terms of the pollution, both
    conventional pollution that comes from them for the people who
    live around them who tend to be disproportionately, you know,
    poor, minority communities that those interstates cut through.
        So I think rail--both conventional rail and high-speed
    rail--does offer some really exciting alternatives to that.
        Mr. Allred. Dr. Sperling? Same question to you.
        Mr. Sperling. About high-speed rail?
        Mr. Allred. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Sperling. Yes. I mean it definitely would result in a
    reduction in CO2, especially--you know, the answer to a lot of
    these pollution and CO2 questions is how is the electricity
    generated.
        So, in California, for instance, it was planned that it
    would be coming totally from renewable energy. And in fact, the
    law now is to go to completely carbon-free electricity by 2045.
    So, I mean, that is really the answer, simple answer, to the
    environmental issues.
        Mr. Allred. Ms. Arroyo, back to you. In your testimony you
    state that, since 1980, 241 extreme weather-related events have
    cost the U.S. an estimated $1.6 trillion. That is a pretty big
    number. But then again, infrastructure investments also have a
    high price tag.
        Do you think there would be a net savings for the Federal
    Government if we were to invest in disaster mitigation and
    resilient infrastructure, rather than emergency spending once a
    disaster has occurred?
        Ms. Arroyo. So, again, thanks for that question. There is a
    new study out from the National Institute of Building Sciences
    that actually increased the number of the rate of return from--
    for every $1 that you spend getting a benefit of $4 to up to $6
    now. That is a new 2018 estimate from things like, you know,
    elevating buildings in that context, or just--you know,
    designing things differently, or allowing people to rebuild
    differently after storms, so you are not basically just putting
    people back into harm's way and throwing good money after bad.
        So it is an excellent question, and it is very true, that
    resilient infrastructure investment on the front end can save
    you $6 for every $1 that you invest on the back end.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We have been trying to get high-speed
    rail between Las Vegas and southern California for a long time.
        I now recognize Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that we are
    supposed to reach zero emissions, CO2 emissions, in 12 years.
    And we won't be flying airplanes any more. But how are we going
    to do that, considering the amount of CO2 that China and other
    nations that come into the United States--do you have an
    infrastructure solution for that, Dr. Sperling?
        Mr. Sperling. Well, if we look at China specifically, I
    know it is easy to, you know, to bang on----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, your answer, is it yes or no? Do you have
    an infrastructure solution for that?
        Mr. Sperling. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. You do? How are you going to block emissions
    from China?
        Mr. Sperling. They will do it--they are on the path to do
    it. They have a plan to peak by 2030, and they are making much
    larger investments in renewable energy on their own than we are
    in the United States.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, here is what we have had, in terms of
    annual CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2017. The United States has
    reduced its emissions by 15 percent. That is over 1 billion
    metric tons. Same period of time, China's is up over 4 billion.
    That is double, and it is continuing to go up.
        So maybe in 2029 they will implement their 2030 plan? It is
    kind of like what we do on our 10-year budget. You know, we
    will just--we are always--next year we will be balanced in 10
    years. Is that----
        Mr. Sperling. Well----
        Mr. Palmer. See, what the Chinese have here is an
    advantage. As we make these changes to our economy, they will
    dominate the world economy. You do take the socio--the
    geopolitics into consideration here, don't you?
        Mr. Sperling. Yes. But if I look at it simply from an
    environmental perspective, they have a strong incentive there
    to reduce air pollution, and to--in fact, they are the global
    leaders on both renewable energy and electric vehicles.
        Mr. Palmer. I think they have a stronger incentive to
    become the dominant power in the world, but we will leave that
    for another discussion for another time.
        I would like to point out one of our colleagues brought up
    asthma. Asthma rates have skyrocketed.
        Ms. Arroyo, do you have any idea of why that is? I will ask
    for yours.
        Ms. Arroyo. I don't. I mean I am not a medical doctor. But,
    I mean, air pollution is certainly one leading contributor to
    that, as well as indoor air pollution that can come from, you
    know, pests, and things like that. But I am not an expert on
    asthma.
        Mr. Palmer. It is interesting, because air quality in the
    United States has improved dramatically since 1970. You know,
    our GDP has gone up 262 percent, vehicle miles are up over 189
    percent, population is up 59 percent, energy consumption is up
    44 percent. Yet emissions are down 73 percent and asthma rates
    have skyrocketed.
        Ms. Arroyo. Well, I mean, one thing I can say, based on my
    own experience as a regulator, as an environmental regulator in
    Louisiana, is that, you know, you can look at a mean, like air
    pollution, nationally or even statewide, and that doesn't
    necessarily speak to the people who might be the most impacted.
        And those again, as I said earlier to Mr. Allred's
    question, tend to be people who are disproportionately, you
    know, poor, communities of color, living in places like near
    ports, near highways, hot spots like in my own home State of
    Louisiana, around very major industrial facilities----
        Mr. Palmer. I am glad you----
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. That benefit everybody, but only a
    minority of people live near them.
        Mr. Palmer. I am glad you brought up the fact that most of
    them--it generally impacts poor people. First of all, nobody
    knows what causes asthma, so that was--I appreciate you--your
    response to that. But when you do damage to the economy, you
    generally have more poor people. And I would just point out
    that whatever we do in regard to infrastructure, we need to
    make sure that it benefits all Americans.
        And on the electric vehicles, you made the point that we
    are--you almost made the point that we are dependent on foreign
    oil and--for our energy. We are not. We are on the path to
    becoming energy independent. I think electric vehicles have a
    role to play in that, but I am not sure that we are in a place
    where the market supports that, given that we put over $40
    billion in subsidies into the electric vehicle industry.
        One of my colleagues said he bought an electric vehicle. I
    think the subsidies that are available to people who buy
    vehicles, some are approaching $7,500. When you add the State
    subsidies, it could be $13,000. And almost 80 percent of the
    people who get them are earning over $100,000, so it is kind of
    a limited market, wouldn't you say?
        Mr. Prochazka. I think that we are on the verge of seeing
    the market be available to all consumers. And I think that, at
    this point, you know, the fact that we sent $133 billion abroad
    to pay for oil in 2018 alone----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, we are about----
        Mr. Prochazka [continuing]. Suggests that we still have a
    challenge.
        Mr. Palmer. I can assure you that those days are becoming
    fewer, when we will be sending money abroad. We will be sending
    oil abroad, and the money be coming back to us.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Davids for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sharice
    Davids. I represent the Kansas Third Congressional District.
    And I appreciate all of you and your time and effort that went
    into your testimony.
        So one of the things that really struck me in listening to
    the entire panel is that we have a really interesting
    juxtaposition of things here. The airline industry, or, you
    know, the idea that it happens to be that your--the market
    pushes you toward efficiency in a way that benefits our
    concerns and addresses our concerns about climate change. And a
    lot of us have concerns about climate change in Kansas.
        In the Kansas City metro area we have the Kansas City
    Climate Change Coalition that includes elected officials,
    people from various sectors. And even the Kansas City
    Transportation Authority has started to--they are looking to,
    hopefully, acquire electric buses. They are operating on
    hybrids right now.
        I think there are a lot of folks, especially in my area,
    where we have multimodal, a lot of multimodal concerns. There
    is a lot of rail in the Kansas City metro area. There is a lot
    of air. There is a lot of highway. We have five highways that
    intersect.
        But one of the things that I have noticed is--Professor
    Lyon, I would love to hear you kind of talk about the idea of
    the market deciding--sometimes the market does decide. But at
    what point do you draw the line around innovation? Because at
    some point the Federal Government did decide that passenger
    vehicles, rail, and car were going to be the thing that we
    would use. And now, everything that I have heard addresses
    alternatives to the thing that we decided some number of years
    ago.
        It seems as though we are at a place right now where we
    need to be thinking in terms of not just the market, dollar-
    wise, but also what does climate change do to the market.
        How are you thinking about innovation, but not just in
    terms of electric vehicles, innovation of the way that we are
    viewing the market?
        Mr. Lyon. Well, let me try to speak to that. Environmental
    economists normally think there are two big things we need to
    do regarding climate change.
        One is put a price on carbon, and two is fund, with
    Government funds, early-stage innovation for research and
    development into technologies that will help reduce carbon
    emissions. So those are kind of the two big categories, and I
    think it is pretty widely recognized that Government needs to
    help with that early-stage R&D investment. And that has driven
    spin-offs into all kinds of different sectors. I mean the tax
    sector, for one.
        I think the question is where do you stop that and hand
    things off to the market to actually do the deployment. And my
    worry is that Government sometimes goes too far into the actual
    deployment process. So we want to have this kind of smooth,
    intelligent hand-off from one to the other.
        I don't know if that addresses your question exactly.
        Ms. Davids. I think I might follow up with a written
    question for you around that.
        Mr. Lyon. Sure, sure.
        Ms. Davids. So, Mr. Prochazka, can you talk a little bit
    more about the innovations around the way we are deploying
    electric vehicles--like, the charging stations and that sort of
    thing?
        And you have talked a little bit already about the impact
    that subsidies can have. But can you talk a little bit about
    where the subsidies in other places might be hindering your
    ability to do this, or the way that we are viewing who is
    getting what subsidies? Because I feel like you have touched on
    it a little bit, but I would like to hear a bit more.
        Mr. Prochazka. Well, first, let me just mention thank you
    for the question. I have been to the great city of Kansas City,
    and KCP&L----
        Ms. Davids. Oh, a smart city.
        Mr. Prochazka. Yes, a smart city. But in this case, Kansas
    City Power and Light is a great example of the idea of how you
    can connect innovation with changes in infrastructure. And in a
    lot of ways, Kansas City is helping build the 21st-century
    solution to how city infrastructure--and then I think long-term
    infrastructure--needs to develop around the country.
        And a great example of that is charging infrastructure, we
    just think of it as a place to charge our cars, but it also can
    be a great way to help the grid actually respond to demand and
    pique demand. And so they are installing smart chargers, and
    also connecting it to information so when people charge you can
    actually connect the information around that community.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you for that. And I am glad--because I
    was going to have to do it--that you mentioned KCP&L and their
    work toward providing electric vehicle chargers.
        With that I will yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Stauber for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
    witnesses coming forward, and I appreciate your expertise and
    your knowledge.
        I come from northern Minnesota, the northeastern part of
    Minnesota, where just a few weeks ago it was 71 below zero. And
    Dr. Sperling, when you talk about using scooters to get to and
    from work, at 71 below parked outside, it is not going to work
    in northern Minnesota. And so, I think that we all, I think,
    want to get there.
        Mr. Lyon, you just said something that I really agree with.
    It is that change--it is that gentle tradeoff with the
    innovation, research, and development, where the private market
    will take over. Because right now we are subsidizing a vast
    majority of our technology to get to zero emissions.
        And I think we have to recognize that there are different
    parts of the country that, because of the weather changes, that
    we have to look at. And I am just going to give you an example.
        In Duluth, Minnesota, it is obviously cold a lot of times
    of the year. And I will say it is a great part of the country,
    by the way. So we have the Duluth Transit Authority. They
    started their electric buses. There was a $6.3 million Federal
    grant. They started using those buses on November 19th of this
    year. And on November 30th they had to pull those buses off
    because of the problems on--the hills they were starting out,
    they were going beyond the 6 inches in backing when they
    started on a hill. The heaters weren't working.
        And so the--there was--the innovation started, the
    temperatures, it didn't work right away in Duluth. They had to
    actually go to diesel heaters in there. And I think that--so
    you are looking at a Federal grant that--the buses, I am told,
    now are working with the additional fixes.
        But I really appreciate you talking about that public-
    private partnership to push the innovation. But at some point I
    think that we need to let the market, the private industry,
    take over and reduce the subsidies and move that forward. I am
    very, you know, concerned about the push on the Federal
    Government to move forward.
        I would say that my question, really, is this. You know, we
    have the Highway Trust Fund and the Airway Trust Fund. If we
    remove--you know, go to these innovative green projects, how
    would--how do you make up--how do we make up the $35.6 billion
    shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund and the cut to the public
    transportation, and almost $100 million cut to the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund with this new technology?
        And this goes to anybody, if you would like to answer it.
        Mr. Sperling. There are many ways to raise funding for
    these kinds of initiatives. So, you know, to use California as
    an example, we have not only the cap and trade program, which
    funds probably $1 billion a year in clean transportation, but
    it is used also for affordable housing near transit stations
    and greening of communities to reduce emissions, as well.
        We have a low-carbon fuel standard, so--I should say there
    is no taxpayer money involved in that. There is, of course,
    money--you know, eventually comes from individuals. But then we
    have a low-carbon fuel standard that is a market trading
    program between the oil companies and other energy suppliers.
    And that ends up providing large incentives. Part of that will
    be providing probably about $2,000 to buyers of electric cars.
    It provides funding to builders of charging stations and
    hydrogen stations.
        So I am just illustrating that everything doesn't have to
    come from the trust fund.
        Mr. Stauber. OK----
        Ms. Arroyo. I would just add that I participated in the
    future of the Interstate Highway System report that was
    requested by Congress. And obviously, the trust fund has
    already been in dire straits for some time, and part because
    the gas tax revenues haven't been raised because the gas tax
    itself hasn't been revisited in so long, and with efficiency
    improvements, et cetera.
        So some States, like Oregon and some of the States on the
    I-95 corridor, are experimenting with VMT approaches. Some
    States are adding registration fees to lower carbon fuel
    vehicles like electric vehicles.
        The future of the Interstate Highway System report said
    that we might consider changes to the Federal system, as well,
    in terms of allowing tolling, which, of course, they are doing
    already on the I-66 portion inside the beltway. And, you know,
    carbon pricing mechanisms like those that are being considered
    by the States in this region can also provide money for
    investment and clean and resilient transportation
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Finkenauer
    for 5 minutes. Your mic is not on.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Is that better? Thank you all so much for
    being here today. It truly is an honor. And I am just very
    grateful that Congress is taking climate change seriously, and
    the impact of severe weather to our infrastructure seriously.
        I do really think we have a real opportunity here to
    rebuild our infrastructure in a way that is more resilient to
    severe weather, less harmful for our environment, and includes
    solutions that actually reduce greenhouse gases.
        And I got to be honest, I am very, very proud to come from
    northeast Iowa, and Iowa's First Congressional District,
    because so many of my towns and cities are taking this
    seriously, and want to move in this direction, and have been
    making some very serious progress towards improving the
    efficiency of our transportation networks.
        Waterloo is one city in my district that has done great
    work, you know, recently launching a mobile app, trying to make
    transit more accessible, and a more viable option for folks.
        You have got Dubuque, where I am from, that has been
    partnering with IBM, really making great strides, both
    collecting data through smart phones, where folks can opt in
    and make sure that we have the most up-to-date data of where we
    need some help in our transit system, making streets more
    accessible, what is in need of repair, a bunch of different
    issues. So excited to see that partnership developing.
        And I will tell you, because of these partnerships and some
    of the stuff that my district is working towards, it has
    created a very interesting conversation in Iowa, one, about
    making sure that we are doing more using technology. And when
    we are investing infrastructure, making sure we are doing it in
    a sustainable way.
        So I would love to hear from this panel on intelligent
    transportation systems. And specifically, how can we use new
    technologies to reduce congestion, and therefore reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions? What are you guys seeing on the State
    and local level? What programs are worth expanding? And then
    what can be scaled up on the Federal level, so that we can make
    sure every community can benefit?
        Mr. Sperling. Let me start. I have such a long list. But,
    you know, one thing is, like, for instance, we have in our
    transportation bill in California that sets aside money for a
    congested corridor program, green congested corridor program,
    that is a competitive program that provides funding for local
    communities that come up with innovative and creative ideas. So
    there might be something like that that could be scaled up.
        I want to note also that, at the end of the day, we have
    seen a tremendous increase in vehicle miles traveled, and a big
    part of that is because people are traveling by themselves. I
    saw a number: 1970, for a car, the average occupancy was 1.9,
    and now it is 1.4. That, by itself, explains much of the
    increase in VMT.
        Now, the role of these intelligent transportation systems,
    smart transportation, pooling, is--the idea is that--I think
    is--really, the key to it is what I call pooling. And that is
    increasing the utilization of our vehicles.
        You know, if we build more infrastructure, they will come.
    And so, we want to provide it in a way that we do make
    efficient use of the infrastructure so we don't need more of
    it. In fact, you know, we will need less parking. And as we
    move--so one of the ideas is to encourage services like Uber
    Pool or Lyft Share or Via, and also in connecting them with
    transit, so that transit does what it does well, where it
    serves line haul, dense corridors, but we create these services
    that will provide better mobility and better accessibility,
    even for relatively low-density areas.
        We have the tools now. We didn't have them 5 or 10 years
    ago. And we are doing a project in the Central Valley in
    California, which is very rural, where we create these--they
    start out as car sharing, but people can take the cars and use
    them to transport other people, and it creates jobs and it
    improves accessibility for all those people that don't have
    easy access to high-quality vehicles.
        Ms. Finkenauer. OK, thank you so much.
        And Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Well, now I move to Mr. Balderson for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like
    to--my questions be directed to Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for
    taking the time to be here today.
        And I know that you have mentioned in your testimony the
    Electrification Coalition has served as a strategic advisor to
    Smart Cities Columbus and--thank you very much for your work on
    that, and you and I are going to discuss that even further. But
    I am proud of the innovation work that is being done in
    Columbus, and also in my district.
        While Smart Columbus specifically focuses on addressing
    transportation challenges in an urban environment, how can
    rural areas learn from such initiatives, so they could address
    their own distinct transportation challenges and needs?
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And, you know,
    if anyone is looking for an example of how a community can go
    from zero to now being a leader, Columbus is probably one of
    the best examples. So I would encourage anyone looking at
    strategies and techniques to drive adoption of plug-in electric
    vehicles, Columbus is a great example.
        To answer your question, I think, you know, there are key
    examples of programs that are developing in cities and, I
    think, rural communities that are great opportunities to drive
    innovation. One of the key ones that I think is a good
    opportunity is the idea of joint purchasing. So cities are
    actually banding together, recognizing that maybe in smaller
    communities they don't have access to the number of vehicles or
    the pricing that might exist for larger cities.
        And so, by joining together--and that is actually happening
    in Columbus, where they created a master contract so that any
    city throughout the State can actually purchase the same EV
    that Columbus can purchase. Those are great examples of
    innovations that are reducing costs and creating better access
    for communities all across the State.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. That leads me into the next
    question, and you touched on it just a little bit.
        Under the leadership of the Columbus partnership, the Smart
    Columbus Acceleration Fund has already leveraged over $500
    million in private-sector investment, which is a big number.
    American Electric Power, which is headquartered in Columbus,
    local car dealerships, and other businesses have worked with
    the city of Columbus to encourage Smart Columbus and promote
    the development of electric vehicles within the city.
        How can we use Columbus as an example throughout the Nation
    to encourage the involvement of private-sector businesses to
    help new technology into our infrastructure?
        Mr. Prochazka. And again, thank you for the question. So
    you know, in Columbus they have a saying that I had to learn,
    but ``the Columbus way.'' And I think that, in a lot of ways,
    they have just electrified the Columbus way. But the idea is
    that you really can have these burgeoning public-private
    partnerships that can go much further than cities can do on
    their own, or than the private sector can do on their own.
        And it is this idea of leveraging the investments and the
    innovation and, frankly, the ingenuity. So they created, as an
    example, something called the Mobility Partners, where over 60
    businesses that are representing Fortune 100, Fortune 500
    companies that exist in Columbus--which many people don't
    know--and those are banding together and creating amazing
    programs. They have been able to put 7,000 people behind the
    wheel through that partnership. They have been working on
    creating innovation funds that can happen through, as you
    mentioned, AEP and others to help drive acquisition of vehicles
    faster and to help create programs that are moving the needle.
        And then I think the other part of this is that they are
    also not recreating the wheel on every example. And so, by
    working together, they are finding the strategies that might
    work at Alliance Data and then bringing that over to Cargill
    Health, and then replicating that at L Brands. And those are
    perfect examples of the kind of innovation that could happen
    across the country.
        Mr. Balderson. I commend you. Thank you very much.
        I yield back the remainder of my time, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Lowenthal
    for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to all our
    witnesses, I have listened the entire session and have found it
    very, very interesting.
        You know, I also represent an area that is impacted by
    climate change very much, southern California--sea level rise.
    But I am also--what is unique about my district is that I
    represent the port area of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which
    over 20 years ago was part of the dirtiest collection of
    industrial concentration. Forty percent of our Nation's goods
    come in and out of the port area in my district.
        But there have been dramatic changes. And part of that
    has--and I am going to ask both Ms. Arroyo and also Dr.
    Sperling--has to do with some of the incentives and some of the
    money that has been provided for freight.
        So I want to focus on freight. Much of our discussion today
    has been--although it has been mentioned--has been on, really,
    you know, passenger vehicles and others. But I think that much
    of what we have done in California, I am wondering how that
    translates to the rest of the Nation.
        I think, Ms. Arroyo, you mentioned in your testimony--I
    think the written testimony--about how the cap and trade
    program has helped a lot. I know Dr. Sperling has worked very
    much on that through CARB, also.
        But first, and--I am interested in, you know, how--we have
    attacked in California, or we have targeted our State's freight
    sector in a way that we have done--moved towards zero emission,
    yard equipment, and heavy-duty trucks that--moving toward zero
    emission and charging outlets, and now talking about tier 3
    container ships. And so we are kind of moving in that direction
    in California.
        Interesting, now, that as Dr. Sperling has mentioned, I
    still--I have circled in his--but emissions are--no matter
    what--even though what we are doing--emissions are still
    rising. And even though I have heard all this reduction from
    other Members, that one sentence has frightened me the most,
    that all this amount of resources that we are doing--I am just
    kind of wondering from you, even though this is not the
    critical question--when are we going to reach a tipping point,
    where those emissions start to drop?
        You know, is it that we need new kinds of--you mentioned
    about, you know, sharing and automation and also
    electrification. But the question I want from Ms. Arroyo is
    that--how are we going to build upon what you mentioned? Let's
    say things like the funding cycles, like cap and trade and
    others, cost of carbon. What do we need to do to move the rest
    of the Nation towards adopting this?
        You know, California has paid--and I am not saying it is
    just California--has paid a lot of attention towards reducing.
    But what is the rest of--what do we need to do? What are the
    major things for freight? Is it the same as passenger vehicles?
    What are the incentives that we really need to do?
        Ms. Arroyo. So there are a lot of different approaches to
    freight, including trying to shift from the roads to rail, as
    the----
        Dr. Lowenthal. That is right.
        Ms. Arroyo [continuing]. Gentleman on this side of the
    aisle mentioned earlier. And also short sea shipping, which is
    hard to say fast, but I said it slowly----
        Dr. Lowenthal. And the ports are moving towards rail.
        Ms. Arroyo. Right.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Much more of the--much more because, as was
    pointed out, we are not going to build more--through urban
    centers we are not building more highways. And our growth
    continues, even though they have demonstrated that they can
    reduce the pollution. But the growth is still there. And I
    think rail has been certainly one of the answers.
        Ms. Arroyo. But I think there is definitely a role for a
    committee like this one. Because what we found in facilitating
    the Transportation and Climate Initiative over 8 years now or
    more has been that there is a great interest in the States in
    this region, which runs from Virginia now all the way up to
    Maine, in working together to analyze what the freight flows
    into and around the region are and to try to move it to more
    efficient options, which would actually save our roads for
    passenger vehicles, get it into rail or shipping, et cetera,
    look at the emissions benefits that come from that. And there
    really, frankly, has not been a lot of support for that, so
    that work has not been as sustainable as other work that we
    have done together. For example, on electric vehicles, where
    there have been DoD and DOE grants to support corridor planning
    and things like that.
        So one of the things that this group as a region is looking
    at is a policy proposal that would be under development this
    year to have a cap and invest program that would generate
    proceeds that could be invested in cleaner and more resilient
    transportation infrastructure. And that is to be determined by
    the States themselves over the course of the year.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I know I am just about out of time. But Dr.
    Sperling, any other thoughts about----
        Mr. Sperling. Just quickly, you know, you need to think of
    it both on the technology side and on the logistics use side.
    And I think we are making some progress on the technology side.
    On the logistics side, that is why we are seeing the emissions
    going up on the passenger side as well as on the freight side.
        And part of the challenge is that States do not have much
    jurisdiction over the rail. Rail is great but, you know, part
    of it is dealing with that issue because of the interstate
    commerce. And aviation, the same thing. So we need a renewed
    focus.
        But it is the States and locals that really need to focus
    on this, what is happening at the local area. And frankly, with
    the--I call it the Amazon-izaton of delivery, we are seeing
    this proliferation of warehouses all through our communities
    now. And it is resulting in a lot more truck--local truck VMT,
    which is--and L.A. is right at the forefront of that.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Westerman for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
    witnesses for being here. I just want to say I appreciate the
    testimonies today and the questions. I think it has been very
    informative. I want to recap a couple of things.
        First, high-speed rail, I have looked at that project in
    Texas and I think if there is any place that high-speed rail
    would work in our country, it is probably from Dallas to
    Houston. So I hope that the private sector will move forward
    with building that and that we in Congress can help that along,
    as well.
        But I wanted to, and also, when we talk about modes of
    transportation that are fuel efficient, we talked a lot about
    rail but we forget oftentimes about our inland waterways and
    barges that are the most energy efficient means of moving goods
    that we have. So I hope we keep that in mind as we look at ways
    of creating more sustainable transportation.
        But as we look at kind of the global numbers and where we
    fit and where U.S. transportation fits in that, the best data I
    could find says that the U.S. accounts for about 15 percent of
    global greenhouse gas emissions. And, Ms. Young, in your
    testimony, you had a chart in there that shows that the U.S.
    transportation sector is about 28\1/2\ percent of U.S.
    greenhouse gas emissions. So that means that, you know, 28\1/2\
    percent of 15 percent, means that the U.S. transportation GHG
    emissions are about 4.3 percent.
        So as we look at ways to trim that, we also have to
    remember that there is a whole other world out there creating
    greenhouse gas emissions. And that is why I think we need to
    look at all the different energy sectors as we talk about this.
    But we can definitely make some impact on U.S. transportation.
        Ms. Young, you in your written testimony, you talked a lot
    about sustainable alternative jet fuels. And I think when we
    talk about sustainable fuels, we often think that any liquid
    fuels are not sustainable. But we know that these sustainable
    alternative jet fuels are made from biomass. And I was just
    looking at some other data.
        In 2015 in California, with all the controls put in place,
    they were able to offset 1.49 million metric tons of greenhouse
    gas emissions. Yet the wildfires in California generated 22.8
    million metric tons of carbon, which is 15 times more carbon
    was emitted in those wildfires than what the State of
    California was able to reduce.
        So as we think about liquid fuels and the vast forest
    resources that we have here, can you elaborate a little bit
    more about where we are on alternative liquid fuels?
        Ms. Young. Yeah, really, thank you for the question. We are
    very proud of what we have done through the Commercial Aviation
    Alternative Fuels Initiative to really create the path forward
    for sustainable alternative jet fuel. And so, you know,
    beginning in 2006, we started that process. And what we did is
    we drove the jet fuel specification, which used to only allow
    petroleum-based fuel, to allow for alternative feedstocks, that
    also have carbon content, frankly.
        So an example, really picking up on your thoughts there, we
    can take woody waste, so we are not knocking down trees to do
    this but after a fire or, in the Pacific Northwest where they
    have, you know, specified amounts of logging, you are able to
    take out the waste product from that and turn it into jet fuel.
    In fact, there are two of our members are working with Red Rock
    Biofuels in Oregon on exactly that type of an approach.
        We have United Airlines working with waste residues from
    cropping. So again, not the food but with AltAir Fuels in
    California to create sustainable alternative jet fuel.
        Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to move along. I have
    actually got another question I want to submit to you on
    NextGen, performance-based navigation but I will give that to
    you in writing if you can reply back to the committee.
        Last week in my district, I drove a Tesla. It was an
    amazing piece of equipment. Being an engineer, I had great
    appreciation for it. But I know that Tesla requires electricity
    to operate. And electrical generation and industry make up
    about 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in our
    country.
        So Dr. Sperling, real quickly, how important is it to
    develop nuclear, hydro, all the other renewable energies if we
    move into more of an electric situation?
        Mr. Sperling. This is speaking for myself but, certainly, I
    believe nuclear is part of it, is part of the solution. Hydro,
    we have developed most of the big hydro, so probably limited
    options there. But nuclear, for sure. And wind and solar are
    the other major ways of reducing emissions in the electricity
    sector.
        Mr. Westerman. Not out of questions but out of time, Madam
    Chair.
        Ms. Titus. OK. We need to worry about nuclear waste if we
    go down that path.
        I will now recognize Ms. Norton for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I suppose actually this
    question is for whoever wants it, perhaps Ms. Arroyo or perhaps
    others of you, as well.
        The Nation's capital, where we are as I speak, sits on the
    banks of two rivers, the Potomac River and the Anacostia River.
    It is interesting that the framers built this Capitol on a
    hill. Maybe they had some understanding of what might be coming
    a couple of hundred years later.
        We have already had to build a levee, the 17th Street
    levee, because among the low points, perhaps the lowest point
    is downtown Washington, where the Federal Triangle is. And you
    will see buildings or agencies there, such as the Justice
    Department and the IRS--people don't like to see the IRS coming
    but they certainly don't want it flooded because we are just
    going to have to pay for it.
        About 10 years ago, there was a serious flood here.
    Constitution Avenue was under water. I recall distinctly that
    the National Archives, where some of our most precious
    documents are housed, was under water. They then had used a
    self-rising wall for downtown Washington.
        So this thing is coming so fast, I am interested in the use
    of nonpolluting vehicles. I drive a hybrid. I am very
    interested to get to the point where I drive an electric car.
    But some of them have, for example, we are having in this city,
    the District of Columbia, we will use the notion of a rebate,
    where you pay more based on the emissions generated by the
    automobile that you have and you get a rebate if you do not
    have as many emissions.
        So I would like to know how effective--because these things
    are beginning to catch on, not only here but around the
    country. How effective are these rebates or fines, virtually,
    in encouraging the use of low-emission vehicles? Is it going to
    be sufficient to have an effect as climate change comes upon
    places like the Nation's capital so quickly? Are we running out
    of time or do these really make a difference, particularly when
    some of these cars cost more than cars that pollute, use gas
    that pollute?
        Ms. Arroyo. So, thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed our center
    at Georgetown, where you also teach, I know, works with Tommy
    Wells and his staff here on resilience, the impacts of climate
    change the District is already seeing, including in ward 7,
    which is already experiencing flooding from rain events.
        But as Tommy Wells believes, I believe in electric vehicles
    as part of the solution. I drive a Bolt. It has been terrific.
    It is my first American car that I have ever bought and it was
    more expensive than cars that I bought in the past. So I do
    think it is a case where a rebate makes a difference in the
    upfront cost of it even though, over the course of a lifetime,
    that cost, you know, is actually less than a gasoline vehicle.
        And DC actually gets a shout out in my testimony, in the
    longer version of it, because you do have what is known as a
    feebate kind of a program in practice, where people who buy and
    drive gas guzzlers subsidize the purchase of those more
    efficient vehicles. And that could be a model for the country,
    I think.
        Mr. Sperling. And I would like to just add to it because
    this is one of my favorite policies, this idea of feebates.
    Because it is--you can make it revenue neutral so there is no
    burden on taxpayers at all. It is simply a trade from people
    that are buying the gas guzzlers. And, in fact, we have a gas
    guzzler and it has been in place since 1975 but it is only on
    cars and it is only for the most inefficient cars. So this is
    not a new idea, at least on the fee side of it.
        So I think this is an outstanding way of using market
    forces to accomplish an environmental goal.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Lynch for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to,
    as well, thank the witnesses who have been terrific with their
    testimony and I appreciate you helping the committee with its
    work this morning.
        Recently, in the latest worldwide threat assessment of the
    U.S. intelligence community issued by Director of National
    Intelligence Dan Coats, he said that climate change poses a
    serious global threat that could further spark international
    political instability, adverse health conditions and
    humanitarian crises. Meanwhile, President Trump says he is not
    a believer and, what is more, he has established an ad hoc
    committee to reassess the fact of climate change and the
    science around it. And in doing so, he has appointed some
    scientists who, like himself, do not believe in climate change.
        And so I want to ask you, considering our efforts here, is
    that helpful? Does anybody on this panel think that that is
    helpful? OK, I didn't think so.
        I, on the other hand, I hate to be a self-promoter, but I
    have a bill. I chair--another hat I wear is the chair of the
    National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight
    and Reform and I have got a bill that actually would
    reinstitute the preexisting initiative which basically asks all
    of our branches of Government, all of our departments just to
    look at their own operations and see how we might build
    resilience and help to prepare for whatever is coming down the
    pike at us in terms of climate change.
        I have a special bone to pick, though, Ms. Young. So I am
    also on the Subcommittee on Aviation here and I mean this as a
    friendly exchange. But we talk about RNAV NextGen, this
    aviation system that is very, very good at conserving jet fuel,
    because you have got hundreds of thousands, millions of flights
    that come in over the course of a year across our country and
    everybody is on this tractor beam, it is really precise, it's
    laser-like, so that tens or hundreds of thousands of flights
    per year go over the same home, go over the same child's
    school.
        So while there is a--it is sort of counterintuitive. I know
    we are trying to save jet fuel. But I worry about--I have one
    of those districts, I am in a coastal community, I represent
    the area surrounding or near Logan Airport in Boston. And so I
    have some towns where it is relentless that this focus, this
    laser beam has flights coming in. I could stand, I could look
    out my window, I can tell--I am so close to the airport that I
    can tell whether people have their tray in the upright position
    going by, of the plane going by, I swear. So I have two hearing
    aids, it is over for me.
        But the towns I represent, I worry about their health. The
    emissions coming from those planes, and the noise is driving
    them nuts. And so these are over schools, these are over small
    towns. And is there some way, look, now, I understand you want
    to save jet fuel. And so I am only talking about the end
    approach of their flight. I am not talking about, you know,
    redirecting so there is a huge waste of jet fuel. I am just
    talking about when they get in X number of miles, 8 or 10 miles
    of the airport and they start to decrease in altitude, could
    we, could we change the approaches so that same house in
    Milton, Massachusetts, is not getting, you know, 10,000 flights
    a month? Or the Cunningham School in Milton, Massachusetts,
    those kids are not getting that plane flying over their school
    every single day?
        You know, I have a bill that we are hopeful will succeed in
    terms of having the Academy of Sciences look at the impacts of
    that. I would really like to have, you know, somebody on the
    human side, if you will, maybe the Harvard School of Public
    Health, look at the environment that we are putting my
    constituents in. You know, these small towns, these
    neighborhoods of Dorchester and South Boston and Milton and
    Hull that are sort of on the vector, you would say. Is there
    any--are we looking at this at all?
        Ms. Young. Absolutely, Congressman. So first, you know,
    anybody who experiences aircraft noise, you know, we appreciate
    that that is not something that they would like to have. But we
    also have to keep this in context. I mean, the U.S. airlines
    reduced the number of people exposed to significant levels of
    aircraft noise by 94 percent----
        Mr. Lynch. Because you put them all over one house.
        Ms. Young. We did that by more than quadrupling
    enplanements. And you are correct, some of the performance-
    based procedures under the NextGen program do concentrate or
    shift the noise. And so people who either did not experience it
    before are experiencing it or, as you suggest, it does focus it
    in more precise flight paths.
        So there are various ways those things are being addressed.
    One, we continue our relentless effort to reduce noise overall
    at the aircraft source, through our own efforts, through
    working with the manufacturers and programs like CLEEN. But
    second, as you roll out these new procedures or you revise the
    procedures, in 2014 and 2016, the NextGen Advisory Committee
    recommended very specifically to FAA to enhance its community
    engagement processes to consider exactly the issues that you
    are talking about. And they have embraced those, maybe not at
    the time 5 years ago, 7 years ago, but they are undertaking
    that approach to take into account community involvement and
    roundtables, including----
        Mr. Lynch. OK, you ate up all my time. We are actually over
    here. Let me just say, Madam Chair, thank you for your
    indulgence, I really appreciate that.
        Look, it is a coastal community. You can fly over the
    water. We can solve this thing. Fly over the water rather than
    over the houses. It is really simple, but I need your
    cooperation on that. So maybe we can talk later offline.
        Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time that I
    don't have and I appreciate your indulgence.
        Ms. Titus. You have no time. Starting to sound like a
    ``Saturday Night Live'' skit. I can see the plane tables from
    my back porch, something like that.
        We will now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Mr. Lynch, I
    agree with you. My constituency also has complained bitterly
    over that NextGen situation.
        Have any of you considered the education of the public on
    all of the things that you talk about?
        Mr. Sperling. That is our job as professors.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But what means do you use to get the
    public to know about pollution, about the climate change, about
    everything you talk about?
        Mr. Sperling. That is one of the key strategies going
    forward, is for us to understand, you know, what are the
    impacts and implications and what we, as individuals and as
    consumers and as taxpayers, can do about that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
        Ms. Arroyo. So our center, as I mentioned earlier,
    facilitates something called the Transportation and Climate
    Initiative and, last year, the States in this region worked
    together on a bipartisan basis to hold 6 listening sessions
    that engaged 500 members of the public----
        Mrs. Napolitano. I know but that is members, that is people
    that are working on it. But you don't disseminate to the
    general public. They need to hear from you.
        Ms. Arroyo. Right. And that is a great point, and we did
    really try to reach out to diverse constituencies. And we got a
    lot of really unusual bedfellows in the room. But I know it is
    just a start.
        The other way that we try to have information is up on the
    website that has the State----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Who knows what the website is?
        Ms. Arroyo. Right. So, I mean, we try to make our resources
    available broadly and for free.
        Mrs. Napolitano. We need to get more of that out. Anything
    else? Anybody else?
        Ms. Young. I would like to add, I mean, our airlines, the
    types of measures I talked about in my written and oral
    testimony, our member airlines share that information in the
    magazines that they offer on the plane----
        Mrs. Napolitano. But it is on the plane. Only the
    passengers see it. What about general public?
        Ms. Young. Well, we meet very frequently with communities
    and talk about this array of initiatives.
        Mr. Prochazka. I will just add that we continue to release
    reports to document all the different challenges that might
    exist with our transportation sector and then we use those as
    mechanisms to communicate with the public. And so those get
    sent out broadly. We communicate with mass media. We actually
    work in communities in your district to help make sure that
    those kinds of resources get folded out, they do get out to
    communities.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I think we need to do a lot more of that.
    I am sorry to cut you off. But this goes on.
        What about the gas tax? Do you think we need to increase
    the gas tax? Question. Yes or no?
        Mr. Sperling. We need more funding for transportation.
        Ms. Arroyo. I do. And many States have actually increased
    the gas tax.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, yes. But I mean Federal. We have not
    had an increase in decades.
        Ms. Arroyo. Yes, yes. I think it is overdue. I think it is
    overdue. And I think there are other ways that you can increase
    revenues to invest in cleaner and more resilient transportation
    as well.
        Mr. Lyon. I think you need to either increase the gas tax
    or institute a VMT, vehicle miles traveled tax.
        Mrs. Napolitano. True.
        Mr. Prochazka. I think we need a comprehensive effort to
    figure out how we are going to fund the future of
    transportation. And we would love to work with you and the
    committee to help figure out the right path.
        Ms. Young. Well, I was not really going to speak about the
    gas tax because we use jet fuel. So we are a very heavily taxed
    sector and, as you heard in my testimony, we were already very
    motivated by the fact that fuel is number-one or number-two
    cost in any given year to do, you know, reduce emissions and
    fuel burn.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Arroyo, our water
    managers--this is another topic--are seeing firsthand the
    effects of prolonged drought, less snowpack, more flooding,
    extreme rain events on our communities and on our
    infrastructure system. They do not have time to debate climate
    change and they are dealing with it now. Why is it important to
    build resiliency?
        Ms. Arroyo. Well, because, as you said, people are already
    experiencing these impacts, whether they are facing drought and
    fires in the West or flooding in my home State where
    Congressman Graves has been a leader on trying to build
    resilience. And one of the things that we do aim to do is to
    provide tools to translate the science to those policymakers
    and communities that are on their front lines and figure out
    how they can build or rebuild differently with the fact that
    the future is going to look different from the past in mind.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
        Mr. Sperling. I would just note that, as we discussed
    earlier, mitigation is a lot cheaper than adaptation. We need
    to do both because, as Ms. Arroyo said, it is happening. But at
    the same time, we need to be putting a lot more effort on the
    mitigation. In the long run, it will be much cheaper.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, in the metropolitan area where I
    come from in Los Angeles, we do not have a good transportation
    system. But because they passed, as you know, transportation
    bonds, it is still not enough to handle the mass transit that
    is necessary. Also, people cannot afford to go on trains, so
    they use the gas guzzlers. We need to change that.
        Mr. Sperling. I will just very quickly plug the idea, one
    of the major themes I have been trying to articulate is that we
    do have the tools and the business models and the technologies
    to solve much of that, to provide better access to lower
    income, disadvantaged communities, to increase pooling
    services. Because now there is information available. We can
    pool trips, we can provide first/last mile access, we can use
    these micro--you know, vans that run like Lyft and Uber. There
    are a lot of tools that we did not have 5 or 10 years ago.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I know. But the unfortunate part is that--
    well, I will submit it to you.
        Ms. Titus. Perhaps you could send that to us in writing if
    we have that information.
        We will now go to Mr. Smucker for 5 minutes. And we
    apologize that we didn't see you earlier, so maybe you could
    take a few--a little extra time.
        Mr. Smucker. Oh, wonderful. I will take that any day. So
    thank you. So shuttling between this and a markup. But thank
    you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Prochazka, I am particularly interested in the work
    that your organization is doing, that you are doing. And I
    think your goal of less reliance on foreign oil has been shared
    widely with folks over the last few decades. And I think you
    will agree with me, we have made tremendous progress in that
    regard, where we are talking today about being a net exporter
    of energy. And that would have been unheard of that we would be
    making those kinds of projections just 20 or 30 years ago.
        And I think one of the reasons for that is we have new
    technologies that have been--we have been able to tap into
    shale fields and others and extract natural resources, but
    specifically natural gas, but oil as well from the ground. In
    Pennsylvania, I represent Pennsylvania, we have the Marcellus
    shale, which is one of the largest fields in the world, really.
    And so I think that has been tremendously beneficial. Would you
    agree with that?
        Mr. Prochazka. You know, yes. We have had great steps
    forward in terms of the ability to domestically produce.
        Mr. Smucker. And I think you were asked this question
    before and I may have missed some of it. But I was in the State
    Legislature of Pennsylvania when we were working on ensuring
    that that industry could develop and there was, you know, talk
    and push for natural gas vehicles. And it really came down to
    one of the same problems we have with electrical, which is
    fueling stations along the way.
        Do you see natural gas vehicles as part of the solution
    here? Or are you focused entirely on electric vehicles?
        Mr. Prochazka. My sister organization, Securing America's
    Future Energy, really focuses on sort of the full space of
    alternative fuel options. And so they have come up with a
    publication called the National Strategy for Transportation
    that talks a lot about what that full scope ought to look like.
        I do think there is a difference around the idea of
    electric vehicles and, you know, sort of the transition.
    Electricity is already ubiquitous. We already have the system
    in place and it is just about tapping into it throughout the
    places that we drive. And I think that is already showing to be
    very easy to do at this point and we just need more stations to
    provide more charging and then we will have more vehicles that
    will use them along the way.
        [Mr. Prochazka has submitted the following post-hearing
    supplement to his testimony:]

        As I mentioned, the Electrification Coalition's sister
    organization, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), published a
    report in 2016 titled ``A National Strategy for Energy Security: The
    Innovation Revolution.'' This document provides a strategic blueprint
    for enhancing our energy security through a series of actionable policy
    recommendations across four areas:
          Increasing fuel diversity in transportation;
          Advancing the next generation of transportation
    technology;
          Bolstering American oil production; and
          Combating oil market manipulation.
        Strengthening our economic and national security requires a
    multifaceted approach to diversifying the fuels used in our
    transportation sector--including natural gas and electricity--and
    leveraging opportunities for domestic energy production. For your
    interest, I have included with this letter a digital copy of the
    report. [The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
    http://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SAFE-National-
    Strategy-for-Energy-Security-2016.pdf.]

        Mr. Smucker. You mentioned in your report cost parity and I
    just want to hear you talk just a little bit more about it. You
    think we have reached the point where the cost of buying and
    maintaining an electric vehicle over its lifetime is now the
    same as a petroleum or gas vehicle?
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for the question. And, no,
    actually I think we have reached the point in large part,
    depending on the vehicle, but where driving an electric vehicle
    and taking into account the total cost of operation is cheaper.
        Mr. Smucker. OK.
        Mr. Prochazka. And so it is part of the reason that right
    now it makes sense to create incentives so that, as the
    technology is becoming more----
        Mr. Smucker. I am going to stop you because I want to get
    to another question.
        Mr. Prochazka. Please, go ahead.
        Mr. Smucker. So wouldn't this be the time to start pulling
    back some of the Government incentives? You know, I understand
    the need for incentives. I was involved with the solar industry
    to some degree, policy with the solar industry. I understand,
    you know, you have to have a driver that begins to drive down
    the costs. And in electric vehicles, of course, it is the
    battery cost and efficiency.
        But, you know, we are very close to that tipping point. I
    think most of the major manufacturers are--they have even set
    timelines for when their vehicles are going to be entirely
    electric. So isn't this the time to begin to pull back the
    subsidies? And wouldn't it be particularly harmful to add an
    additional layer of Government regulation at this point?
        Mr. Prochazka. So, and I can see others want to respond, so
    I will very quickly say, no, it is quite the opposite. We are
    actually right at the verge where we need to be, if anything,
    pushing faster and pushing harder.
        Mr. Smucker. So at some point, there will be a tipping
    point where you will not need the Government subsidies?
        Mr. Prochazka. Absolutely. Frankly, I believe that we will
    hit that point at some point and we will need to remove them
    and EVs are going to be able to compete on the cost.
        Mr. Smucker. I know I am going to get a little extra time
    but I do want to get to another question. So we did have a
    hearing here just a week ago, I think, about a new
    infrastructure package, how we are going to fund the Highway
    Trust Fund. One of the ideas--I mean, we know that, you know,
    the gas tax is a declining source of revenue, particularly if
    you get your way and vehicles are going to go to entirely
    electric, which eventually it will, that is going to happen
    eventually. But one of the thoughts was a Federal registration
    fee on electric vehicles. I guess my question to you is, from
    the perspective of an organization pushing for electric
    vehicles, what do you think makes sense? How do electric
    vehicles do their part in providing for user fees to pay for
    our roads and highways?
        Mr. Prochazka. I mean, unquestionably, there is going to be
    a need for EVs to pay their fair share. We are going to need to
    figure out a solution for how our highway----
        Mr. Smucker. Are you thinking of any specific proposals?
        Mr. Prochazka. I think that there are a lot of things we
    need to look at, whether it is a user fee, that might be--that
    is a question, still. I am not sure it is the right solution,
    exactly. There might be VMT that needs to be considered, so
    that we are actually thinking about all vehicles paying for
    use.
        I think we have to go and work hard to think about all
    those solutions and what are going to work the best for what
    our diverse and future transportation system looks like.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you. I know that others wanted to
    respond. That will be up to the chair as to whether we have
    time to do that.
        Mr. Espaillat [presiding]. They can respond in writing,
    thank you.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
        Mr. Espaillat. Now we will go to Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, like my
    friend from Pennsylvania, we have been going back and forth
    from the same committee markup.
        Dr. Sperling, it is nice to see you. As a former member of
    the Air Resources Board, we are probably the only two on the
    east coast right now.
        I wanted to ask the panel, and starting with Dan, having
    been the author of VMT, the pilot project in California, when I
    was in the legislature, having spent--I was the coauthor of
    375, 65 percent of the U.S. economy now is in these urban
    areas, super-urban areas. We have spent a lot of money on heavy
    rail. For those of us who wanted to see urbanization, we
    thought that was good. But we clearly are not prepared for
    things like Lyft and Uber.
        So, Dan, to your comment earlier about better systems
    management, as a specific, at SFO in San Francisco, and this is
    not untypical for airports, we spent a lot of money, billions
    of dollars, to bring heavy rail into the airport. We are doing
    it here in DC right now, they are doing it in Los Angeles. But
    over 50 percent of the trips now in and out of those airports
    are Lyft and Uber. So how can we incentivize a lot of the good
    trends that are happening, knowing that electric vehicles are
    coming, but more the smart technology incorporated in a smart
    mobility that you alluded to in your earlier answer.
        Mr. Sperling. I would say there are two parts. Thank you.
    There are two parts to it. One is, how do we use these new
    innovations in a way that is in the public interest and in the
    interest of airports, you know, specifically. And that is that,
    instead of--OK, so this is a simple thing. But airports now,
    they put a per passenger fee on everyone that comes in. That is
    crazy. They should be--if a vehicle comes in with 2, 3, 20
    people, they should have a zero fee on it and have a large fee
    if it is a single passenger. Manage the curb space better also,
    so that the pooled vehicles get preferential space at airports.
    And these same ideas, of course, translate to cities more
    broadly, it is not just at airports.
        The other part is the electrification and going back to the
    earlier question on electrification. We do need and want to and
    plan to electrify certainly all of the light-duty vehicles. And
    these Lyft and Uber type cars, they are generating huge amounts
    of mileage. So those are a prime target to electrify. And Lyft
    and Uber are interested in doing that. We are creating various
    incentives. And I think that is a kind of partnership that can
    happen to create these incentives for them to do it.
        But I would note one thing on the electrification part is,
    we are getting close to cost of ownership being competitive for
    small cars. And so there are two parts to that. One is, it is
    small cars. And the other part is, it is total cost of
    ownership, which is not how people make choices.
        So we are going to need incentives for a long time. And
    especially as we move into the bigger vehicles, as we get into
    the pickup trucks, SUVs, even small delivery trucks. So this is
    a long-term commitment and there are ways of doing it that it
    is not a burden to taxpayers. But there will need to be
    incentives. And I think we need to apply that, figure out how
    to do that with Lyft and Uber and Via and those other
    companies.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. On the land-use side, anybody, one of the
    challenges to VMT in a place like the bay area is we have got
    working people who are starting families and they are traveling
    2 hours, mega commutes, in and out of the region. Have the same
    problem in the Inland Empire in L.A. It is a real constraint on
    our economic development. There is a story in the San Jose
    Mercury News today about how, in spite of creating more jobs
    than anywhere else in the country and the world, Silicon
    Valley, we still have people leaving the area. A lot of those
    people, I assume, are going to the 10 counties that surround
    the 9 bay area counties.
        So this conundrum of VMT and being fair to everybody, but
    overall systems management, many times, in interregional areas,
    as defined by the Federal Government. So maybe any kind of
    insights about how we could put some kind of incentives in
    that? And I know that the Federal Government and most State
    government does not like to get involved in local land-use
    decisions. But our absence is making decisions for people.
        Ms. Arroyo. So some of the experience in Arlington that has
    reduced VMT there while having--or at least held emissions and
    VMT flat while growing the economy has been to incentivize
    dense, compact development. So things that used to not be
    allowed are actually encouraged, building more units closer
    together. Instead of having a minimum number of parking spaces,
    having a maximum number of parking spaces. And, of course,
    coupling that with incentives that drive people to transit and
    other alternatives, having safer bike paths now, more walking,
    et cetera, et cetera.
        So, I mean, we've learned a lot about transportation demand
    management. And it would be great to scale that up by, for
    example, maybe having the Federal Government both continue to
    offer those employer incentive programs for people who
    telecommute or take transit, but also sharing best practices
    would be something that the Federal Government could help do, I
    think.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. I think the Dulles corridor is a real
    example of what we could do in other places. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Espaillat. We go now to Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
    question, I would like to just sort of preface it with three
    points. One is, and I think there is a consensus in Congress
    that would agree that climate change is a national security
    issue. I think some of you have touched upon that in your
    written and/or oral testimony today. In 2018, in the Defense
    Authorization Act, Congress directed the Pentagon to come back
    with a report on the impact of climate change on military
    operations, on infrastructure, as well as the efforts by the
    Pentagon to increase installation resiliency and operational
    viability, concerns with things like the wildfire in California
    which closes down the Marine Mountain Warfare Training Center
    or rising sea levels and the impact at Norfolk. In the 2018
    MILCON appropriations bill, we put in language that urged the
    Secretary of Defense to plan infrastructure and other projects
    using the best data and science on climate to mitigate the risk
    to our Armed Forces.
        The second point I wanted to make is that I think we all
    would agree that the DoD is perhaps the largest fossil fuel
    consumer in the United States. And that is probably why, as
    early as 2007 in the Defense Authorization Act, which was
    signed by President Bush, we directed the Pentagon to adopt 25
    percent renewable standards by 2025. And as of 2016, they were
    50 percent towards that goal. They reduced fuel usage,
    increased energy efficiency, and it had tremendous benefits to
    the public utilities in those communities and solar companies
    in the vicinities of those military installations.
        The third point I wanted to make is that, while, you know,
    the DoD is this large energy consumer, 75 percent of that
    consumption is on military operations, not necessarily on the
    installation but the operations in Afghanistan and in Africa,
    you know, just global operations. And the DoD recognizes that
    green energy is important. And whether it is motivated by
    reducing the impact on climate or saving the lives of soldiers
    and sailors and airmen and Marines, we know that by going to
    renewable energy sources reduces the burdens on logistic trains
    and convoys, the number of times that a unit has to stop to
    refuel, which exposes them to threats and vulnerabilities and
    things like that. So the DoD, either because of the
    authorization act in 2007 or a recognition that it saves lives,
    has been transitioning to renewable energy.
        So my question is, and I think that Mr. Prochazka--did I
    get that right?
        Mr. Prochazka. Prochazka.
        Mr. Brown. Prochazka, OK. I know you had mentioned that
    dependence on foreign oil is a national security concern. So
    can you or others elaborate on, you know, your thoughts on how
    moving towards electric vehicles and efficient transportation
    alternatives, how it can help strengthen national security and
    also how the work that is being done at the DoD benefits the
    overall effort in moving to a renewable energy environment?
        Mr. Prochazka. Thank you for your question. So two quick
    things. One is our sister organization, Securing America's
    Future Energy, actually brought together military leaders to
    respond to this issue and created something called the Energy
    Security Leadership Council and it is made up of four-star
    generals and admirals and some of the leaders in national
    security, with the idea that we need to do something to respond
    to the impacts of our oil dependency. And, as you mentioned, it
    is both because it is about the economic impacts to our
    country, in that when oil prices spike, it affects everyone.
    But it is also because it does affect the lives of young men
    and women across the country that we send over to protect the
    flow of oil. And ultimately, the more that we can do to reduce
    the amount of oil that we need to consume in this country by
    electrifying our transportation sector, the less likely we are
    putting our young men and women in the face of threat.
        Ms. Young. I would like to add from the aviation sector, in
    2010, we entered into a strategic alliance with the Department
    of Defense through its Defense Logistics Agency, so we could
    align our drive on the jet fuel specification for sustainable
    alternative fuel with what the military was doing. And
    together, we have worked that process very successfully.
        Mr. Brown. I yield back the 1 second time I have remaining,
    Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Espaillat. We will now go to Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want
    to thank the panelists for being here today. And let me pull to
    my questions. You called on me quickly.
        Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate
    change is happening and that humans are the primary driver;
    this administration is using Government resources to promote
    fringe science. Mr. Prochazka, President Trump is reportedly
    forming a panel to question whether the burning of fossil fuels
    is harming the planet. Allegedly chairing this panel is
    Professor William Happer, distinguished physics professor with
    no formal training as a climate scientist, who once argued the
    dubious proposition that we need to spew more carbon dioxide
    into our environment, not less. Professor Happer has also
    argued that the demonization of carbon dioxide is similar to
    the demonization of Jews in Germany by Hitler.
        What are the national security dangers that the White House
    is risking by challenging the relationship between carbon
    dioxide and global warming?
        Mr. Prochazka. I might defer to other members of the panel.
    My organization focuses almost primarily on the impacts of oil
    and gas dependency on economic and national security threats.
    So we don't really focus as much on climate issues.
        Ms. Arroyo. I'm happy to take it.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Arroyo. So not only are the military facilities at risk
    because, obviously, the Navy has to be at sea level and so
    their ports are at risk, but their operations are also
    affected. The freshening of the water from the melting of the
    huge ice sheets and glaciers actually affects our sonar and so
    our military readiness. It actually affects the engagements
    that our troops are being brought into all over the world in
    more and more contentious conflicts over limited resources,
    impacted by the lack of food or water that are driven by some
    of the climate extremes that we are seeing. And not only that,
    but in our own country, as we have seen in communities like my
    home town of New Orleans, our military gets deployed to try to
    help out in the times of national emergency and we are seeing
    more and more of those disasters declared on a regular basis
    every year, you know, with megastorms hitting Puerto Rico and
    North Carolina and on and on. So they are stretched thin, they
    are underresourced and climate change is going to make all of
    these things much more challenging.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Does anyone else want to
    opine on how this panel that Professor Happer will chair may
    impede our ability to secure our Nation? Yes?
        Mr. Lyon. One of the biggest concerns I would have is just
    that it could help to promote the muzzling of the defense
    community which, as we've just heard, is highly aware of all of
    these concerns. And so one of the biggest issues would be
    censoring the intelligent foresight that the defense community
    is already engaged in.
        And I would just point out that this is a wonderful example
    of the merchants of doubt strategy that has been written about
    so eloquently by Naomi Oreskes and I really encourage people to
    read that book. It turns out that it has been the same group of
    sort of very old, Cold War physicists who first advocated that
    smoking didn't cause cancer and now argue that greenhouse gases
    don't warm the planet.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It is kind of an unscientific
    situation led by so-called scientists.
        Mr. Lyon. They are typically being paid something.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah, by the interests that they
    are promoting, no doubt, the coal and fossil fuel industries.
    Correct?
        Mr. Lyon. I don't know for sure. The George C. Marshall
    Institute has been a major player in supporting these Cold War
    physicists and I don't know for sure where they get all their
    funding. But it would be very likely that it is fossil fuel-
    oriented funding.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Perhaps Congress may do
    well to create some legislation that would require these so-
    called independent studies by scientists to disclose who is
    actually funding their work.
        A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would
    pass an historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course,
    that would require bipartisan support. Do you believe that the
    administration's unpopular infrastructure proposal with this
    panel will muzzle Governors in terms of their interactions with
    the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Mr. Sperling. Probably not California.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And that's a good thing.
        Mr. Espaillat. You can respond, the rest can respond in
    writing, please. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Rouda, please.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Harley Rouda, from
    Orange County, California. And my wife and I are proud owners
    of electronic vehicles and a fully solar-powered home. And the
    question I have for any of you, California has recently passed
    legislation requiring all homes to have solar panels. And I am
    curious as to what you think of that being a national standard?
    And while I recognize that California likely has more days of
    sunshine than many other States, I also recognize that North
    Carolina and New Jersey are leaders in implementation of solar
    power, solar panels on homes, and that economic incentives can
    help drive this. So I'll open it up to the panel for your
    response.
        Mr. Sperling. Thank you. Well, I am not an expert on the
    solar energy but my colleagues who are, the economists anyway,
    would argue that the more efficient way of providing solar
    energy for electricity is through centralized facilities. But I
    also have solar on my house and I am very proud and happy with
    it and it works great for me.
        So I think it is part of the question of, there is a
    certain tension there in terms of utility investments versus
    household investment. Certainly, creating incentives to support
    those households that do it, I think, is a good idea.
        Mr. Lyon. If I could just follow up on that, it raises an
    issue that we really have not talked about, which is the
    modernization of the electric grid itself. And I think
    regardless of exactly how you view the importance of rooftop
    solar versus centralized solar, we really need to modernize our
    electric grid. There are digital technologies that will allow
    it to be much more efficient, much more resilient and will
    allow for net metering and other types of decentralized
    production.
        Mr. Rouda. I am actually glad you went that direction
    because that is one of the other topics I would like to expand
    on, that is the decentralization of the grid and developing
    microgrids throughout the country. But we have seen some
    pushback by certain utilities across the U.S. who want to
    continue to be the primary generator of energy for their region
    and have not really accepted that paradigm shift that they need
    to move from a generator to more of the toll roads of
    electricity to serve the communities that they serve. How would
    you respond to that?
        Mr. Lyon. Well, I think you are correct. And State policy
    has typically been the driver that has led utilities to
    modernize their grids, open up to net metering. Most States
    allow net metering now so that has become pretty standard. But
    I think this is where State policy has probably been more
    powerful than Federal policy. Just because of the role of the
    State PSCs.
        Mr. Rouda. And bringing it back to electric vehicles and
    the continued development and implementation of electric
    vehicles, one of the challenges that we face are the high-speed
    recharging stations, access to them, consistency in the
    standards and, frankly, even signage on the interstates. What
    would you like to see in those areas to help develop that
    infrastructure at a faster pace?
        Mr. Sperling. Yeah, you know, I would comment that, indeed,
    that the growth of electric vehicles is inextricably connected
    with the grid and it provides a tremendous opportunity as we go
    to more ephemeral sources of energy, solar and wind, the role
    of storage becomes hugely important. And electric vehicles can
    be a very big part of the solution in terms of the vehicle-to-
    grid type options.
        Ms. Arroyo. Having Federal support to fill the gaps,
    especially in more remote areas that are not as urban and
    clustered would give people confidence and overcome some of the
    range anxiety issues, so that would be an early investment. And
    also maybe tying the use of funds to things like being able to
    use a charge card to pay. Because when I tried to take my Bolt
    up to a wedding in New Jersey, I noticed that different places
    I stopped had different services. And so it is not like going
    to an ATM where you can use another bank with your card. We
    should make it easier for people and these are the kinds of
    things that Federal funding could be tied to, perhaps.
        Mr. Rouda. And then the last question I have is just on
    economic incentives in general. Historically, the economic
    incentives have not favored renewable energies to the same
    degree as other sources. And if we shift those economic
    incentives or at least even take into account the long-term
    implications of the pollution that is created versus
    renewables, what in those toolboxes of economic incentives
    would you suggest would help push this forward?
        Mr. Lyon. Are you thinking electricity now?
        Mr. Rouda. Yes.
        Mr. Lyon. Well, we are already at a point where wind is
    cheaper on a per kilowatthour basis than coal or nuclear. And a
    lot of coal plants are having to shut down because they cannot
    compete with wind. So we are moving very rapidly toward a world
    where wind and increasingly solar are going to be highly
    economic and just continue to take off.
        Mr. Rouda. Well, thank you for your time. I yield back.
        Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Garcia.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    the leaders of the committee for organizing this hearing to
    address one of the greatest challenges this generation is
    facing and that is climate change. In order to adequately
    address this crisis, we must aggressively tackle the root
    causes, the risks, the economic impact and public health
    hazards that climate change poses. Particularly, I want to
    emphasize, in underserved working class and minority
    populations. I support the spirit of the Green New Deal and I
    cosponsored the nonbinding resolution because we must
    acknowledge that bold action needs to be taken to address this
    century-old trend that threatens our world.
        The work of this Congress and this committee, however, is
    to turn that vision into reality. It is time that we put pen to
    paper, roll up our sleeves and convert bold ideas into
    actionable policy changes. I am proud that this committee is
    doing that.
        The fact is that climate change will result in more extreme
    weather events and put more strain on our already crumbling
    infrastructure. During the last polar vortex in Chicago, two
    steel beams supporting Lake Shore Drive along the lakefront
    cracked, as did transit rail in Minneapolis. As demonstrated in
    our successful reversals of the Chicago River to protect Lake
    Michigan as a freshwater source, innovative, resilient
    infrastructure is in Chicago's blood. Much of Chicago's
    existing infrastructure, however, was built in reaction to
    environmental challenges that we have faced historically. But
    decisions made decades ago left communities of color out.
        I raise this because, as we consider the long-term
    infrastructure investment, we must seek more equity in
    legislation that will have decades-old consequences. Too many
    communities have been left behind without adequate mobility,
    are at a higher risk of extreme weather events, and are
    disproportionately exposed to toxic air and water. Chicago
    recently received an F for air quality from the American Lung
    Association and, according to the EPA, 8 percent of Hispanic
    children in the U.S. have asthma compared to 6.5 percent
    nationally. Hispanic children in the U.S. are almost twice as
    likely to be hospitalized for asthma than white children.
    Failing to address climate change hurts, but it hurts
    communities of color more severely.
        Looking ahead, the question before us now is what policies
    do we change and how? According to 2016 data from the EPA,
    emissions from residential and industrial buildings as well as
    from transportation emissions account for nearly 40 percent of
    greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity generation accounts for
    nearly 30 percent. In short, we need cleaner transit and more
    energy efficient structures because they have tremendous
    returns on investment.
        In Chicago, we've committed to converting our bus fleet to
    100 percent electric by 2040. The city has reduced its overall
    carbon emissions by 11 percent from 2005 through 2015, while
    jobs grew 7 percent, dispelling the myth that greening our
    industry weakens our economy.
        Our conversion of over 270,000 streetlights to LEDs in 4
    years will yield a savings of $100 million over a 10-year
    period. Our comprehensive approach to green infrastructure will
    make us more resilient.
        As a matter of fact, I would like to enter into the record
    a comprehensive report issued by the city of Chicago, entitled
    ``Resilient Chicago,'' which details a roadmap forward for our
    city. And this will be in place as Chicago goes to the polls
    today to elect a new mayor and a city council. We may have to
    do a runoff in April, but that will be a fact.
        I would like to direct a question to Ms. Arroyo, as I have
    about 30 seconds left. And that is, in your testimony, you
    discussed the historical burdens disproportionately shouldered
    by low-income communities. Can you discuss how climate change
    heightens those discrepancies for communities of color or low-
    income individuals and what Federal programs can help to
    reverse years of inequitable planning and development?
        Ms. Arroyo. So thank you for the question. I am happy to
    follow up in writing at more length. But just quickly, things
    like urban heat island effect that have a disproportionate
    effect on places that are really surrounded by concrete and
    don't have a lot of green space. Flood-prone areas, like the
    ones that we work with in DC. And I will give a shout out to
    Chicago for its early leadership on mitigating some of those
    impacts and being a leader on climate adaptation, as we often
    call it.
        But we do a lot of work with communities also on looking at
    the impacts of climate change from transportation
    infrastructure. And one of the things that we learned on the
    future of the Interstate Highway report is that many cities are
    interested in trying to reverse those trends about building
    through cities, that cut through cities without the
    participation of the communities. And some cities like here in
    Washington, DC, are actually undergrounding or taking down some
    of the stretches of the interstate that really carve through
    some of the neighborhoods and trying to reconnect those
    neighborhoods. I'm happy to talk to you at more length about
    other options.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you much. I yield back.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
        Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Your
    comments have been very, very helpful in this hearing.
        If there are no further questions, I will now call up panel
    2.
        Mr. Larsen [presiding]. All right, we will get started with
    the second panel. I want to welcome this next panel of
    witnesses.
        We have Mr. Kevin DeGood, the director of infrastructure
    policy for the Center for American Progress; Mr. James Proctor
    II, senior vice president and general counsel, McWane,
    Incorporated; Dr. Whitley Saumweber, the director of the
    Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic
    and International Studies; and Ms. Lynn Scarlett, the vice
    president of policy and Government affairs at The Nature
    Conservancy.
        I want to thank each of you for being here today. I look
    forward to hearing your testimony. And without objection, our
    witnesses' full statements will be included in the record.
        As with the previous panel, since your written testimony
    has been made part of the record already, the committee would
    request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. And I
    know we have an attendance problem right now and I appreciate
    that now, and I appreciate that and I hope you appreciate
    Members of Congress, but what you have to say today is
    important for the record, as this committee continues to move
    forward in putting together the record on climate change and
    infrastructure policy.
        So I want to thank you very much for being here today and I
    will turn now to Mr. DeGood for your opening statement.
        Thanks.

      TESTIMONY OF KEVIN DEGOOD, DIRECTOR, INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY,
    CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS; JAMES M. PROCTOR II, SENIOR VICE
    PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, McWANE, INC.; WHITLEY SAUMWEBER,
        DIRECTOR, STEPHENSON OCEAN SECURITY PROJECT, CENTER FOR
     STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; AND LYNN SCARLETT, VICE
     PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATURE
                              CONSERVANCY

        Mr. DeGood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    committee. It is an honor and a privilege to contribute to this
    committee's work today. For too long, infrastructure and
    climate policy have been treated as separate issues. Yet what
    we build deeply influences the production of greenhouse gases,
    as well as our ability to withstand increasingly extreme
    weather events. The science demonstrating anthropogenic climate
    change is settled and, going forward, infrastructure policy
    should be synonymous with sound climate policy.
        The question before this committee is how should we think
    about resiliency? The answer is that we should think about
    improving resiliency as both necessary and urgent but
    ultimately a losing strategy. Hardening facilities can only
    slow the immense economic, environmental and social damage that
    climate change will increasingly bring about. No one should
    operate under the illusion that we can build our way out of the
    climate crisis. Not every road, rail line, runway and building
    can be raised, strengthened or relocated.
        Instead, public dollars will need to be deployed in a
    strategic and cost-effective manner to lessen the damage from
    flooding, fires, extreme heat and storm surges to the greatest
    extent possible. In short, we should not treat resiliency as a
    universal backstop, capable of saving us if the United States
    and other major emitting nations fail to meet their climate
    commitments. Given the limitations of resiliency, it is
    critical that the Federal Government invest in projects and
    adopt policies to dramatically reduce emissions in the near
    term and eliminate emissions by midcentury at the latest.
        The challenges created by climate change are unprecedented.
    Implementing adaptation and resiliency projects and policies
    will require a dramatic departure from the status quo. However,
    many agencies lack the funding, data and technical expertise to
    accomplish the job. The Federal Government needs to invest not
    only in assets but people and data as well. If the Federal,
    State and local officials and administrators are to succeed,
    they need access to the most accurate and, to the greatest
    extent possible, localized models for temperature,
    precipitation, peak storm flows and sea level rise.
        Importantly, the adaptation and resiliency decisions the
    public sector will need to make are both technical and
    intensely political because infrastructure investments produce
    benefits as well as burdens. The benefits from investment
    include access to jobs, markets, improved efficiency and
    reliability, and reduced costs while the burdens often include
    geographic isolation and displacement, increased pollution and
    noise and reduced property values, among many others. History
    demonstrates that all too often, these burdens are shouldered
    disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of
    color. Federal infrastructure and climate policy must advance
    equity and social justice. This means not only reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions but also making investments that raise
    wages and lift up struggling communities facing the greatest
    needs.
        For this reason, it is critical to safeguard the
    environmental review process. The magnitude of the challenge
    and the urgent need for action reinforce that infrastructure
    planning and decisionmaking must occur in a transparent manner
    supported by robust public participation. Allowing climate
    action to serve as a justification for undermining foundational
    environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the
    Endangered Species Act would be darkly ironic. Environmental
    review produces better projects. Moreover, by reducing
    community and environmental impacts on the front end, we can
    save millions and even billions of dollars on post-construction
    remediation.
        When it comes to both mitigation and adaptation, the
    Federal Government has not sufficiently exerted its policy
    prerogatives on grant recipients. In the future, Federal
    agencies should reduce funding to State and local governments
    that fail to implement projects and policies that decrease
    greenhouse gas emissions while also strengthening natural and
    man-made infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather.
    Additionally, Congress should recognize the valuable resiliency
    services that natural systems provide. Focusing Federal
    resources exclusively on man-made facilities misses the ability
    of natural systems to reduce storm surge, wildfires, flooding
    and mudslides. In many cases, investing a Federal dollar in
    protecting and maintaining natural habitats will provide larger
    resiliency dividends than spending that same dollar on
    hardening man-made infrastructure.
        Finally, Federal policy must take a more comprehensive
    approach to land use, including providing additional funding to
    States and regions that increase urban density. Low-density
    exurban expansion cannibalizes natural habitats, reduces water
    quality, increases mobile-source emissions and expands the
    volume of linear infrastructure that must be built and made
    resilient. If we are to make meaningful progress addressing
    climate change, we must be honest about the underlying drivers
    of emissions and environmental degradation. The Federal
    Government cannot remain passive on the issue of land use any
    longer.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
    forward to your questions and to working with the committee to
    craft solutions to this pressing challenge going forward.
        [Mr. DeGood's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Kevin DeGood, Director of Infrastructure Policy,
                          Center for American Progress
        Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
    the committee. It's an honor and a privilege to contribute to this
    committee's work.
        For too long, infrastructure and climate policy have been treated
    as separate issues. Yet, what we build deeply influences the production
    of greenhouse gases as well as our ability to withstand increasingly
    extreme weather. The science demonstrating anthropogenic climate change
    is settled. Going forward, infrastructure policy should be synonymous
    with sound climate policy.
        The question before the committee is: How should we think about
    resiliency? The answer is that we should think about improving
    resiliency as necessary and urgent but ultimately a losing strategy.
    Hardening facilities can only slow the immense economic, environmental,
    and social damage that climate change will increasingly bring about. No
    one should operate under the illusion that we can build our way out of
    the climate crisis. Not every road, rail line, runway, and building can
    be raised, strengthened, or relocated. Instead, public dollars will
    need to be deployed in a strategic and cost-effective manner to lessen
    the damage from flooding, fires, extreme heat, and storm surges to the
    greatest extent possible.
        In short, we should not treat resiliency as a universal backstop
    capable of saving us if the United States and other major emitting
    nations fail to meet their climate commitments. Given the limitations
    of resiliency, it is critical that the federal government invest in
    projects and adopt policies to dramatically reduce emissions in the
    near term and eliminate emission by mid-century, at the latest.
        The challenges created by climate change are unprecedented.
    Implementing adaptation and resiliency projects and policies will
    require a dramatic departure from the status quo. However, many
    agencies lack the funding, data, and technical expertise to accomplish
    the job. The federal government needs to invest not only in assets but
    people and data as well. If federal, state, and local officials and
    administrators are to succeed, they need access to the most accurate--
    and to the greatest extent possible localized--models for temperature,
    precipitation and peak storm flows, and sea level rise.
        Importantly, the adaptation and resiliency decisions the public
    sector will need to make are both technical and intensely political
    because infrastructure investments produce benefits and burdens. The
    benefits from investment include access to jobs and markets, improved
    efficiency and reliability, and reduced costs while the burdens often
    include geographic isolation and displacement, increased pollution and
    noise, and reduced property values, among many others. History
    demonstrates that all too often these burdens are shouldered
    disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color.
    Federal infrastructure and climate policy must advance equity and
    social justice. This means not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
    but also making investments that raise wages and lift up struggling
    communities facing the greatest needs.
        For this reason, it is critical to safeguard the environmental
    review process. The magnitude of the challenge and the urgent need for
    action reinforce that infrastructure planning and decisionmaking must
    occur in a transparent manner supported by robust public participation.
    Allowing climate action to serve as a justification for undermining
    foundational environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the
    Endangered Species Act would be darkly ironic. Environmental review
    produces better projects. Moreover, by reducing community and
    environmental impacts on the front end, the environmental review
    process helps to avoid the need for costly post-construction
    remediation.
        When it comes to both mitigation and adaptation, the federal
    government has not sufficiently exerted its policy prerogatives on
    grant recipients. In the future, federal agencies should reduce funding
    for state and local governments that fail to implement projects and
    policies that decrease greenhouse gas emissions while also
    strengthening natural and man-made infrastructure to better withstand
    extreme weather.
        Additionally, Congress should recognize the valuable resiliency
    services that natural systems provide. Focusing federal resources
    exclusively on man-made facilities misses the ability of natural
    systems to reduce storm surge, wildfires, flooding and mudslides. In
    many cases, investing a federal dollar in protecting and managing
    natural habitats will provide larger resiliency dividends than spending
    that same dollar on hardening man-made infrastructure.
        Finally, federal infrastructure policy must take a more
    comprehensive approach to land use, including providing additional
    funding to states and regions that increase urban density. Low-density,
    ex-urban expansion cannibalizes natural habitats, reduces water
    quality, increases mobile-source emissions, and expands the volume of
    linear infrastructure that must be built and made resilient. If we are
    to make meaningful progress addressing climate change, we must be
    honest about the underlying drivers of emissions and environmental
    degradation. The federal government cannot remain passive on the issue
    of land use any longer.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    your questions and to working with the Committee to craft solutions to
    the pressing challenges created by climate change.

        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. DeGood.
        Mr. Proctor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Proctor. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Graves and
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today about issues that are vital to our Nation's
    health, economy and security. During my career, I have been
    privileged to help promote policies that will make our water
    infrastructure systems more resilient, secure and efficient, as
    vice president of McWane and also an affiliation with groups
    such as the BuildStrong Coalition, the Blue Green Alliance, the
    Water Infrastructure Leadership Group, EPA's National Drinking
    Water Advisory Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Water
    Policy Task Force. It is an honor to continue that work by
    appearing here today.
        Much of America's drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life.
    Tragically, as much as 25 to 30 percent of the treated water
    that goes into our distribution systems leaks into the ground.
    Those losses not only squander a vital resource, they result in
    an enormous waste of energy required to treat and pump that
    water. That wasted energy also represents unnecessary and
    avoidable greenhouse gas emissions. As much as 4 percent of our
    Nation's total energy consumption is water related and accounts
    for millions of tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
        Adopting policies that foster more effective utility
    management, including the reduction of water leaks, would
    produce a cascade of benefits, reduced operating expenses for
    cash-strapped utilities, reduced water cost for consumers, the
    conservation of scarce and vital resources and significant
    reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
    Last year's America's Water Infrastructure Act made significant
    strides toward providing the needed funding, fully authorizing
    WIFIA, increasing the authorizations for the SRFs and creating
    new resilience, mitigation and technology programs. We hope
    that Congress will finish that process by appropriating the
    authorized funding this year.
        In addition, on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition, I want
    to congratulate this committee for its work in creating the
    game changing new predisaster mitigation fund that will provide
    close to $1 billion a year for State-based competitive grants
    to make America more resilient. But that investment must be
    accompanied by smarter and more effective utility management,
    such as developing and utilizing emerging technologies that can
    increase revenue and lower costs through proactive leak
    detection, water conservation, water quality management and
    reductions in energy consumption.
        Congress should help eliminate barriers to the adoption of
    these technologies by a number of means by encouraging
    voluntary cooperative arrangements among utilities and other
    partners and increasing technical assistance to provide the
    financial, operational and technical capacity needed to adopt
    these technologies; by encouraging effective utility
    management, including water leak audits and full-cost
    accounting; by establishing a national testbed network to
    evaluate, demonstrate and approve innovative technologies; by
    streamlining the regulatory and approval process for proven
    technologies; and by developing a workforce development program
    to provide American workers the skills needed to operate the
    high-tech water and wastewater systems of the future.
        In addition, when disaster strikes, water is essential for
    firefighting capabilities and the prevention of disease.
    Similarly, our vital lifeline systems depend upon access to
    electric power. Recent hurricanes, floods and wildfires have
    revealed the vulnerability of our water and power distribution
    systems to natural disasters. It is my hope that the grant
    request for the new DRRA and FEMA programs will include
    projects to increase the resilience of our water and power
    distribution networks, as few other undertakings will have as
    broad and significant an impact.
        Finally, countries like China and India generate 6 to 33
    times more pollutants than production facilities located here
    in the United States. By making the American iron and steel
    requirements, the Buy American requirements that are applicable
    to the drinking water State revolving fund permanent and
    creating similar requirements for predisaster mitigation
    infrastructure projects and other water programs, Congress can
    shift production of the products necessary for the hardening of
    our infrastructure back to the more efficient and less-
    polluting factories in the United States, reducing greenhouse
    gas emissions while preserving and creating American jobs.
        The key takeaway is that we can solve a range of problems,
    economic, environmental and climate related, by tailoring our
    Federal policies to take advantage of the technologies of the
    21st century and the efficiency, productivity and commitment of
    American workers and industry. We at McWane are glad to have
    the opportunity to contribute to that process. Thank you for
    your time and consideration.
        [Mr. Proctor's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of James M. Proctor II, Senior Vice President and
                         General Counsel, McWane, Inc.
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
    Committee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify about several issues that
    are vital to our nation's health, economy and security. During my
    career I have been privileged to help promote policies that will make
    our water infrastructure systems more resilient, secure, and efficient,
    working not only in my capacity as vice president of McWane, Inc., but
    also as a member of the executive committee of the BuildStrong
    Coalition, the corporate advisory council of the Blue Green Alliance,
    the Water Infrastructure Leadership Group (the ``Ad Hoc Group''), the
    U.S. Water Partnership, Environmental Protection Agency's National
    Drinking Water Advisory Council, and co-chair of the U.S Chamber of
    Commerce's Business Task Force on Water Policy. It is great honor to
    have the opportunity to continue that work by appearing here today.
        For almost 200 years McWane has proudly provided the building
    blocks for our nation's water infrastructure, supplying the pipe,
    valves, fittings and related products that transport clean water to
    communities and homes across the country and around the world. More
    recently we have expanded our operations into the fields of
    infrastructure technology and electric power distribution. We employ
    more than 6000 team members who work in 25 manufacturing facilities in
    14 States and nine other countries.
        Water infrastructure remains a core element of our business focus,
    and we obviously have great interest in ensuring its integrity. Despite
    its obvious importance, in the past ``out of sight, out of mind'' best
    described the nation's attitude toward water infrastructure, and to a
    large degree that indifference has extended to discussions about
    climate change as well. But Congress and the public have started to
    come to grips with the reality that much of America's drinking water,
    wastewater, and storm water infrastructure, including the more than one
    million miles of pipes beneath our streets, is nearing the end of its
    useful life and must be replaced. And a tragic aspect of that reality
    is that as much as 20-30 percent of the treated water that goes into
    our distribution systems leaks into the ground as it flows through
    pipes installed as many as 150 years ago. Those losses not only
    squander a vital and sometimes scarce resource, they represent an
    enormous waste of the energy and associated capital required to treat
    and pump that water. Approximately 4 percent of our nation's total
    electricity consumption (as much as 19 percent in California) is
    related to water treatment, pumping, and recovery. Given the fact that
    much of our nation's energy is still produced by traditional, carbon-
    based sources, that wasted energy also represents unnecessary and
    avoidable greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, EPA estimates that
    treating, pumping and recovering water accounts for more than 45
    million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. Thus, adopting
    policies that foster more effective utility management, including the
    reduction of water leaks, would produce a cascading flow of benefits:
    reduced operating expenses for cash-strapped utilities, reduced water
    costs for consumers, the conservation of scarce and vital resources,
    and significant reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        In addition, the recent hurricanes, floods and wildfires have
    revealed the vulnerability of our distribution systems to natural
    disasters. We must harden our infrastructure before those events occur,
    taking advantage of mitigation opportunities, especially pre-disaster,
    that Congress recently created through reforms to the Stafford Act.
        The solution to these challenges will of course require funding,
    and last year's America's Water Infrastructure Act (``AWIA'') made
    significant strides toward addressing that need by fully authorizing
    long-term, low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and nationally
    significant projects in the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
    Act (``WIFIA''), and increasing the authorizations for the State
    Revolving Funds (``SRFs''). We hope that Congress will finish that
    process by appropriating funds to those authorized levels this year.
    Similarly, the Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2018 (``DRRA'')
    created significant new funding sources for cost-effective, risk-
    reducing pre-disaster mitigation projects.
        But new funding alone cannot solve a problem of this magnitude.
    That investment must be deployed wisely and in a manner that realizes
    its full benefit, by fostering smarter, more efficient and effective
    utility management. One such avenue is to develop and use emerging
    technologies that can generate new forms of revenue and maximize
    existing sources, while lowering operational costs through proactive
    leak control, water conservation, better water quality management,
    reductions in energy consumption and costs, and less wear and tear on
    assets. Technology can also improve operational efficiencies via data-
    driven system management. Studies indicate that digital water networks
    can save utilities up to $12.5 billion a year. Moreover, the use of
    more resilient construction techniques can mitigate the impact of
    storms, earthquakes, wildfires and other disasters.
    using more effective water utility management and deploying technology
                            to reduce climate risks
        Some examples of specific technologies that are available today, or
    are on the verge of deployment include:
          Advanced metering infrastructure (smart meters) that can
    more accurately record and charge customers based on actual usage.
    These systems use low-powered wireless communication devices to
    transmit water usage information over secure networks, reducing non-
    revenue water by eliminating unmetered consumption and apparent losses
    from inaccurate meters, unauthorized consumption, and billing errors.
    And real time water-usage reports increase conservation which mitigates
    the effects of water scarcity related to climate shifts while reducing
    energy consumption and the associated carbon emissions.
          Remote, real-time leak detection and pressure management
    systems that identify problems before they become costly main breaks.
    Early and accurate leak detection not only prevents wasted water and
    energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, it also reduces repair
    costs and the risk of contaminants infiltrating into water systems,
    which could put public health at risk. Such detection systems can also
    facilitate more effective disaster responses by enabling utilities to
    identify the location of damage to their systems so that they are able
    to restore service more quickly. New and effective methods of detection
    include wireless systems with acoustic sensors and leak-noise
    correlators, satellite imaging, and sensors that can detect negative
    pressure waves. Many of these solutions can be simply and inexpensively
    added to existing and new infrastructure at hydrants and valve boxes.
          Real time water quality monitoring. Wireless nodes can
    accommodate sensors that monitor parameters such as pH and alkalinity
    and low residual disinfectant, that are markers for the conditions that
    can predict avoidable situations like Flint, Michigan, and allow
    utilities to adjust water chemistry before a crisis occurs.
          The water-energy nexus provides another source of
    efficiencies and opportunities. As much as 4 percent of our total
    annual electricity consumption (20 percent in some States, like
    California) is related to the treatment and transmission of water,
    which according to EPA equates to 45 million tons of greenhouse gas
    emissions each year. Indeed, for most water utilities energy is their
    second largest cost (35-40 percent of total costs on average), second
    only to personnel expenses. In addition to reducing consumption of
    energy as outlined above, new technologies can help utilities become
    generators of clean energy that can be used to operate systems. Waste
    sludges can provide a source of renewable fuel for power generation,
    and the vast expanses of land occupied by treatment plants are
    sometimes prime locations for solar panels. In addition, in-line
    hydroelectric systems can harness the flow of water though pipelines to
    generate electricity, particularly in distribution systems based upon
    gravity flows.
        Despite these obvious benefits, utilities face numerous barriers to
    deploying these and other technologies. First, water utilities are
    naturally, and appropriately, risk averse. An inadvertent disruption of
    treatment and distribution capabilities due to a technological failure
    could cause a catastrophic health crisis, put the environment at risk,
    or trigger regulatory action. Moreover, a failed deployment could
    trigger a financial crisis for the utility and perhaps even the
    community it serves.
        Second, the upfront costs of implementing a system-wide technology
    project can be prohibitive for small utilities, which can preclude
    adoption even with the opportunity for greater long-term benefits.
        The regulatory environment is another, frequently cited barrier.
    Water quality and environmental regulations play a vital role in
    protecting public health. However, in many cases redundant,
    conflicting, or outdated regulations at the State and Federal levels,
    and among the various States, can create lengthy, complex, and costly
    approval processes. These regulatory obstacles not only slow the
    approval of technology directly, but also impede the creation of
    partnerships that could provide a source of expertise and funding that
    would accelerate deployment.
        Aggravating all of these factors is the diffuse nature of the water
    sector, which is comprised of more than 55,000 separate utilities, 85
    percent of which serve fewer than 10,000 people. Through no fault of
    their own many small and rural utilities lack the resources and
    technical expertise required to evaluate the options, design and build
    the systems, and manage them after construction. Without coordination
    among neighboring communities, opportunities to overcome these gaps by
    sharing experience, expertise, best practices, and joint purchasing
    power are missed. This greatly increases the costs of adoption.
        These issues present substantial obstacles, but there are measures
    that Congress could implement that would eliminate or reduce their
    adverse impact.
    Appropriate Funding for WIFIA, the SRFs, and the New AWIA Programs at
            Their Authorized Levels.
        As noted above, fully appropriating the funding authorized for
    WIFIA and the SRFs in last year's AWIA bill would provide a significant
    beginning point. These programs cannot only provide a source of funding
    for technology projects, they can also provide the technical assistance
    that small utilities need to evaluate, purchase, and implement
    projects. Similarly, sections 2005 (Drinking Water Infrastructure
    Resilience and Sustainability), 2007 (Innovative Water Technology Grant
    Program), 2012 (Asset Management), 2013 (Community Water System Risk
    and Resilience) and 2017 (Review of Technologies) of AWIA created
    several new programs designed to promote resiliency and technology.
    Fully appropriating those programs and directing that a significant
    potion of the funding go toward training and technical assistance for
    small utilities would also make a difference.
    Encourage Cooperation Among Utilities and Partnerships.
        Congress should also encourage regional cooperation among utilities
    and remove barriers to the use of private capital as a supplement to
    public funding. Small systems should be encouraged to consider
    voluntary cooperative arrangements and partnerships with other entities
    who can help them develop the necessary financial, operational and
    technical scale and capacity to adopt the technology that will enable
    them to reduce their costs and more effectively manage their systems.
    Such arrangements allow the sharing of best practices, systems and
    technology and reduce the risk associated with new undertakings in
    addition to creating economies of scale that increase the availability
    of funding and reduce costs. There are many paths to such partnering
    arrangements, including public-to-public, public-to-private, and
    private-to-private partnerships, cooperatives, concessions, operating
    agreements, or consolidation or regionalization of assets or services.
    But let me emphasize that all paths should remain available at the
    discretion of the local entity.
        Specific means by which Congress or EPA might encourage such
    cooperation include prioritizing regional projects and consolidation
    costs for SRF and WIFIA funding and providing more technical assistance
    to small and rural systems, including assistance with the technical and
    legal aspects of cooperation. Removing the volume cap on private
    activity bond for water projects would also encourage more private
    capital to enter the market.
    Establish a National Test Bed Network for New Technologies.
        A National Water Test Bed Network (``TBN'') to evaluate,
    demonstrate and approve innovative technologies would jump start
    adoption. Unless utility operators have the confidence that new
    technologies will work, they are reluctant to adopt or deploy them. But
    few utilities are willing to serve as the pilot program because of the
    demands on time and budget, and even pilot programs that do proceed can
    take years to complete. As a result, the deployment of workable, cost-
    saving and efficiency-creating technologies is unnecessarily delayed. A
    National Water Infrastructure TBN to coordinate and accelerate the
    water industry's deployment of new technologies would bring together
    the broader water community (i.e., manufacturers, regulators,
    operators, consulting engineers, etc.), and engage them in
    demonstration efforts to raise confidence in innovative technologies.
    The TBN process, including a possible whitelist of proven technologies,
    would reduce the number of pilot projects otherwise needed and would
    also shorten the time needed to achieve commercial acceptance.
    Streamline the Regulatory and Approval Process for Proven Technologies.
        Congress should also direct EPA to conduct a review of existing
    regulations to identify and address barriers to implementation of smart
    water solutions. EPA should encourage States to establish consistent
    and uniform permitting and certification programs and reciprocity,
    where possible, without compromising protections for public health and
    respect for State and local autonomy.
    Establish a National Program for Collaboration and Sharing of Best
            Practices.
        A national program with a central focus on sharing best practices
    would help urban and rural utilities, regardless of size, to develop
    joint partnerships with public and private utilities, engage private
    sector expertise and technology, and access private capital markets and
    funding. In addition, this network would help small and distressed
    water systems find the technical capacity to comply with regulations
    and to undertake projects to improve or expand their services.
    Encourage Effective Utility Management (``EUM'') and Best Practices,
            Including Water Leak Audits and Full-Cost Accounting.
        To succeed, every utility must have an accurate understanding of
    their financial condition, including the cost of providing water and
    waste water services. An accurate understanding of costs and their
    sources is also the essential foundation for conducting the cost-
    benefit assessments that provide the business case for the adoption of
    the technologies discussed previously. Yet a recent survey found that
    fewer than a third of water utilities have an accurate appreciation of
    their costs of operation, and only a similar percentage operate under
    rate structures that fully cover their costs. This situation creates
    severe constraints on the ability of utilities to finance their
    operations, attract outside investment, or justify technology projects.
        One way to close this informational and operational gap is to help
    utilities identify the extent of water losses in their systems. Water
    is the ``inventory'' of a water utility, and an accurate understanding
    of inventory levels, losses, and production and distribution costs,
    including associated energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,
    is fundamental to understanding operational costs. An appreciation of
    those operational costs and their avoidability is, in turn, a vital
    prerequisite to demonstrating the benefits of deploying technology that
    would mitigate those losses. Potential partners will also require such
    information before committing their capital and resources to the
    rehabilitation of a failing utility.
        A number of major water and wastewater associations (AMWA, NAWC,
    NACWA, AWWA, WEF, WERF, WRF, ASDWA and ACWA) and EPA have endorsed the
    ten attributes of EUM \1\, asset management and financial viability.
    Asset management includes conducting leak audits to understand the true
    condition of a utility's transmission and distribution systems.
    Financial viability includes an understanding of the full life-cycle
    cost of utility operations and value of water resources, which is
    heavily impacted by lost water and its embedded energy. Applicants for
    Federal support should be encouraged to assess the total costs
    associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining their water,
    wastewater and storm water systems, including long-term capital costs.
    At the same time, EPA should provide more technical assistance to small
    utilities on how to conduct the audits and assess costs. Moreover, this
    information must be made more transparent and readily available for
    public review.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Effective Utility Management, A Primer for Water & Wastewater
    Utilities, http://dev.watereum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
    Effective-Utility-Management-A-Primer-for-Water-and-Wastewater-
    Utilities.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Train a 21st Century Workforce.
        The Safe Drinking Water Act includes several set-asides related to
    operator certification and training for water systems from the funding
    authorized for the State revolving funds. Congress should buttress that
    authority by tasking the U.S. Department of Labor with developing a
    workforce development program that would provide American workers the
    skills and credentials needed to support the operation, maintenance,
    and improvement of the hi-tech water and wastewater systems of
    tomorrow.
      increasing infrastructure resilience through pre-disaster mitigation
        In 2018, the National Institute of Building Sciences (``NIBS'')
    released its ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report'',
    concluding that:
          Adopting Model Building Codes Saves $11 per $1 Invested
          Federal Mitigation Grants Save $6 per $1 Invested
          Exceeding Codes Save $4 per $1 Invested
          Mitigating Infrastructure Saves $4 per $1 Invested
        In recognition of these and other benefits of mitigation,
    particularly pre-disaster mitigation, this Committee introduced and
    passed the bipartisan DRRA and other disaster recovery provisions in
    the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which support and incentivize States
    and localities to adopt enhanced mitigation measures to protect lives
    and taxpayer dollars. On October 5, 2018, President Trump signed the
    DRRA into law as part of the Federal Aviation Administration
    Reauthorization Act of 2018. These reforms amend the Robert T. Stafford
    Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and:
          acknowledge the shared responsibility of disaster
    response and recovery,
          aim to reduce the complexity of the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA), and
          build the nation's capacity for the next catastrophic
    event.
        DRRA also established a new, permanent mechanism to provide
    substantial funding for cost-effective, risk-reducing pre-disaster
    mitigation projects. This represents a significant increase in reliable
    funding for grants for State, local, tribal and territorial
    governments, and communities that will enable them to better plan and
    execute cost-effective risk mitigation projects. This nationwide pre-
    disaster mitigation grant program will impact both public
    infrastructure and individual preparedness by increasing residential
    resilience through State-sponsored safe home grants. The competition
    for these resources will create an incubator for best practices,
    lessons learned, and great ideas for projects and programs that can be
    tailored at the State and local level to reduce the risks unique to
    those communities.
        The critical next step for these pre-disaster mitigation programs
    is building capacity at the State level to identify risks and cost-
    effective projects, then facilitating the development of effective and
    efficient grant applications and awards. For its part, the BuildStrong
    Coalition has partnered with FEMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to
    host a series of resilience summits across the country to help
    stakeholders and industry develop the capacity to apply for and
    implement these grants. The first summit will be May 2, 2019, in
    Washington, DC. Future meetings will be held in Sacramento, CA, and
    Houston, TX. Further, through these partnerships we are working to
    align and leverage other Federal resilience programs, such as Community
    Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds and resources
    from the Department of Energy and EPA.
          lessons learned from the 2017 storms--risk reducing projects
        Much of the discussion in congressional hearings and other fora has
    focused primarily upon above-ground buildings, houses, and other
    structures. However, the risks to property and human lives and health
    arising from damage to infrastructure also require attention. For
    example, water is a critical element of most of our firefighting
    capabilities in the event of a natural disaster and is essential to the
    prevention of disease and other public health threats. However,
    earthquakes can rupture water distribution lines unless properly
    constructed, wildfires can destroy these vital lifelines and
    contaminate water supplies, and floods can jeopardize underground
    infrastructure in a manner similar to earthquakes as the ground becomes
    saturated and more fluid.
        The damage to infrastructure during the major hurricanes of 2017
    and the recent wildfires highlight the importance of building a
    resilient power grid. Most hospitals, water treatment plants, food
    services, communications, search and rescue operations, reconstruction,
    and other critical lifeline services depend upon access to electric
    power. However, power is almost always interrupted by such storm
    events; indeed, there are parts of Puerto Rico that remain without
    reliable electricity almost 2 years after Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
    Increasing the resilience of our power grids in these areas would
    significantly reduce the costs of post-disaster reconstruction and
    avoiding life-threatening power interruptions.
        To address these issues, the BuildStrong Coalition has proposed
    several possible solutions that should be encouraged in soliciting and
    reviewing applications for pre-disaster mitigation funding, each of
    which would be implemented at the State and local levels and would
    reduce the risk of loss in a disaster event.
        One example is focusing standards that could improve the resilience
    of our electric power distribution systems in disaster prone areas. The
    National Electric Safety Code establishes standards for the
    construction of transmission and distribution utility poles. Section 25
    defines the strength standards required for different areas of the
    country, based upon, among other things, loading maps from the American
    Society of Civil Engineers--ASCE 74-2010. ASCE wind maps have been
    widely adopted by the International Building Code (IBC), International
    Residential Code (IRC), and International Existing Building Code
    (IEBC).
        The ASCE 74 maps show values for wind speed and ice thickness that
    are expected to be exceeded every 50 years \2\, identify the weather
    risks associated with those areas, and specify the wind speeds that the
    poles must withstand. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Florida, and
    certain other island and mainland coastal areas are designated as
    extreme wind areas, and other areas in the U.S. are considered ``high
    risk'' for wind and ice accumulation. Section 250C sets the strength
    standards for extreme wind, and 250D for extreme wind and ice. However,
    both standards exempt poles of under 60' in height from compliance with
    the extreme wind performance criteria, even though the wind
    measurements used to designate the wind loads are taken at 33 feet. As
    an additional point of reference, an estimated 90 percent of all poles
    in use in the U.S. are under 60' in height.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 2017 NESC Handbook Premier Edition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This 60' exemption results in a significant reduction in the size
    and strength of poles for many vulnerable and heavily populated coastal
    areas. Indeed, even though ASCE 74 would require a wind tolerance of
    145 mph in these areas under the exemption the southern U.S. and the
    Caribbean territories need only design their systems to withstand a
    Category 2 hurricane (114 MPH), and the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to
    withstand a tropical storm (75 MPH). Nine hurricanes above Category 2
    have hit the U.S. since 2000 \3\, including Hurricanes Irma and Maria,
    with winds measured at over 200 MPH and 145 MPH, respectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thus, although Puerto Rico and other southeastern coastal areas
    have the highest wind loading in the United States, 90 percent of the
    utility poles in those areas are exempt from compliance with the
    extreme wind standard in Section 25 of the NESC. The impacts of
    Hurricanes Irma and Maria vividly demonstrated the consequences of this
    exemption. According to news reports, more than 50,000 utility poles
    were destroyed in Puerto Rico during those storms, and another 120,000
    were lost in Florida \4\. There was widespread loss of power, which
    cost an estimated $5 billion to restore. Had all those poles been
    installed in accordance with the high wind loading requirements of NESC
    250C, including those under 60', there is a high probability those
    losses would have been much lower.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-distribution/ground-after-
    hurricane-harvey
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are many options available to utilities to meet the extreme
    wind loading requirements of section 250C and 250D. Wood poles of a
    larger size can comply, as can engineered poles made of steel, ductile
    iron and concrete. Enforcement of these standards without the exemption
    will not exclude poles made from any particular material.
        Florida serves as a good example of the benefits of storm
    hardening. After the storm seasons of 2004-2005, the Florida Public
    Service Commission mandated that investor-owned utilities, and
    recommended that municipalities and cooperative utilities, inspect all
    poles every 8 years and replace all obsolete poles, including those
    below 60 feet, with poles that meet the high wind loads in ASCE 74. In
    2018, the Florida Public Service Commission declared that the storm
    hardening programs in Florida are working. Outages from 2017's
    Hurricane Irma were much less significant than those in 2004-2005 storm
    season, and the adoption of more resilient poles reduced the
    construction man-hours required to restore hardened feeders by 50
    percent. At Florida Power and Light, Florida's largest utility, non-
    hardened poles were 10 times more likely to fail than hardened poles
    \5\. As a more specific example, more than 1,000 Section 250C-compliant
    poles under 60' in height were in service in the Florida Keys when Irma
    and Maria made landfall. Not a single such pole was lost, while
    approximately 1,000 nearby wooden poles that had been installed under
    the 60' exemption failed. A video describing that experience can be
    found at: https://t.co/YRHdrkVpuD.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Florida Public Service Commission. Docket No. 20170215-EU--
    Review of electric utility hurricane preparedness and restoration
    actions, July 24, 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Facilitating applications for upgrading the power distribution
    system, and eliminating the 60-foot exemption as a prerequisite for
    approval, would incentivize States to reform this aspect of disaster
    procurement by requiring that all newly installed or repaired electric
    distribution poles conform to the requirements of NESC 250C and 250D
    without regard to height. This approach would not create any preference
    among available materials--all can bid so long as their products meet
    the performance standard--but such a measure would greatly reduce the
    risk and costs to the U.S. taxpayers.
        Similar issues arise in wildfire situations. News reports indicate
    that one of the recent wildfires in California was caused when a
    transformer exploded on a flammable, wooden pole. In addition, as the
    fires spread other flammable poles caught fire with resulting damage to
    the distribution systems. Thus, using pre-mitigation grant funding to
    encourage the replacement of electrical distribution poles in wildfire-
    prone areas with poles made of non-flammable materials could reduce
    damage, interruptions, and reconstruction costs.
        Although the upfront costs of more resilient poles might be
    slightly higher, the long-term savings would be dramatic. For example,
    there is an approximately $500 difference between the cost of a wooden
    pole that does not conform with section 250C extreme wind standard and
    a wooden pole that does. Similarly, the cost difference between a non-
    compliant wooden pole and an engineered pole is less than $2,500. But
    the typical life expectancy of an engineered pole is three times that
    of a wooden pole, and a pole replacement under emergency conditions can
    cost more than $10,000. Thus, in a single major hurricane like Maria,
    during which 50,000 poles were destroyed in Puerto Rico, the net
    savings to communities and the taxpayers could be more than
    $500,000,000 from repair costs alone. Those savings would be many times
    greater if one assumes a larger geographic impact than one State or
    territory, and that more than one such event will occur over the 30-
    year lifespan of a typical, non-250C high wind compliant wooden pole.
     reducing climate risks while preserving american jobs and communities
        In addition to these improvements, Congress can reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions, while at the same time preserving and creating American
    jobs, through the maintenance and expansion of domestic preferences for
    iron and steel products used in infrastructure projects. U.S. producers
    have invested heavily to modernize their U.S. operations conform to the
    world's most robust environmental standards. We at McWane are proud to
    say that our plants are among the safest and most environmentally sound
    in the world, but every day we must compete against foreign, State-
    owned or subsidized foundries and mills that regularly flout
    international trade laws, have no regard for worker safety, the
    environment, or public health and are not required to operate by
    standards comparable to those with which U.S. manufacturers must
    comply.
        In fact, the foreign producers with whom U.S. iron and steel
    producers most often compete are also the most polluting. According to
    the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), Chinese steel
    producers emit 2.5 tons of CO2 for each ton of steel manufactured in
    China. For the global steel industry, IISI reports that average CO2
    emissions were 1.7 tons for each ton of steel produced. The American
    Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and the Steel Manufacturing Association
    (SMA) suggest that the figure of 2.5 tons per ton of steel understates
    the actual level of Chinese steel CO2 emissions, and that the true
    number is closer to four tons of emissions for each ton produced in
    China, compared to the worldwide average of 1.7 tons per ton of steel.
    Similarly, a typical plant in China emits more than 20 times the
    particulate (9.4 lbs. per ton versus 10.4 lbs. per ton) and nearly 35
    times the carbon monoxide (149.4 lbs. per ton versus 4.4 lbs. per ton)
    than are emitted by a typical U.S. plant. As a 2014 report from the
    National Academy of Sciences, ``China's international trade and air
    pollution in the United States,'' observed:
            As the Chinese economy has grown, the economic structure has
            also changed, transitioning from a net importer to a large net
            exporter of energy-intensive industrial products. The energy
            needed to support this economic growth and transformation has
            come from combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal, which has
            contributed to a global increase in emissions of carbon dioxide
            (CO2). At the same time, increased combustion of fossil fuels,
            relatively low combustion efficiency, and weak emission control
            measures have also led to drastic increases in air pollutants
            such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon
            monoxide (CO), black carbon (BC), and primary organic carbon
            (OC). Indeed, fossil-fuel-intensive manufacturing, large
            manufacturing volume, and relatively weak emission controls
            have meant that China emits far more pollutants per unit of
            gross domestic product (GDP) than countries with more advanced
            industrial and emission control technologies. Per unit of GDP
            in 2006, China emitted 6-33 times as much air pollutants as the
            United States.
        In addition to the harm to the environment, these disparities
    create significant cost and competitive disadvantages for American
    producers, that have led to lost sales, closed plants, lost tax
    revenues, lost jobs, and more carbon emissions. Communities across the
    country are in decline because the factories that once built our
    nation's infrastructure have disappeared, depriving them of the vital
    tax revenues and rate payers needed to operate and maintain their water
    systems and other public services.
        Because carbon emissions impact the global climate system to the
    same degree regardless of their country of origin, policies that
    encourage the sourcing of materials from better-performing countries
    can reduce those emissions. An example of just such a successful policy
    is the American Iron and Steel (``AIS'') preference to the Drinking
    Water SRF, the Clean Water SRF, and WIFIA. AIS is critical to U.S. iron
    and steel producers. It has provided producers with important
    incentives to preserve production capacities in the United States, make
    significant capital investments to improve manufacturing capabilities,
    and maintain workforces that sustain the communities around them. I can
    say with pride and relief that AIS has saved at least one of our plants
    from closure, preserving hundreds of jobs in an economically depressed
    area.
        By 2008, our waterworks fittings plant in Anniston, Alabama was the
    last surviving domestic manufacturer of those products. At one time
    there were as many as a dozen such plants in the United States, but
    all, including our other fittings plant in Texas, fell victim to the
    unfair foreign competition I described previously. Even that lone
    survivor was at risk of closure when the great recession hit, operating
    at around 30 percent of its production capacity. But with the
    application of AIS to the SRF's, first in ARRA and later through WRDA
    and the annual appropriations process, that plant has increased its
    capacity utilization to almost 70 percent, added product offerings,
    and, more importantly, more than doubled the number of jobs. But the
    benefits of AIS are not limited to our operations. Because of AIS some
    of the same foreign companies who drove the near destruction of the
    American fittings industry have now moved their production to the
    United States, first using existing foundries struggling for work, and
    more recently purchasing their own production facility. They have done
    this specifically in response to AIS. It is hard to conceive of a more
    concrete example of AIS's job-creating impact.
        AIS was first enacted for both the DWSRF and the CWSRF in the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Later in 2014, the Congress
    enacted permanent AIS statutes applicable to the CWSRF as well as WIFIA
    as part of the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
    Congress has continued to apply the policy annually though the
    appropriations process to the DWSRF for Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, 2017,
    and 2018, and in AWIA Congress extended AIS to the DWSRF for 5 years.
    While those of us who make products domestically are very grateful for
    these actions, we urge Congress to enact a statute to permanently apply
    the AIS procurement preference policy to the DWSRF in any upcoming
    authorizing legislation, to bring that program into line with the
    others, to secure the benefits of AIS for future generations, and to
    eliminate the possibility of a lapse of AIS for the DWSRF, which would
    burden EPA with administering overlapping programs subject to
    conflicting standards.
        Moreover, many other water-related programs have no domestic
    content requirement, which not only shifts the production of products
    for those programs to sources that produce more greenhouse gas
    emissions and deprives the economy of the benefits of AIS, it also
    creates administrative inconsistencies and inefficiencies. The programs
    with no Buy America requirement include the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Rural Utilities Services' Water and Waste Disposal
    Program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
    Community Development Block Grant program, the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation's Rural Water Supply program, the Economic Development
    Administration's Public Works and Economic Development Program, and the
    Indian Health Services, Facilities and Environmental Health program.
        Until Buy America preferences like AIS are made permanent and
    applied across the spectrum of taxpayer-funded infrastructure programs,
    the thousands of jobs that have been created and supported by this
    successful policy are always at risk. It is time to build on what is
    already a successful program, and to make AIS permanent for the DWSRF
    and other water and DRRA programs as it is for the CWSRF, WIFIA, and
    most of the other non-water Federal-aid infrastructure programs.
    Further, by encouraging production of materials by high-performing
    American facilities instead of more polluting and energy-intensive
    facilities in China and elsewhere, application of Buy America policies
    will ensure that the carbon emissions associated with production for
    infrastructure projects will be as small as possible.
                                   conclusion
        These are only a few of the issues and solutions that merit
    discussion. The key takeaway, however, is that we can solve a range of
    problems--economic, environmental, and climate-related--by tailoring
    our Federal polices to take advantage of the technologies of the 21st
    century and the efficiency, productivity and commitment of American
    workers and industry. And when considering Federal resources, we must
    make resilient, cost-effective investments. We at McWane are glad to
    have the opportunity to contribute to that process.

        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Proctor.
        And now I recognize Mr. Saumweber for 5 minutes.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Saumweber. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
    the ways in which Federal infrastructure policy can help
    mitigate and adapt to climate change. My name is Whitley
    Saumweber and I currently serve as the director of the
    Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic
    and International Studies. This project is a new effort on
    behalf of CSIS to examine the links between ocean health,
    marine resource conflicts and national security challenges.
        Prior to joining CSIS, I held appointments as a visiting
    fellow at Stanford University and as Associate Director for
    Ocean and Coastal Policy in President Obama's White House
    Council on Environmental Quality. I have previously worked for
    the late Senator Inouye and at the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration as an advisor to the two previous
    Administrators. Over the course of my career, I have helped to
    develop, implement and lead our national ocean, Arctic and
    fisheries policies and it is this experience that my testimony
    today draws upon.
        The second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment
    issued late last year makes it clear that the impacts of
    climate change are being felt now and, absent significant
    changes to the global carbon economy, will be accelerating into
    the foreseeable future. Climate change therefore serves as both
    a source of immediate challenge and strategic risk. Managing
    this risk will require a combination of near-term investments
    to adapt existing infrastructure and a sustained commitment to
    developing more resilient systems in the face of continuous
    change.
        The U.S. Marine Transportation System provides for 90
    percent of our imported goods, supports $4.6 trillion in
    economic activity--roughly one-quarter of our economy--and
    sustains 23 million jobs. All of these are at risk if we do not
    provide appropriate investments to ensure resilience in our
    maritime infrastructure, and to do so in a way that accounts
    equally for economic, environmental and social values.
        The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System has
    identified three primary risks associated to the MTS associated
    with climate change: sea level rise, increasing frequency and
    potency of coastal storms and the opening of the Arctic. They
    also identify an additional 29 environmental factors that may
    be exacerbated by climate-related impacts, which would put
    maritime infrastructure at further risk. These include such
    diverse threats as invasive species, extreme events and
    changing migration patterns.
        In considering how to respond to such a complicated array
    of risk factors, we should be clear on how we prioritize the
    impacts based on likelihood of threat and the value of the
    infrastructure at risk. But we should also think about how we
    define resilience and what we wish our goals to be.
        The National Academies of Science has defined resilience as
    the ability to prepare, resist, recover and more successfully
    adapt to the impacts of adverse events. This is sufficient, so
    long as we believe that we have a clear sense of what the
    possible range of those events may be. But the current reality
    of climate change is that our world is not in steady state.
    Rather, we exist in a state of continuous change. We should
    therefore recognize that today's standards will be insufficient
    to meet tomorrow's needs, just as last year's 100-year flood is
    this year's hurricane season.
        Sea level rise is a great example of this dynamic as it is
    both accelerating and variable across geographies. But these
    changes will apply in our communities as well. And when
    considering investments in port infrastructure, we should
    understand that the nature of regional maritime industries is
    likely to change as climate drives changes in regional
    economies, global shipping patterns and national security
    challenges.
        Among the most clear example of these shifts will be in the
    Arctic, where we may see an ice-free pole within the next 10 to
    20 years. This has tremendous implications for economic
    development, resource exploitation, shipping routes and
    strategic challenges. Meeting these needs will require us to
    consider the level of investment we are currently making and
    commit to providing the resources needed to support our
    national security and sustainable economic development in the
    new ocean.
        Moving forward, I commend the committee for considering
    climate impacts in its deliberations and recommend the
    following priorities. For general maritime infrastructure
    needs, the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
    NOAA should jointly lead a comprehensive assessment of U.S.
    port infrastructure and its risk to climate-related hazards.
    Each of these agencies have a number of programs on which such
    an effort could build. Individual port needs will vary widely
    but investments in communication networks for immediate hazard
    adaptation and contingency planning and land-use planning to
    optimize use of green infrastructure for long-term resilience
    should also be priorities. And, finally, investing in Arctic
    capabilities for the U.S. Coast Guard and related mission
    capacity should be a priority. This includes fully supporting
    the Polar Security Cutter program, investing in communication
    and vessel monitoring networks to support implementation of the
    Bering Strait Port Access Route Study, supporting
    implementation of the Alaskan Arctic PARS in the Chukchi and
    Beaufort Seas and providing for engagement with Alaskan Native
    communities and governments on the development of a deepwater
    port facility in the Bering Strait region and moving forward
    with its development based on this input and the outcomes of
    the forthcoming U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study.
        Thank you. And I look forward to your questions and
    discussion.
        [Mr. Saumweber's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Whitley Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean
    Security Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
    me here today to discuss the ways in which Federal infrastructure
    policy can help mitigate and adapt to climate change. My name is
    Whitley Saumweber and I currently serve as the Director of the
    Stephenson Ocean Security Project at the Center for Strategic and
    International Studies (CSIS). This project is a new effort on behalf of
    CSIS to examine the links between ocean health, marine resource
    conflicts, and national security challenges.
        Prior to joining CSIS, I held appointments as a Visiting Fellow at
    Stanford University and as Associate Director for Ocean and Coastal
    Policy in President Obama's White House Council on Environmental
    Quality. I have previously worked in the U.S. Senate for the late
    Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) and at the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as an Advisor to the two previous
    Administrators. I also hold a Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography from the
    University of Rhode Island. Over the course of my career I have helped
    to develop, implement, and lead our National Ocean, Arctic, and
    Fisheries policies and it is this experience that my testimony today
    draws upon.
                                  introduction
        The second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment issued
    last year makes it clear that the impacts of climate change are being
    felt now and will be accelerating into the foreseeable future without
    significant changes to the global carbon economy. Climate change
    therefore serves as both a source of immediate challenge and strategic
    risk requiring a combination of immediate investment for adaptation and
    sustained investment to support the long-term resilience of affected
    systems. From a maritime perspective one of the most important and
    vital of these is our Marine Transportation System. The U.S. MTS
    accounts for 90 percent of our imported goods, supports $4.6 trillion
    in economic activity, and sustains 23 million jobs. All of these are at
    risk if we do not provide appropriate investments to ensure resilience
    in our maritime infrastructure and to do so in a way that accounts for
    economic, environmental, and social values.
        The U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) has
    identified three primary risks to the MTS associated with climate
    change: (1) Sea Level Rise (SLR); (2) increasing frequency and potency
    of coastal storms; and (3) the opening of the Arctic. They also
    identify an additional 29 factors that may be exacerbated by climate
    related impacts and which would put maritime infrastructure at risk. In
    responding to these risk factors, we should consider the National
    Academies of Science definition of resilience as, ``the ability to
    prepare, resist, recover, and more successfully adapt to the impacts of
    adverse events,'' but also recognize that as we do so we must seek to
    account for continuously shifting baseline. For example, the sea level
    is rising but the rate at which it is doing so will both increase and
    be variable across regions. Similarly, in considering investments in
    port infrastructure to service relevant regional maritime industries,
    we should consider that the nature of these industries are likely to
    change as climate drives changes in regional economies. The port side
    needs of the fishing industry will change, for example as commercial
    stocks move poleward and the composition of local fleets change.
        The most clear example of these shifts is in the Arctic where we
    may see an ice free pole within the next 10-20 years.
                            general recommendations
        Risk Assessment--Invest in programs at the U.S. Coast Guard and
    NOAA that support a comprehensive risk assessment of major U.S. ports
    to the primary climate risk factors contained in the CMTS Risk Factors
    Matrix.
        Resiliency Standards--Develop a set of standards for port
    infrastructure that map to regional predictions of sea level change
    under each of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) of green house has
    emissions.
        Targeted Investment--Consider the use of novel public/private
    partnerships, including funds such as the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund, Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and National Coastal Resilience
    Fund to support investment in port adaptation programs that meet
    revised resiliency standards and are applied based on priority risk
    assessment needs.
                             arctic recommendations
        President Obama recognized that the Arctic would become
    increasingly important from both an economic and strategic perspective
    as the polar ice cap melts and new shipping lanes and opportunities for
    resource use and extraction emerged. To grapple with these emerging
    challenges his Administration developed the first National Strategy for
    the Arctic Region, and, in partnership with Canada, in 2016, proposed A
    New Model for Arctic Leadership. Both documents called for building a
    sustainable Arctic economy, supporting conservation, and supporting
    Arctic communities including through increased collaboration with
    indigenous communities and valuation of local and traditional
    knowledge. Needed investments in Arctic infrastructure should follow a
    similar model and make sure that local communities are engaged in
    decisionmaking processes and that impacts on sensitive and changing
    ecosystems are considered. I list a number of these needs below which
    also broadly map to the CMTS' 10-year Arctic infrastructure priorities.
        Maritime Domain Awareness and Readiness--
          The USCG's National Security Cutter program should be
    fully funded and clearly supported in the developing USCG Arctic
    Strategy.
          The USCG Alaska Arctic Port Access Route Study (PARS)
    should be fully funded and completed in a timely manner that allows for
    appropriate consultation with local communities.
          Support for NOAA's Office of the Coast Survey and
    National Geodetic Survey should be increased to accelerate Arctic
    surveying, charting, and National Geodetic Reference Frame updates.
          The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should complete their
    feasibility study for a deep water port in Northwest Alaska.
          Development of a deep water port should be pursued based
    on the recommendations of the USACE study and in consultation with
    local communities.
          Investment in additional oil spill and incident response
    infrastructure is critical including pre-positioning and transport
    planning for events on the North Slope.
        Communications--Communication infrastructure to support both ship
    to ship and ship to shore networks is lacking on the North Slope.
    Investments are needed to support the expanded use of Automatic
    Identification Systems (AIS) and broadband communications.

        Mr. Larsen. Thank you for your testimony.
        And I want to now turn to Lynn Scarlett.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much. Thank you, members of
    the committee, for this opportunity to discuss infrastructure
    resilience. I am Lynn Scarlett, vice president of policy and
    Government relations at The Nature Conservancy.
        As we look to invest in infrastructure in the context of
    climate change, nature itself can be a solution. Natural
    infrastructure can be clean, green and dollar smart. It is real
    and practical. So what is it?
        Natural infrastructure refers to investments in natural and
    bioengineered systems to contribute to infrastructure needs. It
    can be deployed alone or in combination with more traditional
    infrastructure. It includes green spaces that absorb and filter
    stormwater, reducing flooding and pollution, often at much less
    cost than refurbishing pipe-and-tunneling systems.
        For example, Philadelphia is putting nature back into the
    city to handle sewerage overflow and stormwater at a fraction
    of the cost to replace pipes and tunnels. Seattle reduced the
    volume of runoff in one neighborhood by 98 percent by using
    natural infrastructure and the price tag was 25 percent less
    than traditional tools.
        Beyond city spaces, natural infrastructure includes the use
    of living shorelines of sea marshes, oyster reefs and dunes. In
    Howard Beach, New York, for example, the conservancy evaluated
    nature-based infrastructure and showed that a combination of
    nature-based and grade defenses result in avoided losses of
    $244 million from extreme storm events.
        The potential risk-reducing benefits of nature's assets are
    not hypothetical. In one study, the conservancy and a global
    risk modeler for the insurance industry modeled storm surge and
    damages from Hurricane Sandy. We determined that coastal
    wetlands prevented more than $625 million in property damages.
        Nature can help with transportation systems, too,
    especially in culvert design. Most culverts across this country
    see upsizing as we see more frequent high-intensity storms and
    the effects of a changing climate. Using culverts with natural
    bottoms reduces erosion and flooding. In New York, for example,
    one use of such an approach resulted in a road crossing
    surviving seven federally declared flood disasters over the
    past 15 years.
        We have engaged across the Nation in natural infrastructure
    projects. These include one in Hamilton City, California, with
    the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce flood damage and restore
    ecosystems through levee setbacks and reconnecting 1,400 acres
    of flood plain. They include many projects in the Gulf of
    Mexico and the eastern seaboard on oyster reef restoration.
    They include efforts in, for example, Coquille Valley, Oregon,
    to upgrade tide gates and culverts, improve water management at
    less cost than traditional levees.
        But significant opportunities exist to enhance the extent
    and effectiveness of these efforts. We launched a natural
    infrastructure initiative with the company Caterpillar as they
    and other business leaders recognized the potential of natural
    infrastructure. The initiative includes AECOM, Great Lakes
    Dredge and Dock, Brown and Root and other partners. The purpose
    is to accelerate investment in water-based infrastructure and
    promote the use of natural infrastructure.
        The Federal Government is also helping lead the way. The
    Army Corps has many natural infrastructure projects and
    recently released a report called Engineering with Nature. But
    we see more opportunities for Federal leadership. These include
    consideration of natural infrastructure in Federal agency
    planning and in community hazard mitigation planning and
    investments. They include increasing reforestation through the
    Forest Service Restoration Trust Fund. They include supporting
    the Federal Highway Administration in infrastructure
    vulnerability assessments and training around its natural
    infrastructure guidance for transportation investments.
        As we invest in this Nation's infrastructure, let us not
    build ourselves back into the 20th century. Nature's solutions
    are part of a better, cheaper, smarter future. Thank you.
        [Ms. Scarlett's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Lynn Scarlett, Vice President for Public Policy
                and Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy
        Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and committee members,
    thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's views
    on enhancing resilience of our transportation infrastructure. My name
    is Lynn Scarlett. I am Vice President for Public Policy and Government
    Relations at The Nature Conservancy.
        The Conservancy is a global conservation organization dedicated to
    conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. Guided by
    science, we create innovative, on-the-ground solutions to the world's
    toughest challenges so that nature and people can thrive together. We
    are tackling climate change, conserving lands, waters and oceans at
    unprecedented scale, providing food and water sustainably and helping
    make cities more sustainable. Working in all 50 States and 72
    countries, we use a collaborative approach that engages local
    communities, governments, the private sector and other partners,
    including farmers, ranchers and other landowners.
                infrastructure needs and natural infrastructure
        There are tremendous needs for improving and maintaining all kinds
    of infrastructure throughout the United States. Review of the recent
    American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 scorecard giving the state of
    our nation's infrastructure a D+ summarizes this need. To meet the
    needs for upgrading our nation's infrastructure requires investing
    significant resources and finding ways to cost effectively and
    expeditiously accomplish needed infrastructure investments while
    sustaining community, environmental, safety and other widely held
    values. One significant tool in meeting the infrastructure demands in a
    cost-effective manner is to consider investments in natural
    infrastructure.
        Natural infrastructure refers to investments in restoration,
    conservation of nature and nature-based (bioengineered) systems to
    achieve infrastructure needs. Investments in natural infrastructure
    often occur combined with investments in more traditional ``gray,'' or
    ``hard,'' infrastructure like levees, roads and seawalls. Investments
    in natural infrastructure help preserve or reintroduce the basic
    functions of nature that deliver a suite of benefits in support human
    well-being; provide clean water and clean air; and sustain lands that
    provide food and recreation opportunities and reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. Many of these solutions provide infrastructure innovations
    as important for their cost-effective performance as are innovations in
    high-technology solutions.
      investments in natural infrastructure enhance resilience to growing
                                    impacts
        Investments in natural infrastructure can help reduce the impacts
    of a changing climate. According to the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. has sustained 241 weather
    and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or
    exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 241 events exceeds $1.6
    trillion. In 2018 across the U.S., 14 weather and climate disaster
    events resulted in losses exceeding $1 billion each. These events
    included one drought, eight severe storms, two tropical cyclones, one
    wildfire and two winter storms. Overall, these events resulted in the
    deaths of 247 people and resulted in significant economic impacts.
        Weather-related disasters have been escalating, and the trend is
    expected to continue. Over the last 50 years, Americans have seen a 20
    percent increase in high-intensity downpours. In addition, research
    documents that the proportion of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes
    has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent in 35 years (Holland and
    Bruyere, 2012). Coastal storm surge and storm impacts will intensify as
    sea levels continue to rise the predicted 0.6 feet and 2 feet globally
    in the next century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).
    Understanding these observed and projected effects are important to
    advance prudent management and infrastructure investments.
          investments in natural infrastructure are a smart investment
        Incorporating nature in our infrastructure designs and investments
    provides opportunities to enhance the resilience of our nation's
    infrastructure, delivers a host of benefits and ensures that we are not
    repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure based on outdated standards and
    trends. For example, rebuilding culverts without taking into
    consideration trends of increased rainfall events will result in those
    culverts being repeatedly blown out, while also damaging roads. We see
    many examples of this type of repeat damage and Federal funds being
    wasted rebuilding the same culvert or other types of infrastructure, in
    the same manner, only to be subsequently destroyed during the next
    extreme weather event. We should make smarter investments and rebuild
    larger culvert openings or more resilient infrastructure designs that
    will accommodate flood waters or withstand other extreme weather
    impacts. Doing so also helps avoid costly road closures. Larger culvert
    sizes also enhance the health of rivers, benefiting fish and other
    wildlife.
                        what is natural infrastructure?
        Defining the terms natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions
    can help provide a common understanding of what is meant by these
    terms. We have received from Members of Congress and congressional
    staff requests for more information on what is meant by these terms.
        The terms have been defined in section 1184 of Water Resources
    Development Act (WRDA) 2016 legislation:
           ``The term 'natural feature' means a feature that is created
    through the action of physical, geological, biological and chemical
    processes over time.''
           ``The term `nature-based feature' means a feature that is
    created by human design, engineering and construction to provide risk
    reduction in coastal areas by acting in concert with natural
    processes.''
        WRDA 2018 amended the definition of nature-based feature to strike
    the word ``coastal,'' resulting in the term applying to all areas. We
    generally agree with this definition.
        Natural infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment
    and engineered systems that mimic natural processes or work in concert
    with natural systems to provide flood, fire and drought risk reduction,
    clean water and clean air benefits. Natural infrastructure delivers
    economic, societal and environmental benefits.
        At its essence, natural infrastructure can protect, restore or
    mimic the role that nature plays--ecological processes, including, but
    not limited to, water quality and quantity processes. Natural
    infrastructure uses vegetation, soil health, land protection, land
    management and other elements and practices to protect, maintain and
    restore the natural processes required to manage water and other
    natural processes, create healthier environments and protect human
    communities. Natural infrastructure solutions can be applied on
    different scales: at the city, county or regional scales. By using
    nature, damages and impacts can be minimized, and communities can
    recover more quickly from disasters and impacts.
        To illustrate varied types of natural infrastructure projects, we
    include a compilation of natural infrastructure projects from
    throughout the U.S. in which the Conservancy has been involved. (See
    Appendix A.) The Naturally Resilient Communities website, which the
    Conservancy developed along with the National Association of Counties,
    the Association of State Floodplain Managers, as well as others,
    provides an overview of natural infrastructure and case studies
    throughout the U.S. that illustrate varied types of projects.
        Benefits of natural infrastructure include the following:
          Reducing risks to people and structures
          Reducing wave heights and storm surge
          Storing and conveying water
          Improving water quality (and reducing costs of water
    treatment)
          Reducing drought impacts
          Reducing threats of catastrophic fires
          Reducing summer heat and improving air quality
          Reducing erosion and sedimentation
          Providing green spaces, greenways and recreational
    opportunities
          Providing habitat for fish and wildlife
        Types of natural infrastructure include the following:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           River work              Coastal work             Urban work
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reconnecting rivers to   Conserving/restoring     Constructed wetlands
     floodplains              coastal marshes         Bioretention cells
    Levee setbacks and       Conserving/restoring     Planting trees
     realignments             oyster and shellfish    Conserving lands in
    Flood bypasses            reefs                    watershed headwaters
    Conserving/restoring     Conserving/restoring     Sustainable forest
     watershed forests        coral reefs              management
    Conserving/restoring     Building living
     river corridors          shorelines
    Conserving/restoring     Conserving/restoring
     wetlands                 intertidal flats
    Constructing wetlands    Conserving/restoring
    Establishing flood        mangroves
     water detention areas
    Fish/flood friendly
     culverts/bridges
    Dam removal
    Establishing filter
     strips, grassed
     waterways on farm
     fields
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        investing in natural infrastructure can be economically prudent
        The traditional approach to flood and water quality protection in
    river-floodplain systems has been to rely on dams and levees to contain
    flood waters; build treatment plants and lay miles of pipes to treat
    and transport water and wastewater; and, in coastal areas, build sea
    walls, bulkheads and other gray infrastructure. While built
    infrastructure plays an important role in helping to secure and provide
    essential services to communities, it requires substantial investments
    for both initial construction and ongoing maintenance. Moreover,
    extensive reliance on built infrastructure in the United States during
    the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries has encouraged land development
    in areas particularly susceptible to flooding and storm damage and
    catastrophic flooding when infrastructure fails. And fail it has.
        Many disasters during the past decade have involved numerous levee
    breaches, dam failures and seawall breaches. Failing gray
    infrastructure has led to extensive property and infrastructure
    destruction and lives lost.
        If left unaddressed, as the nation's water infrastructure and flood
    protection infrastructure continue to age, we expect economic losses
    will continue to increase--including the taxpayer's large obligation
    under the National Flood Insurance Program--along with the risk faced
    by tens of millions of Americans who live and work behind levees and
    tens of millions more living along the coast.
        Renewing the nation's traditional built flood control and water
    infrastructure solutions presents a daunting challenge. The American
    Society for Civil Engineers reports that there are 30,000 documented
    miles of levees in the U.S. protecting communities, critical
    infrastructure and valuable property. The levees in the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers' data base protect an estimated $1.3 trillion in property.
    Yet development continues to encroach in floodplains along rivers and
    coastal areas, exacerbating flood risk and putting property at risk. An
    estimated $80 billion is needed in the next 10 years to maintain and
    improve the nation's system of levees. The challenge also exists for
    coastal infrastructure. In Massachusetts alone, there are about 140
    miles of publicly owned sea walls or other structures along the coast
    designed to protect billions of dollars of property. Most were designed
    to last a half century but are older than that now. The estimated price
    tag to repair and fortify all of them against rising seas is more than
    a billion dollars.
        Natural infrastructure or natural infrastructure combined with gray
    infrastructure is often the most cost-effective and best-performing
    option for reducing flood risk while delivering a host of other
    benefits such as improved water quality, enhanced habitat for fish and
    animals, improved aesthetics and overall contribution to a community's
    quality of life.
        For example, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that 180 million
    people access their drinking water from national forests. More than 5
    million of these people live in communities served by small- and
    medium-sized utilities that rely on surface water for their drinking
    water. At a time when climate-driven droughts and megafires are more
    common, these communities will need support to protect both homes and
    water supplies. And in urban areas, investments in natural
    infrastructure--such as parks and green spaces, as well as dunes and
    wetlands--can help increase cities' resilience to climate change, as
    well as improve the health, safety and quality of life of urban
    residents.
      growing body of evidence on effectiveness and cost effectiveness of
                             natural infrastructure
    In Coastal Areas
        A growing body of knowledge and experience demonstrate the
    effectiveness and cost effectiveness of coastal natural infrastructure.
    In the U.S., coastal wetlands act as ``horizontal levees'' for a value
    of $23.2 billion per year in protection from storms (Costanza et al.,
    2008). Barbier et al. (2013) show that coastal marshes and vegetation
    have demonstrable effects on reducing storm surge levels, which
    provides significant value in protecting property in southeast
    Louisiana. They measured that a mere 1 percent increase in wetland
    continuity over 6 kilometers would lower residential property flood
    damages by $592,000 to $792,100, and a marginal increase in bottom
    friction over 6 kilometers would reduce flood damages by $141,000 to
    $258,000.
        In a 2016 study, the Conservancy, in partnership with Risk
    Management Solutions, a global leading risk modeler for the insurance
    industry, Guy Carpenter & Co. and others showed that marsh wetlands
    saved more than $650 million in property damages during Hurricane Sandy
    and reduced annual property losses by nearly 20 percent in Ocean
    County, New Jersey (Narayan et al., 2016b).
        Oyster reef development and restoration also yield significant
    economic benefits. A 2012 study by Conservancy economist Timm Kroeger
    summarized that an investment of $150 million in oyster reef
    restoration will achieve the following:
          Build 100 miles of oyster reefs
          Create 380 jobs per year for 10 years, or rather, 3,800
    jobs during the decade-long construction phase
          Boost regional household income by $9.7 million a year
    during the 10-year construction period
          Increase revenues and sales of crab, fish and oyster
    harvests by $7.87 million yearly
          Save property owners up to $150 million on the
    construction of bulkheads
          Enhance yearly saltwater angler spending by $4.9 million
    in Alabama alone
          Increase annual sales by $7.3 million in the commercial
    seafood supply chain
    In Freshwater Areas
        There are also examples of investing in natural infrastructure in
    freshwater systems. The best known example is New York City's effort to
    protect its water supply. In the late 1990's, New York City initiated a
    plan to protect its source water and avoid the cost of a filtration
    plant by investing in its 2,000-square-mile watershed. A filtration
    plant would have cost the city $8 billion to $10 billion in current
    dollars--roughly $6 billion to build and $250 million annually to
    maintain. In contrast, the cost of securing natural infrastructure in
    the watershed was estimated at $1.5 billion. The watershed program has
    staved off the need to build a filtration plant and provided an annual
    $100 million injection to the rural economy in the upper reaches of the
    watershed by providing supplemental income to farmers and forestland
    owners, paying local contractors to install septic systems and set up
    stormwater protection measures and promoting ecotourism (Kenny, 2006.)
        Another example is from the city of Medford, Oregon. Its wastewater
    facility discharges into the Rogue River but exceeds maximum
    temperature load requirements as allowed by its total maximum daily
    load (TMDL). To meet its temperature TMDL requirements, Medford
    evaluated three alternatives: lagoon storage for discharge later in the
    year, mechanical chillers and riparian restoration and shading. An
    economic analysis showed that riparian restoration was three times more
    cost effective than mechanical chillers for reducing thermal loads into
    the river and would provide additional benefits such as wildlife
    habitat and water filtration.
        It is often more cost effective to invest in reduction of risks of
    catastrophic wildland fire than to pay for impacts of damaging fires.
    For example, thinning 1 acre of dense forest in the critical Rio Grande
    and San Juan-Chama headwaters area costs $700 on average, whereas the
    economic impact of 1 acre affected by damaging wildfire can be up to
    $2,150 per acre. Even if just one large fire burns, the upfront
    investment in forest health saves money: Forest thinning to boost fire
    resilience is estimated to cost $73 million to $174 million, with
    damage estimates between $104 million and $1.3 billion. This approach
    makes economic sense over the long term. A recent study estimated the
    cost of damages from wildfires from 2009 to 2012 in New Mexico was $1.5
    billion. In contrast, the Rio Grande Water Fund estimates a total cost
    of $420 million over 20 years to accelerate the pace and scale of
    forest treatments and restoration. Preserving and restoring these
    forests will help ensure the sustainability of New Mexico's water
    supply and increase social and economic benefits for local communities.
        Nationally, a rough estimate is that 67 percent of culverts are not
    designed to allow for a 1 percent flood (100-year flood) and need
    upsizing. Assuming a quarter of those need immediate replacement, the
    savings over the life of the new culverts would be $8 trillion. The
    savings increase with increased flood risk and grow exponentially when
    emergency management is required due to road or bridge washout--none of
    the calculations account for the dramatic costs of catastrophic failure
    and emergency replacement. When aggregated to a Federal level, culvert
    upgrades could represent significant savings to public transportation
    budgets.
        In Hancock, New York, three flood events between 1996 and 2005
    damaged an undersized culvert on Big Hollow Creek. In those 9 years,
    Delaware County spent more than $70,000 to repair damages to the
    culvert, as well as the road and adjacent ditches. In addition, the
    detour length associated with closure of the road for repairs was 18
    miles. Late in 2005, with hazard mitigation funding assistance from the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the county installed a
    three-sided concrete box culvert with a natural bottom, designed to
    convey a 100-year storm and provided at a cost of $143,000. The
    improved crossing has survived seven federally declared flood
    disasters, including Hurricane Irene, without significant damage since
    its replacement in 2005 (W. Reynolds, Delaware County Department of
    Public Works, pers. comm.).
    In Urban Areas
        Natural infrastructure in cities is most often called green
    infrastructure. Green infrastructure has a proven track record of being
    more cost effective, in many cases, than traditional gray
    infrastructure solutions in achieving surface water management goals.
    For instance, the American Society of Landscape Architects studied 479
    green stormwater infrastructure projects, of which 44 percent were
    lower than and 31 percent were equivalent to the costs of gray
    infrastructure alternatives.
        In one example at Episcopal High School in Baton Rouge, the cost of
    bioswales and rain gardens constructed in lieu of replacing stormwater
    pipes with larger-sized pipes saved the school $390,000, a cost savings
    of 78 percent over the original project budget of $500,000.
        Green infrastructure projects, beyond level of service and
    environmental benefits, have compounding economic benefits. In its
    study of the green infrastructure alternative for the city of
    Lancaster, Penn., the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that
    the added-value benefits amounted to nearly $5 million per year.
        congressional actions by this committee and others have enabled
                increased investments in natural infrastructure
        Congress has taken some important steps toward recognizing,
    enabling and funding investment in natural infrastructure. An important
    milestone occurred in the special disaster appropriations that Congress
    passed in response to Superstorm Sandy. Congress appropriated funding
    for several agencies and programs that provided important investments
    in natural and nature-based project work resulting in reducing future
    flood risk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received $360 million for
    coastal resilience projects. This funding spurred important investments
    in natural infrastructure. With this funding, the Conservancy led work
    in New York to mitigate flooding and improve fish passage in the
    Ausable watershed and invested in green infrastructure in Accomack and
    Northampton counties in Virginia. The Conservancy also contributed to
    work in Delaware restoring Delaware Bay's wetlands and beaches in
    Mispillion Harbor Reserve and Milford Neck Conservation area, and in
    Massachusetts removed 10 fish barriers in nine communities resulting in
    lowering flood risk and improving fish habitat and overall quality of
    the streams.
        Other sources of funding in the Sandy bill also contributed to
    enhanced resilience by helping invest in natural infrastructure. NOAA
    was awarded a small amount of funding that it invested in funding
    networks of State, academic, local and nongovernmental organizations to
    build a learning network to spur planning and implementation of actions
    to enhance community resilience. This was an important capacity-
    building investment helping grow and disseminate and build the body of
    knowledge and capacity to implement future coastal resilience work. One
    such investment in New Jersey continues to enable ongoing coastal
    resilience work in that State. Natural Resource Conservation Service
    was awarded funds through its Emergency Watershed Protection program,
    which invests in easement purchases in floodplains to restore
    floodplain areas and allow them to function as areas to absorb and slow
    floodwaters.
        Sandy disaster funding also included $1 billion in disaster funds
    for the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) National Resilience
    Competition. The competition encouraged communities to develop disaster
    recovery plans from past disasters and make investments to lower risk
    to future disasters while advancing broader community development
    goals. The competition encouraged participants to think expansively
    when developing projects that would enable community development goals
    and ensure public engagement. As part of the effort, the Rockefeller
    Foundation collaborated with HUD and provided workshops and expert
    input to applicants to help build capacity and enhance application
    quality. Most of the applications in response to this competition
    included elements of investment in natural infrastructure. The
    Conservancy would like to see this program replicated.
        In addition to funding bills, other legislation has advanced the
    concept of and enabling conditions for investing in nature as a tool
    for reducing risk from a range of impacts such as flooding, drought and
    wildfires.
        As noted previously, WRDA 2016 provided the most comprehensive
    definition of natural and nature-based infrastructure to date. The 2018
    WRDA bill builds on this definition to further require the Army Corps
    to consider natural and nature-based infrastructure when carrying out
    studies of projects.
        As evidence of the Army Corps' own work to support investments in
    natural infrastructure, the Army Corps held an event at the National
    Building Museum in Washington, DC, to launch its new publication,
    ``Engineering With Nature: An Atlas.'' The book is filled with global
    examples of natural and nature-based project work.
      further work to be done to enable natural infrastructure investments
        Many other statutes have included the need to protect and restore
    ecosystems and watersheds to protect the myriad of important services
    intact and healthy natural systems provide to people. There are many
    more opportunities to continue to include this intent in other
    legislation dealing with infrastructure investments and disaster,
    wildfire and drought risk reduction. The Conservancy will continue to
    advocate for consideration of and investments in natural infrastructure
    as the Congress works on developing a bill to invest in infrastructure,
    as well as in other appropriate legislative vehicles.
        Congress must also ensure that infrastructure is built to enhance
    resilience in the context of a changing climate and increasingly
    frequent extreme weather and wildfire events. Congress can improve
    planning, training and direct investments in nature-based and gray
    infrastructure by doing the following:
          Requiring resilience and flood and wildfire risk analysis
    in federally funded work, and upgrading flood maps and wildfire risk
    maps
          Bolstering interagency coordination to enhance resilience
          Incentivizing enhanced community hazard mitigation
    planning and investments
          Enhancing consideration of and investments in natural
    infrastructure alone or in combination with gray infrastructure to
    maximize environmental, societal and economic benefits
          Reducing wildfire risk to communities by investing in
    future risk reductions following disasters and updating Community
    Wildfire Protection Plans
          Codifying the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails
    program to prioritize corrections to deferred maintenance
          Increasing reforestation by investing in the U.S. Forest
    Service Reforestation Trust Fund to plant an additional 1 million trees
    in 3 years
        And Federal agencies can play varying roles in advancing
    investments in natural infrastructure, including the following:
          Army Corps can continue to invest in natural
    infrastructure by offering training and workshops for its staff
    throughout the U.S. to help them understand how best to incorporate
    nature in their project analysis and implementation
          NOAA can provide data, decision support tools such as
    online vulnerability assessment and solution analysis tools, technical
    assistance and training
          U.S. Geological Survey can make its science more
    centrally located, accessible and in easy-to-access online GIS-based
    tools
          FEMA can make more of its flood data available and
    accessible to allow better analysis and targeting of risk reduction
    actions
          Federal Highway Administration can invest more resources
    in its infrastructure vulnerability assessment work and dissemination
    and training around its soon-to-be-released guidance on incorporation
    of natural infrastructure into transportation investments
                growing support among businesses and communities
        In addition to growing support in Congress to promote investments
    in natural infrastructure, the Conservancy has seen encouraging,
    growing support from businesses who see investments in nature as
    important business investments.
        In 2015, the Conservancy joined with Caterpillar and launched the
    Natural Infrastructure Initiative (NII). The NII grew out of a
    gathering of business leaders recognizing the need to work with and
    invest in nature and understanding this as a business opportunity.
    Members of the NII in addition to the Conservancy and Caterpillar
    include AECOM, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, Ducks Unlimited and Brown
    and Root. NII members are working collaboratively to accelerate
    investment in water-based natural infrastructure projects as part of a
    solution set for infrastructure needs, embed natural infrastructure as
    part of ongoing discussions about improving investment in water-based
    infrastructure and promote the use of natural infrastructure in
    general.
        The Conservancy has worked with other companies and organizations
    to investigate natural infrastructure solutions and invest in projects.
    Some examples include Dow, Jacobs, Boeing, BSNF and the American
    Society of Civil Engineers. The Conservancy is committed to working
    with businesses who understand the value of making these investments.
        In addition to corporate support, the Conservancy has seen growing
    support among elected officials and is working with organizations such
    as the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative (MRCTI), which
    represents cities and towns along the main stem of the Mississippi
    River and advocates on issues facing the communities, such as improving
    water quality and reducing flood risk. The Conservancy has also worked
    with the National Association of County Officials (NACO), who has
    joined with us in support of investments in natural infrastructure.
    MRCTI and NACO members understand the numerous benefits provided
    through investments in nature.
      conservancy examples of various types of natural infrastructure work
        The Conservancy is a leader in executing projects that serve as
    prime examples of investments in natural infrastructure. I would like
    to close my testimony by briefly describing a few representative
    examples of the Conservancy's work taking place throughout the U.S.
        Hamilton City, Calif.--Hamilton City is located approximately 90
    miles north of Sacramento and is adjacent to the west bank of the
    Sacramento River. The project is a multipurpose flood damage reduction
    and ecosystem restoration project consisting of construction of a 6.8-
    mile setback levee to provide improved flood protection to the
    community and agricultural areas, and reconnection of approximately
    1,400 acres to the Sacramento River floodplain and restoration of that
    acreage into native riparian habitat. The project was authorized under
    WRDA 2007, amended in WRDA 2017 and is estimated to cost $91 million,
    of which $31.3 million is the non-Federal contribution. The fact that
    this project addresses both flood protection and ecosystem restoration
    required new Army Corps policy guidelines to permit these objectives in
    a single project. The Conservancy is working with the Army Corps
    nationally to encourage expanded implementation of multi-benefit
    projects, which is challenging given the Army Corps' methods for
    evaluating the cost and benefits of projects. The project will help to
    lessen historic flooding that has impacted Hamilton City and result in
    enhanced habitat for fish and wildlife.
        Pacific Northwest--Throughout the Pacific Northwest, tide gates and
    levees are used to control water from rivers and the ocean on low-lying
    properties. Tidal wetlands--which are critical to the survival of
    salmon--once covered most of the Coquille Valley. Today, less than 10
    percent of these historic wetlands in the Coquille Basin remain. The
    Conservancy has been working with Federal and State partners in the
    Coquille watershed in southwestern Oregon to design, upgrade and
    replace tide gates, which is already proving to provide benefits to the
    local community and the agricultural grazing lands while at the same
    time improving water quality, rearing habitat and fish passage.
        The Conservancy and partners have work underway replacing old tide
    gates and culverts with seven new tide gates and five new bridges to
    dramatically improve fish passage and restore wetland function and
    tidal flow in the Coquille basin. By working with the Beaver Slough
    Drainage District, China Creek Gun Club, Coquille Indian Tribe, Federal
    partners such as NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
    entities, this project is reconnecting 7.8 miles of historic channels
    to the Coquille River. The new infrastructure requires less
    maintenance, resulting in cost savings over time. Local landowners have
    reported their excitement about ``raising cattle in the summer and
    salmon in the winter.''
        The construction projects are projected to generate at least $4.2
    million and will support 18 to 25 jobs. Many local businesses will see
    new demand in specific industries like nurseries, heavy equipment, rock
    or gravel and local labor.
        New Jersey--Since Superstorm Sandy, the Conservancy's New Jersey
    chapter has been working to demonstrate the success and benefits of
    projects that help its coastal salt marshes--which helped reduce
    damages in New Jersey during Sandy by nearly $500 million--persist in
    the face of sea level rise. One such project tested an innovative
    technique in which clean mud and sand from clogged boat channels was
    sprayed on top of nearby marshes to help boost the elevation of more
    than 60 acres of marsh. This so-called technique of beneficial reuse of
    dredged material is aimed at boosting the health of the wetland to help
    reduce future storm impacts. This project was the result of a
    successful partnership with the Army Corps, the State of New Jersey and
    others. The construction on three different marshes was completed about
    3 years ago, and the Conservancy is helping to assess the success and
    impact of the project. The results have been promising. In combination
    with other nature-based solutions, like oyster reef breakwaters to
    reduce marsh erosion, the Conservancy is working to expand the
    consideration and implementation of a variety of natural infrastructure
    investments to help the Jersey Shore become more resilient to the
    impacts of climate change.
        Washington, DC.--To mitigate stormwater runoff, Washington, DC,
    instituted a first-of-its-kind stormwater retention credit (SRC)
    market. The market reduces the impact of stormwater runoff--the
    largest-growing source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
    the fastest-growing source of urban water pollution globally. It allows
    land-constrained developers to meet a portion of their stormwater
    retention requirements by purchasing SRCs. Credits are generated by
    stormwater retention projects elsewhere in the city, including green
    infrastructure projects.
        Investments in green infrastructure for stormwater retention can
    bring income to landowners and provide valuable co-benefits, including
    expanded green space, reduced localized flooding, increased flexibility
    and onsite revenue options for developers and jobs to build and
    maintain green infrastructure sites. Offsite credit projects create
    opportunities for infrastructure investments in underserved
    communities.
        The Conservancy's NatureVest is partnering with Encourage Capital
    to establish and capitalize District Stormwater, LLC (DS), which will
    finance and develop SRC-generating projects. DS will work with
    landowners and community groups to site credit-generating projects in
    parts of Washington, DC, that would most benefit from green
    infrastructure while creating liquid, cost-competitive credits for sale
    in the SRC market. DS anticipates mitigating 500,000 gallons of runoff
    annually. This will protect fragile ecosystems, such as the Chesapeake
    Bay, that are too often overrun by polluted stormwater that can contain
    raw sewage; provide infrastructure services to underserved communities
    through increased green space and the reduction of localized flooding;
    and inspire new conservation-minded people as they see the benefits of
    green infrastructure in their communities.
        Gulf of Mexico--Throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern
    seaboard, oysters play a vitally important role in supporting healthy
    estuaries. Oyster reefs provide multiple benefits, from providing
    habitat and food for wildlife, to filtering water, removing nitrogen
    and stabilizing eroding coastlines. Oysters are also a favorite cuisine
    for people, and States throughout the southeast once had robust oyster
    fisheries. A healthy adult oyster can filter up to 50 gallons of water
    daily, helping to cleanse estuaries and support aquatic grasses and
    other plants that need light to survive. These plants, in turn, yield
    benefits like fish production and carbon storage, completing an
    invaluable cycle. Healthy oyster reefs also serve as natural buffers
    against rising sea tides and hurricanes by forming breakwaters that
    help protect shorelines from erosion. Oyster reefs also create economic
    value, bringing upwards of $10 million (dockside valuation) into
    Florida alone. Oyster reefs have severely declined throughout their
    historical ranges all over the world. Today, oyster reefs are
    considered one of the planet's most imperiled marine habitats. Over the
    last two centuries, more than 85 percent of the world's oyster reefs
    have been lost. The Conservancy is working throughout the Gulf of
    Mexico, as well as along the eastern seaboard, to restore and build
    oyster reefs to maximize the services this important species provides
    to people and nature.
        Massachusetts--In September 2016, Gov. Charlie Baker issued an
    executive order that launched a statewide planning process and a
    municipal technical assistance program. A priority is placed on
    investing in nature-based solutions to enhance resilience and actions
    to mitigate climate change.
        Along with the executive order, the State launched a new website,
    the resilient MA Climate Clearinghouse, to provide communities access
    to the best science and data on expected climate change impacts,
    information on planning and actions communities can deploy to build
    resilience and avoid loss, and links to important grant programs and
    technical assistance. The State has also stood up the Municipal
    Vulnerability Preparedness program that provides communities with a
    planning expert to walk them through a Conservancy-developed community
    resilience building process. Communities must update their hazard
    mitigation plans after going through the process and continue to make
    progress to be eligible for State mitigation grant funds.
        This past year, the Massachusetts legislature-enacted climate
    change bond provided $2.4 billion in capital funding for the next 5
    years. The focus is on investing in nature-based solutions to lessen
    climate impacts and enhance resilience. In January, Baker filed a bill
    to increase the real estate transaction fee and use the funds for
    climate change adaptation and resilience (more than $1 billion over 10
    years).
        This program should be replicated at the Federal level. An
    important role Federal agencies can play is to provide technical and
    planning assistance, provide the latest science in a user-friendly
    manner and share best practices to effectively address the challenges
    of extreme weather and a changing climate that are inflicting
    significant costs on communities throughout our Nation.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations on the need for the Federal Government to prioritize
    investment in nature as an important tool for enhancing resilience to
    the increasing impacts of extreme weather and climate change. The
    Conservancy will continue to lead the way in contributing to the
    science and executing projects that demonstrate the important benefits
    and services that nature provides to people. The Conservancy will
    continue to work with the Congress to recommend and advance policies to
    support increased investments in natural infrastructure that help cost
    effectively address our nation's infrastructure challenges.
                                  appendix a:
                   natural infrastructure: what does it mean?
        Natural infrastructure incorporates both the natural environment
    and engineered systems that mimic natural processes or work in concert
    with natural systems to provide flood, fire and drought risk reduction,
    clean water, and clean air benefits. Natural infrastructure delivers
    economic, societal and environmental benefits.
        At its essence, natural infrastructure can protect, restore, or
    mimic the role that nature plays--the ecological processes--including,
    but not limited to, water quality and quantity processes. Natural
    infrastructure uses vegetation, soil health, land protection, land
    management and other elements and practices to protect, maintain and
    restore the natural processes required to manage water and other
    natural processes, create healthier environments, and protect human
    communities.
        Natural infrastructure solutions can be applied on different
    scales: at the city, county or regional scale. By using nature, damages
    and impacts can be minimized and communities can recover more quickly
    from disasters and impacts.
                       benefits of natural infrastructure
          Keep people and structures out of harm's way
          Reduce wave heights and storm surge
          Store and convey water
          Improve water quality
          Reduce drought impacts
          Reduce threat of catastrophic fires
          Reduce summer heat and improve air quality
          Reduce erosion and sedimentation
          Provide greenspaces, greenways and recreational
    opportunities
          Provide habitat for fish and wildlife
                        types of infrastructure projects

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           River work              Coastal work             Urban work
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reconnecting rivers to   Conserving/restoring     Constructed wetlands
     floodplains              coastal marshes         Bioretention cells
    Levee setbacks and       Conserving/restoring     Planting trees
     realignments             oyster and shellfish    Conserving lands in
    Flood bypasses            reefs                    watershed headwaters
    Conserving/restoring     Conserving/restoring     Sustainable forest
     watershed forests        coral reefs              management
    Conserving/restoring     Building living
     river corridors          shorelines
    Conserving/restoring     Conserving/restoring
     wetlands                 intertidal flats
    Constructing wetlands    Conserving/restoring
    Establishing flood        mangroves
     water detention areas
    Fish/flood friendly
     culverts/bridges
    Dam removal
    Establishing filter
     strips, grassed
     waterways on farm
     fields
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              mobile bay, alabama
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        Mobile Bay is the fourth largest estuary in the continental United
    States and plays an important role in nurturing the finfish, shrimp and
    oysters that are vital to Gulf communities.
        Unfortunately, Mobile Bay--like the rest of the Gulf Coast--has
    lost many of its oyster reefs, seagrass beds and coastal marshes.
    Losing these reefs has meant increased shoreline erosion and related
    property damage.
        Despite these challenges, Mobile Bay remains one of the largest
    potential areas for outright restoration, replacement and enhancement
    of these lost habitats on the Northern Gulf Coast.
        The Conservancy is working with partners, including the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, to build 100 miles of oyster reef and plant 1,000
    acres of coastal marsh and seagrass here to help replenish the coastal
    waters and reduce shoreline flood impacts to local communities.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    (c) Beth Maynor Young
                           hamilton city, california
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
    California Department of Water Resources, and Reclamation District
    2140, the Conservancy is championing a $73 million project where, for
    the first time, the Army Corps designed a multi-benefit project to
    specifically reduce flood damages and restore critical floodplain
    habitat on the Sacramento River.
        Construction began in spring 2016 building a new 6.8-mile setback
    levee, along with reconnecting 1,450 acres of floodplain between the
    new set-back levee and the river.
        Approximately 1,361 acres will be restored to native riparian
    habitat and significantly reduce flood risk to the city of Hamilton,
    which has frequently evacuated due to flooding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Sacramento River supports important agricultural areas and critical
    wildlife habitat. (c) Jeff Fricker
                           emiquon preserve, illinois
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        The Nature Conservancy restored 5,900 acres of functional
    floodplain wetlands and five river miles along the Illinois River in
    Fulton County, Illinois.
        Included in this restoration was, in consultation with the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, the installation of a state-of-the-art flood
    control structure.
        The final result of this restoration connected floodplain to the
    7,000 acres of adjacent Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge lands,
    resulting in 14,000 acres of contiguous conservation lands, providing
    flood control, environmental restoration, and public access to wildlife
    and waterfowl habitat.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Nature Conservancy uses its Emiquon Preserve to demonstrate and
    measure the benefits of restored floodplains and wetlands. (c)
    Christina Rutter

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Water control structure at Emiquon preserve.
                  south cape may meadows preserve, new jersey
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State
    of New Jersey, the Conservancy undertook a $15 million restoration
    project that combined natural features like dunes and wetlands with
    levees and other engineered structures to control water.
        Completed in 2004, the restored preserve has since withstood a
    series of severe storms, including Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012.
        Storm waves didn't breach the dunes, wetlands remained intact, and
    the preserve helped protect neighboring communities, which experienced
    only minor flooding unlike similar towns up and down the coast.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Nature Conservancy has helped restore over 630 acres of coastal
    dunes, which can help protect communities from storms. (c) Harold E.
    Malde
                     whittenton dam, taunton, massachusetts
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        In Massachusetts alone, there are close to 3,000 dams; many of them
    are relics of bygone uses.
        The Whittenton Pond Dam was in disrepair, and heavy rains in 2005
    brought the threat of a catastrophic breach and flooding of downtown
    Taunton, which was evacuated for a week as the dam appeared on the
    verge of failure.
        Removing the dam was less expensive than repairing it, with
    rebuilding cost estimated to be $1.9 million and removal cost of
    $447,000.
        The dam's removal in 2013 opened 30 miles of river habitat to
    vulnerable fish species, avoided $1.5 million in emergency response
    cost, increased numbers of two vulnerable species (American eel and
    river herring), and increased property values due to the lower flooding
    risk.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Whittenton Mills dam, damaged during 2005 storm. photo credit: MA
    Division of Ecological Restoration
                       ausable river watershed, new york
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        Undersized stream crossings are prone to damage from high flow
    events and require more frequent maintenance and replacement. During
    major storms, undersized culverts block water, clog with debris and
    worsen flood impacts, requiring expensive repairs to the culverts,
    nearby roads, and private property. When roads shut down due to this
    damage, it creates lengthy detours, often affecting access to local
    businesses. Poorly designed and installed culverts also block fish and
    wildlife movement and impact habitat for economically important
    fisheries.
        In August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene brought significant rainfall
    to much of New England and eastern New York, resulting in unprecedented
    flood damage to infrastructure.
        The Conservancy secured private and government grant funding to
    replace and retrofit high ecological priority, flood-vulnerable
    culverts in New England and in upstate New York. To date, The
    Conservancy has worked with government and non-profit partners to
    complete three culvert replacements and two culvert retrofit projects
    in the Ausable River Watershed in the Adirondacks. These projects
    connect over 65 miles of previously fragmented fish habitat, mitigate
    future flood damage, improve safety on vital local road networks, and
    reduce maintenance costs for communities. The culvert upgrades prevent
    future road damage that occurs when undersized culverts blow out during
    floods.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Roaring Brook culvert prior to replacement. At lower flows this culvert
    outlet was perched above the water surface, creating a barrier to the
    movement of fish. The stream was constricted by the pipes' combined
    span of 12 feet, which caused debris buildup and localized flooding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Roaring Brook culvert replacement: With a width of 35 feet, the new
    culvert--an open-bottom concrete box with a natural streambed--allows
    the stream to pass freely underneath, opening six miles of upstream
    habitat for fish and designed to withstand high water flows.
                            upper mississippi river
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        In cooperation with a diverse group of Upper Mississippi River
    (UMR) stakeholders, The Nature Conservancy is working to garner Federal
    appropriations for a dual-purpose program called the Navigation and
    Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP). As the name implies, this
    program is a measured plan to create a sustainable navigation system
    with strategic improvements at 7 of 37 locks and other small-scale
    efficiency measures. Safe and efficient movement of traffic would be
    renewed on the navigation system, which was constructed almost 80 years
    ago and is now facing continual rehabilitation to maintain. At the same
    time, comparable funding for ecosystem restoration on the UMR will
    afford the opportunity to use additional techniques for river
    restoration such as reconnecting 35,000 acres of river floodplain;
    providing native fish passage; regenerating floodplain forests; and
    managing water levels closer to historic conditions to replicate more
    natural seasonal conditions.
        These new techniques, along with well-established river enhancement
    measures to revitalize river channels, backwaters and floodplain
    habitats are estimated to restore 40 percent of degraded UMR ecosystem.
    A higher-functioning ecosystem provides human and natural services
    through increased nutrient processing, flood storage capacity,
    groundwater infiltration, cleaner water, and improved fish and wildlife
    habitat.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Lock extensions from 600' to 1200' will increase efficiency at the 7
    lock improvement sites by eliminating the need double locking (as shown
    in picture) which is standard practice at all but two locks on the 37
    lock system of the UMR. Disintegrating concrete and mechanical systems
    will be rehabilitated or replaced as the lock in lengthened.
                         howard beach, queens, new york
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, The Nature Conservancy undertook a
    project evaluating the role of nature and nature-based infrastructure
    in protecting communities from some of the impacts of climate change.
    The community of Howard Beach, Queens, was selected as a case study for
    the project because this neighborhood, hit hard during Sandy, is low-
    lying and densely populated. Although Howard Beach was used in the
    analysis, the study methodology is applicable to coastal communities
    across New York City and around the globe.
        Experts analyzed several infrastructure alternatives, ranging from
    purely nature-based solutions to one consisting of only gray defenses.
    The study found that combining natural and gray defenses holds the most
    benefits. Analysis shows that a hybrid alternative could result in
    avoided losses in this one neighborhood of up to $244 million from the
    current 1-in-100-year storm event.
        The best conceptual alternative and most cost-effective, according
    to the study, utilizes restored marsh habitat on the coast, hard toe
    mussel beds along the shoreline, floodgates and sea walls to protect
    against storm surge and rising sea levels and rock groins on the
    shoreline to help prevent erosion.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Infographic of design alternatives studies.
                       rio grande water fund, new mexico
    Project Type: Flood and/or Erosion Risk Reduction
        The Rio Grande Water Fund is a ground-breaking project that is
    engaging private and public partners in proactively protecting vital
    watersheds in northern New Mexico.
        Frequent, high-severity wildfires and subsequent post-fire flooding
    increasingly threaten the Rio Grande's water security and cause
    extensive soil erosion that degrade water quality for communities
    downstream. Restoring overgrown forests is a proven solution to make
    forests safer and healthier, and such efforts were already underway at
    a small scale before the devastating Las Conchas fire blazed in 2011.
    This fire demonstrated that the pace and scale of these treatments was
    insufficient to guarantee water security for Albuquerque and irrigated
    agricultural lands. The Rio Grande Water Fund works to generate
    sustainable funding for a 20-year, large-scale program to restore the
    health of the forest and watershed with treatments that include
    thinning overgrown forests, restoring streams and rehabilitating areas
    that flood after wildfires.
        This approach makes good economic sense over the long-term. A
    recent study estimated the cost of damages from wildfires 2009 to 2012
    in New Mexico was $15 billion. In contrast, the Rio Grande Water Fund
    estimates a total cost of $420 million over 20 years to accelerate the
    pace and scale of forest treatments and restoration. Preserving and
    restoring these forests will help ensure the sustainability of New
    Mexico's water supply and increase social and economic benefits for
    local communities.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Wetlands at Valles Caldera National Preserve. The Rio Grande Water Fund
    engages private and public partners in protecting vital watersheds in
    northern New Mexico. Photo credit: (c) Alan W. Eckert for The Nature
    Conservancy
                               detroit, michigan
    Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
            management
        Like many aging cities, Detroit faces water infrastructure
    challenges. The city's sewer system is combined to collect rainwater
    runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipes.
    Heavy rain events overwhelm the system's capacity, creating raw sewage
    overflows that flood basements and overflow into rivers and ultimately
    the Great Lakes.
        Under the Clean Water Act, the city is required to completely
    eliminate all combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges, yet the costs
    of implementing traditional ``gray'' infrastructure are only
    increasing, with current estimates at $1.2 billion. To help reduce or
    offset these costs, The Nature Conservancy is working with the city to
    incorporate green infrastructure, a form of natural infrastructure used
    in cities. The design uses green space and natural plant material to
    absorb, retain, and slow stormwater runoff, reducing the amount of
    water entering the storage facility for treatment, reducing CSO's, and
    decreasing surface flooding. This, in turn, should lead to improved
    water quality in adjacent rivers and lakes, as well as attractive green
    spaces that contribute to neighborhood revitalization by offering
    recreational areas and beautification opportunities.
        The Conservancy has also provided technical assistance to develop
    policies that have helped finance and encourage green infrastructure
    solutions within Detroit. These policies have enabled economic markets
    and private investment in support of public amenities in new innovative
    ways.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Local flooding in Detroit, the result of aging infrastructure and heavy
    rain. Photo credit: Michael David-Lorne Jordan/David-Lorne Photographic
                              louisville, kentucky
    Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
            management
        The Nature Conservancy is working with partners to conduct a
    rigorous evaluation of the link between urban vegetation/greenspace and
    cardiovascular disease. The goal is to foster the development of public
    health policy that incentivizes using increased tree canopy and other
    forms of nature to achieve better health outcomes.
        The desire is to quantify avoided healthcare costs as a way to
    identify and create a funding stream for large-scale and sustained
    urban tree and other vegetation plantings.
        The aim is to create a replicable model for neighborhood greening
    that other cities and developing countries can adopt. The project hopes
    to provide more scientific evidence of the value of nature to people.
        The Conservancy plans to manage about $8 million in greening
    interventions, with planting beginning in 2017 and continuing for a
    couple of years.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Louisville's heat island has been steadily worsening over the decades,
    especially in low-income neighborhoods, where temperatures can be 20
    degrees higher than surrounding areas.
                                 washington, dc
    Project Type: Water quality and flood risk reduction with stormwater
            management
        To mitigate stormwater runoff, Washington D.C. instituted a first-
    of-its-kind Stormwater Retention Credit (SRC) market. The market
    reduces the impact of stormwater runoff--the largest growing source of
    pollution to the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the fastest growing
    source of urban water pollution globally. It allows land-constrained
    developers to meet a portion of their stormwater retention requirements
    by purchasing SRCs. Credits are generated by stormwater retention
    projects elsewhere in the city, including green infrastructure
    projects. Investments in green infrastructure for stormwater retention
    can bring income to landowners and provide valuable co-benefits,
    including expanded green space, reduced localized flooding, increased
    flexibility and onsite revenue options for developers, and jobs to
    build and maintain green infrastructure sites. Offsite credit projects
    create opportunities for infrastructure investments in underserved
    communities.
        The Nature Conservancy's NatureVest is partnering with Encourage
    Capital to establish and capitalize District Stormwater, LLC. (DS),
    which will finance and develop SRC-generating projects. DS will work
    with landowners and community groups to site credit-generating projects
    in parts of the District that would most benefit from green
    infrastructure, while creating liquid, cost-competitive credits for
    sale in the SRC market. DS anticipates mitigating 500,000 gallons of
    runoff annually. This will protect fragile ecosystems, such as the
    Chesapeake Bay, that are too often overrun by polluted stormwater that
    can contain raw sewage; provide infrastructure services to underserved
    communities through increased green space and the reduction of
    localized flooding; and inspire new conservation-minded people as they
    see the benefits of green infrastructure in their communities.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Example of a stormwater retention project
                             long island, new york
    Project Type: Water quality protection
        In what started with the conservation of 11,000 acres of
    bottomlands in the Great South Bay in 2002, followed by hard clam
    restoration efforts in collaboration with local, State and Federal
    resource managers and stakeholders, The Nature Conservancy has embarked
    on a major campaign to improve water quality on Long Island.
        After shellfish restoration efforts did not perform as expected,
    research was conducted and a group of scientists discovered that
    nitrogen pollution from wastewater was contaminating Long Island's
    groundwater and bays at a level high enough that marine life could not
    thrive. Since that time the situation has worsened and fish kills and
    toxic algae blooms have become more frequent.
        The Nature Conservancy and partners are currently working with
    local, State and Federal agencies as well as stakeholders to upgrade
    municipal wastewater infrastructure and onsite wastewater systems from
    outdated cesspools and septic systems to technology that will remove
    nitrogen pollution and improve water quality. This will secure the
    region's fishing and tourism industries into the future, restore tidal
    marshes that enhance community resilience to storm impacts, and protect
    public health.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Photo: Kenton Rowe, TNC

        Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much. Thank you. I wanted to
    yield to myself for 5 minutes and I am going to try to get a
    question in for each of you. I want to start with Mr. DeGood.
        In your testimony, you discuss a dramatic departure from
    the status quo, and a lot of what we talk about is funding. Are
    you suggesting that we kind of turn over or start over on the
    Highway Trust Fund and the Airway Trust Fund and the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund in order to create funding mechanisms?
    What do you mean? What is the departure from the status quo?
        Mr. DeGood. I think that the basic structure of those
    programs is OK. I don't think it is really the need for the
    Federal Government to make a higher percentage of project
    selection decisions, necessarily. What I do think the Federal
    Government has to do is set very clear and very aggressive
    targets and then distribute those greenhouse gas reduction
    targets to States and metropolitan regions based on the share
    of VMT or air travel or marine travel that they may be
    responsible for. And so allowing the sort of strength of
    federalism to do what it does best, which is have people make
    decisions that fit their local needs but be very clear on what
    the responsibilities are moving forward.
        Mr. Larsen. I think I understand your comment about it
    being a break from the status quo and getting States and
    localities to go along with that may be difficult. But I
    appreciate you bringing it up.
        Mr. Proctor, I am not going to ask you to go back 200 years
    in the history of your company to talk about how infrastructure
    has changed or technology has changed or your workforce has
    changed. But perhaps in the last 10 to 15 years how it has
    changed, because you talk about training a 21st-century
    workforce. What does your workforce--how does it need to be
    different today than it was even 10 years ago in looking at the
    future of waterworks?
        Mr. Proctor. Well, on the manufacturing side, it is
    dramatically different. The techniques we use to manufacture
    our products include robotics. Most of the melting systems are
    computer controlled. Even the finishing systems are 21st-
    century type equipment. And so a skilled workforce is essential
    to the success of our manufacturing operations.
        But in terms of how people use our products, if you look at
    water infrastructure, for example, the trillion-dollar number
    that you hear people knock around about how much we need to
    invest in water, that is really just to restore our
    infrastructure back to the condition it was in when it was
    originally built. But we have opportunities today to make our
    water infrastructure smarter. Wireless remote sensoring,
    monitoring, leak detection, all those sorts of mechanisms. And
    to do that, it requires that the utilities that are going to
    operate these sort of systems have the sort of skills and
    technological expertise that it takes to run them.
        Mr. Larsen. Thanks. I would love to expand on that but I do
    want to move on. And I imagine that we will expand on it.
        Mr. Saumweber, on resiliency standards for port
    infrastructure, is there a broad difference from port to port
    in this country on how they deal with infrastructure and
    resilience?
        Mr. Saumweber. I think a lot of the needs are really
    determined by the local situation and what the existing
    networks are for a given port. So it is highly variable from
    port to port.
        Mr. Larsen. But you note in your testimony, I guess you
    imply that that is a problem?
        Mr. Saumweber. I think the point is that we need to have a
    national assessment of risk based on the specifics around each
    port's location, its physical nature and its value to the
    broader regional infrastructure.
        Mr. Larsen. OK, all right.
        Ms. Scarlett, the issue of natural infrastructure is
    important in my district and my State. We are doing a lot of
    restoration, habitat restoration. One of the challenges that we
    have with habitat restoration, if you just look at Leque
    Island, L-e-q-u-e for the clerk, Leque Island, the number of
    different sources of funding in order to do that restoration
    has made it a longer project than many want. But it is also
    going to function in terms of resiliency for not just a habitat
    but for the surrounding area.
        Has your organization given thought to funding mechanisms
    or breaking down stovepipes among funding mechanisms?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, we have given a lot of thought to
    funding mechanisms, both public and public-private. I want to
    mention one. We have actually been working with the insurance
    industry to model the effectiveness of natural infrastructure
    in risk reduction. And not in the U.S. yet but there is
    potential here. In Mexico, we have actually worked on creation
    of a bed tax across a tourist district and deploying the bed
    tax to support reef restoration and reef protection as well as
    invest in an insurance fund to insure the reef. It is very
    innovative. It has potential in the U.S.
        But we are looking at other things, such as teaming up, for
    example, with water districts and where nature's solutions can
    actually better handle wastewater, for example, or water
    supplies, and use ratepayer fees to invest. So there are a
    variety of sources, depending on the circumstance.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Graves.
        Oh, sorry, I yield to Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman.
        You mentioned the high-intensity storms, Ms. Scarlett, and
    I appreciate you being here. How many ``Gone with the Wind''
    jokes do you get with that name? But you mentioned the high-
    intensity storms. And we have had some. But when you look at
    the high-intensity storms over the years, particularly the
    hurricanes, five of them occurred before 1960, one of them was
    1961. There have only been two since the 2000s, 2004 and 2005.
    And I think when you start looking at the flooding issues, it
    has a lot to do with runoff issues in urban areas, you know,
    the paved surfaces, the construction in flood zones and the
    failure to do flood mitigation.
        For instance, in the 2016 Louisiana flood, the damages were
    somewhere between $10 and $15 billion, there were a number of
    lives lost. The Army Corps of Engineers had studied a diversion
    for years, the Comite River over to the Lilly Bayou, and didn't
    do it. And as a result, you had a 100-year, 1,000-year flood
    with catastrophic consequences. And I am happy to report,
    largely because of the work of my colleague, Garret Graves,
    that they are now going to do that diversion, so I just want to
    point that out.
        I do appreciate all the witnesses being here, and
    particularly one of my constituents, Mr. Proctor, I appreciate
    you being here. I wanted to ask you a question about how does
    disaster preparedness relate to water infrastructure? As I have
    just pointed out, there was an opportunity, years in advance of
    the Louisiana flood, to mitigate that. Can you talk about that
    a little bit?
        Mr. Proctor. Yes, sir. Well, water is one of the most
    essential services that is needed to combat or deal with a
    disaster. For example, fire losses are the most significant
    losses that occur. In an earthquake, it is second only to the
    damage that occurs because the ground is moving, buildings
    fall, that sort of thing.
        If you do not have water service, sprinkler systems do not
    work, hydrants do not work, the firefighters cannot put those
    fires out. So it is critical to make sure that you can maintain
    your water service during an earthquake event or in the
    aftermath.
        Another area where it becomes important is floods. In an
    earthquake, the soil tends to liquify and that is what puts
    underground infrastructure at risk. When you have a flood, you
    can have the same sort of thing happen, where the soils become
    saturated and the ground starts to move. And it results in
    telescoping of pipelines and sometimes they pull apart, or
    actual destruction of the lines if they are put under stress.
        And then finally, underground infrastructure can be at risk
    in a wildfire. Santa Rosa, California, is a good example of
    what happens when the water infrastructure can melt or
    otherwise suffer damage because of the intense temperatures
    that occur during wildfires. So it is important to do things to
    maintain the resiliency of those systems for those reasons.
        Some things that can be done to do that, number one, make
    certain in the design of the systems you use the most durable
    materials possible. In the Kobe earthquake, for example, steel
    and iron pipe failed at a rate of one-third of other materials.
        Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you about that. Because in a prior
    life, I worked for two international engineering companies. We
    did work all around the world, really, but particularly here in
    the United States. And when we would do work in California, we
    had specifications that we had to design to to mitigate against
    an earthquake.
        How do you do that in water systems? Because when the earth
    is moving, that--obviously, it has an impact on surface
    structures but subsurface? Can you talk a little bit about the
    design criteria now and the materials that you are using that
    would mitigate against the loss of water?
        Mr. Proctor. Well, two things. Number one, using more
    durable materials means that your infrastructure is better able
    to sustain those stresses. But the other thing is there are new
    earthquake seismic joints that allow pipelines to bend and flex
    and telescope and contract when the earth is moving around it.
    And those joints can also be used in flood situations like I
    talked about a second ago.
        A demonstration of the efficacy of those joints is that,
    again, during the Kobe earthquake, not a single ductile iron
    pipeline failed that had one of these earthquake joints;
    whereas, other nonrestrained systems that did not have that
    sort of flexibility, there were very much higher rates of
    failure.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for his answer. My time
    has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you. The representative from Illinois,
    Mr. Garcia, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman.
        To Mr. DeGood, during the first panel, we heard from more
    than one witness who mentioned that infrastructure investment
    and consequently the effects of climate change have
    historically fallen disproportionately on low-income and
    minority communities. You raised that point in your testimony.
        Why is this? And does solving this issue fall on the
    Federal, State or local government?
        Mr. DeGood. I think it is important to recognize that, for
    the most part, State and local governments are the ones who are
    making project selection decisions and acting as the project
    sponsor. So for the most part, the Federal Government acts as a
    fairly passive funder or cofunder. You know, and I mentioned in
    my testimony the importance of public participation in the
    planning process and I cannot stress that enough. You know,
    there have been calls at times to try to limit the scope of
    environmental review, to put artificial deadlines on how long
    it can take for projects to go through that process, and I
    think that that is the wrong way to go about it.
        What we have seen when we have done these lookbacks is
    that, with a little bit more thought on the front end, we can
    reduce the level of impact both on natural environments as well
    as our local communities. And I think the underlying challenge
    is that when many of these project decisions were made in the
    1960s and 1970s, we just had a political system that didn't
    particularly care so much what communities of color had to say.
        And I think it is about empowerment and making sure that
    people have a seat at the table.
        Mr. Garcia. And what can we do to make sure that it does
    not reoccur again if, in fact, we have learned lessons about
    climate change and begin to change course in how we address it?
        Mr. DeGood. I think that is a good question. I think it
    really comes back to making sure that elected officials are
    held accountable and that planners are held accountable for
    making sure that people have had a chance to have their voice
    heard during the project planning phase.
        Mr. Garcia. Another question on natural infrastructure. Can
    you provide some examples of how we can save money by utilizing
    natural infrastructure over investing further in man-made
    structures?
        Mr. DeGood. You know, I think the witness down at the end
    probably has more to say about that. Thank you.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, there are all kinds of natural
    infrastructure. But I will mention one where there are clear
    cost savings, and that is with stormwater management and
    addressed combined sewerage overflow problems in cities. And
    Philadelphia pioneered use of natural infrastructure and at a
    fraction of the cost of what it would have taken to, for
    example, dig under the streets, build bigger pipes and tunnels
    and so forth.
        We are seeing that in Detroit. The Nature Conservancy is
    involved in a partnership there. In Los Angeles, here in
    Washington, DC. So that is one example where there are very
    clear cost efficiencies with use of natural infrastructure.
        In other cases, on coastal resilience, we have done a look
    at natural infrastructure, at traditional infrastructure and
    then at hybrids and find sometimes that the hybrid comes in
    most cost effective.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And for Mr. Proctor, how do we
    create a well-coordinated, well-funded effort to educate the
    public on the importance of investment in our infrastructure?
    And the second question is, what efforts are we making here at
    the national level to drive public support to build public
    support for investments in infrastructure that is needed? And,
    of course, mindful of the fact that there will be opportunities
    for public-private collaboration and partnerships, given that
    you come from the private sector.
        Mr. Proctor. Well, unfortunately, the water sector
    traditionally has been sort of out of sight, out of mind. When
    a constituent hits a pothole in a road, elected officials or
    operators hear about it. When the water system is deteriorating
    and water is leaking out into the ground, people don't know
    about it and so it doesn't get the same degree of attention.
        One of the ways that we could educate the public so that
    the issues become more prominent would be to first of all
    ensure that all of our utilities know what the full cost of
    their operations are, including the cost associated with losing
    30 percent of the water that goes into our pipelines. Less than
    one-third of the utilities in the country have that
    appreciation of their full cost.
        Once the utilities know those costs, and one of the ways to
    do that, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, is through
    doing water leak audits. Once we know what those full costs
    are, then we need to have a level of transparency that ensures
    that the public is aware of the extent of the loss that is
    going on and the extent of the true cost of providing the water
    service that many of us take for granted.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Garcia. Just to note,
    you don't need to be a big city. The city of Everett has
    combined 100,000 people and they are doing neighborhood
    retrofits with natural landscaping as well to deal with the CSO
    issues. And the conservation district works with Veterans
    Conservation Corps in the city of Lynnwood to do some things
    that are very similar, as well. So it can happen locally.
        It looks like we have Mr. Rouda for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Hi, I'm Harley Rouda from Orange County, California. And
    last week, I introduced House bill 3317, the Coastal
    Communities Adaptation Act. We are aimed at helping coastal
    cities and towns brace themselves for climate change-related
    events and the bill would make Federal funds available for
    communities to help address that.
        Ms. Scarlett, the question I wanted to ask you in that
    regard, since you have a focus in this area and I really
    appreciate the story you shared earlier with Seattle, but my
    guess is we can talk about hundreds of opportunities, thousands
    of opportunities, across the U.S. in finding natural ways to
    address this.
        Two questions there. One, how do you drive the narrative,
    the dialogue, with the decisionmakers to look at alternative
    options to man-made outcomes? And second, how would some sort
    of economic incentives from the Federal Government help that
    process along?
        Ms. Scarlett. First, with respect to motivating
    decisionmakers to consider these options, we are a significant
    science-based organization. And one thing we find with
    decisionmakers is the first question of, well, does it work?
    And so we have invested a lot of research into the actual
    functionality, for example, of coastal resilience. In fact, we
    worked with California to look at coastal resilience across the
    whole coast of that State. So one issue is providing the
    information.
        But the other is the messenger matters. So we have teamed
    up with the Association of General Contractors, with stormwater
    managers, with coastal beach managers, those whose role it is
    to provide that resilience and risk reduction, schooled them in
    these opportunities and then they become the voice. And that,
    we find, is a good pathway to influencing decisionmakers.
        Mr. Rouda. And so the second piece of that, because I think
    you mentioned in the Seattle example, that you brought that
    project in at 25 percent less than what traditional problem-
    solving would have created. That is not always the case. So
    economic incentives can help bridge the gap for some
    municipalities to make the right decision or the best decision;
    is that correct?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yeah, I think there are two ways to look at
    that. On the one hand, not always cheaper and therefore
    economic incentives can help and we applaud anything Congress
    can do to amplify and support investments in natural
    infrastructure.
        The other thing, though, as we've worked with the Army
    Corps of Engineers, is to actually broaden how we think about
    benefits. So, for example, coastal resilience infrastructure
    often not only yields risk reduction but improved fisheries and
    other economic benefits. If you look at the full picture, often
    you come out with a very positive economic outcome.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you. And then, Mr. Proctor, and then for
    the--for all of you as well, we have a lot of discussion about
    the public-private partnership opportunities. And I think it is
    safe to say there are certain infrastructure projects that do
    not rise to a private-public opportunity, that it is really the
    Government's job to address that. Can you talk a little bit
    about where the cutoff point is or where are those
    opportunities that can be public-private and those that
    definitely need to be sitting in the public hands?
        Mr. Proctor. As a member of the private sector, I would
    like to think that there is nothing the private sector cannot
    do. But let me say this about P3s. A lot of people, when they
    think of P3s, they instantly think that you are talking about
    either consolidation or privatization. That is not necessarily
    the case. In fact, it is really the exception.
        There are opportunities for public-to-public partnerships
    that can help small utilities, for example, partner with larger
    utilities to acquire the level of expertise that they need to
    have to be able to do things like deploy new technology or
    better operate their systems or comply with regulations or what
    have you. So there are a lot of partner opportunities out there
    that do not get a lot of attention but they could be important
    in helping small utilities meet some of the challenges that
    they have.
        Also, when you talk about partnerships, there is a whole
    spectrum of different forms that can take. It can be something
    as significant, certainly, as consolidation. But it can also be
    something that is much less intrusive like, for example, a
    simple cogeneration contract with a private partner. Or it
    could just be a concession agreement or maybe a savings
    agreement where, if a private partner comes in and installs
    technology that could reduce a utility's cost, then the private
    partner shares in some of those savings but guarantees a
    certain level of savings back to those utilities so that they
    are certain to receive some of the benefits. But there are a
    lot of options there that are not fully exploited.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mrs. Napolitano [presiding]. I recognize myself for 5
    minutes. I was at the end of the line.
        Ms. Scarlett, I read some of your information and I was
    looking at your urban work on page 4. It had the planting of
    the trees. And that was a long time ago, you started going
    after planting more trees. And yet we don't hear any more about
    it. What happened?
        Ms. Scarlett. Well, the good news is that we're seeing
    again a renewed effort to expand tree canopy where you plant
    trees. But, you know, we have had a--with respect to tree
    canopy in cities, there have been a view sometimes that
    maintenance costs and so on and so forth are costly and we
    began to see, actually, a loss of trees, a significant loss of
    trees in cities. That is beginning to change course and we are
    very supportive of that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Great. Now you also mentioned, somebody,
    that the Army Corps of Engineers has been engineering with
    nature. I chair the Water Resources and Environment
    Subcommittee on this committee and I have not heard about it so
    I have to ask about that. Could you kindly touch on that?
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, so there are--I do not want to give the
    impression that the entire Army Corps of Engineers is rabidly
    focused on natural infrastructure.
        Mrs. Napolitano. It takes them a long time to pick up, let
    me tell you.
        Ms. Scarlett. But there is a growing interest in natural
    infrastructure because they, too, recognize the benefits and
    cost effectiveness.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Does it have to be a change in language
    for them to accept it and do the work?
        Ms. Scarlett. The big challenge for them, we got some
    language in the Water Resources Development Act 2016 and 2018
    that stuck in a few little words on natural infrastructure.
    There is still another issue that would be very helpful for
    Congress to address and that is, when they do their cost-
    benefit analysis, they are still required really to look at
    just one use and one benefit. So, for example, flood risk
    reduction. If they were able to look at multiple benefits, then
    the cost-benefit analysis would play out potentially
    differently and we think that would be helpful.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I agree with you.
        Today, there was a hearing in the Committee on Natural
    Resources on climate change. But one of the witnesses was
    giving misleading information, saying that the drought was
    over, that the reservoirs and the rivers were full. And I think
    that is very misleading because no way are they anywhere near
    full.
        Ms. Scarlett. Maybe our water infrastructure person would
    speak to that.
        When you look at the effects of a changing climate, one of
    the significant impacts is, in fact, changes in precipitation
    pattern and the expected length, lengthening of chronic
    drought. So we do see, depending upon place to place to place,
    extensive drought. Look at Australia right now, but certainly
    parts of California, that is correct. There are other places
    that get heavy rainfall.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. One of the questions I will ask
    again of this panel, I asked in the last one, public education
    and public training of the workforce that you need to replace
    your aging workforce? Anybody?
        Mr. DeGood. Yes, I completely agree. The Center for
    American Progress has pushed hard for the notion that we need
    to twin any conversation about robust national infrastructure
    investment with a conversation about workforce development. And
    I think it is long overdue. I am glad you brought it up.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But you talk to education institutions
    about the need of that type of training?
        Mr. DeGood. Yes, and I think it depends sort of how broadly
    we want to try to define infrastructure. Obviously, each sector
    is going to have its own unique needs and its unique
    challenges. And I think that it is incumbent that we have this
    workforce conversation in parallel with figuring out what
    specific facilities we think we need to build.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
        Mr. Saumweber. I would just add that a slightly related
    topic is the issue of boundaries between science, communication
    and policymakers and enhancing the ability of folks on both
    sides of that divide to be able to speak to each other. So
    facilitating better input of science and new science around
    climate and around resilience issues into policy discussions
    and vice versa. And that is something that I have worked on in
    the past quite extensively with a number of boundary
    organizations and is something that is of great need.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But it is also in language that the public
    can understand, or most.
        Mr. Saumweber. Absolutely, 100 percent agree. Yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir. I yield myself back. Mr.
    Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. I am here, thank you very much. I appreciate
    it. We were at another long hearing so I apologize for being
    late, but this is critically important work so I appreciate the
    panelists for being very patient.
        Before I was lucky enough be elected to Congress, I served
    as mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, one of the largest cities in
    America, and I would politely argue the climate change issues
    facing our city are as dramatic as anywhere else in the
    country. So much of the attention is on the coastal
    communities, and should have a lot of attention on the coastal
    communities. But extreme heat and drought in Arizona and in
    Phoenix are incredibly difficult issues that we are dealing
    with. So I wanted to talk a little bit in that context.
        Ms. Scarlett, we are working, in the city of Phoenix,
    working very closely with The Nature Conservancy on river
    management in our community. City of Phoenix is investing local
    tax dollars, not just on infrastructure in our city but
    actually investing in river management outside of our city, in
    some cases hours outside of our city. Because the quality of
    the rivers and the quality of the water that we receive are one
    and the same. We are also investing in forest management. The
    city of Phoenix is working with a lot of nonprofit entities to
    make sure that we have the strongest forest system possible
    because that also impacts the quality of our water.
        And I want to talk a little bit about, as we make important
    infrastructure decisions here on this committee, and we are
    going to because it is so critically important that we do an
    infrastructure bill for America, the movement of water, the
    efficient movement of water, particularly from sources of water
    that may be stronger than other areas. In Arizona, obviously,
    Colorado River is a diminishing resource. Tragically and sadly,
    we have to deal with it. Moving water from other entities that
    may be in a stronger water position is a critically important
    infrastructure item.
        And maybe, I do not know if you are in a position to talk a
    little bit about that as water management, water movement, as a
    part of any larger infrastructure bill? Or any of the
    panelists, please.
        Ms. Scarlett. Yes, I can speak to that. Thank you very
    much, both for the partnership with The Nature Conservancy and
    your broadening to recognize the connectivity between cities
    and the surrounding countryside.
        You know, The Nature Conservancy has a big emphasis on what
    we call water funds, which is precisely to work with cities to
    recognize a lot of their water sourcing comes not from the city
    itself but from outside. And so in a number of cities,
    Albuquerque, Santa Fe, elsewhere, we are working with cities to
    take their water district funding and actually invest in
    watershed restoration. Two benefits, improved water quality and
    less sedimentation. But also a lot of that work is fuels
    treatment; that is, improving forest health to reduce risk of
    catastrophic wildland fire.
        But in places like Phoenix, we are also doing a lot of work
    on things like groundwater recharge, water banking, so that you
    have better sort of storage of water in a natural way to then
    be better positioned to withstand changes in water
    availability. So there are a lot of different tools. We think
    you need them all.
        Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that very much. Because again, I
    am going to certainly be an advocate for thinking about water
    and water planning and movement of water, efficient movement of
    water as one of the critically important infrastructure
    investments that we are likely to make.
        The other thing I was lucky enough to do as mayor was pass
    a significant public transportation infrastructure initiative,
    a 35-year, $32 billion plan that supported much improved bus
    transportation, new investments in light rail, 60 miles of
    light rail, bikeability, walkability, et cetera.
        The next question is for Mr. DeGood. I apologize if it has
    already been asked before. For those of us who have worked so
    passionately on these issues, it seems obvious. But I want the
    people watching at home, and I will be able to report back to
    the people that I represent, why is public transportation
    infrastructure investment so critically related to the issue of
    climate change and fighting climate change?
        Mr. DeGood. Well, first and foremost, too many Americans
    simply do not have access to other options beyond driving. So
    whether or not they are trying to go across country or whether
    or not they are trying to go one-quarter mile away to pick up
    some groceries for that week, they have to drive. And so part
    of what you were able to do as mayor was to set that city on a
    different trajectory to where you can now plan to have growth
    around those facilities so that people do not always have to
    drive to satisfy their daily needs.
        And we also know, of course, that when you have access to
    options, your total annual emissions will drop, your total
    transportation-related emissions will drop. And that is also
    critical.
        Mr. Stanton. Other strategic investments made, obviously
    solar, moving our entire fleet to alternative fuel vehicles,
    and changing streetlights to LED. Little things but these are
    important infrastructure investments where the Federal
    Government has not been most recently but needs to be a better
    partner to local government.
        Thanks for your testimony. I will yield back the time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Ms. Miller, you are next.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all for being here today for a long time. As you
    all have heard, I understand the importance of being good
    stewards of our environment. My home State of West Virginia is
    abundant in natural resources, which provide critical jobs, and
    is the cornerstone of our State's economy. Furthermore, the
    companies who mine the land in my State certainly understand
    the importance of caring for the environment, protecting the
    delicate ecosystem, providing clean water and improving the
    infrastructure in the State. Considering these critical aspects
    in total is absolutely necessary for ensuring the longevity of
    the land and these precious resources.
        That is why I am worried about broad, sweeping and
    dangerous proposals such as the Green New Deal. Such proposals
    seek a misguided, one-size-fits-all approach that poses an
    imminent threat to the economy of my State, critical jobs for
    my constituents and the lifeblood of West Virginia. The intent
    of the Green New Deal is to completely halt natural energy
    production, stop the use of air travel and cars, and end cattle
    farming. This is just a rebranded war on coal, oil and gas.
        Coal, oil and gas production is at its most efficient. In
    West Virginia, nearly 30,000 people work in the energy industry
    and 93 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Plans like
    the Green New Deal would certainly be a death blow to our
    economy. We can and must do better.
        The previous administration took devastating steps that put
    the coal industry in my State on life support. We need a more
    commonsense approach to protecting the environment than just
    eliminating our energy industry altogether. My constituents
    demand it. I will do everything in my power to make sure that
    we protect the economy of West Virginia and the jobs of my
    constituents.
        To the whole panel, how can we ensure that we protect and
    promote existing energy jobs under any new proposed
    infrastructure plans?
        OK, Mr. Proctor, in your testimony, you discuss the
    importance of keeping good jobs in America. How can Congress be
    a partner to industry to ensure jobs stay here in the United
    States?
        Mr. Proctor. Well, one of the primary mechanisms and one
    that has been shown to work very well is using domestic
    preferences when it comes to infrastructure investment. Three
    of the four major water programs already have a domestic
    preference, otherwise known as Buy American requirement for
    iron and steel products that go into our water infrastructure.
    And it has successfully not only preserved jobs but brought
    jobs back from overseas into the United States within our
    industry.
        That same sort of program would work well when it comes to
    disaster mitigation. Now, let me say right upfront that in the
    event of a natural disaster, our primary and if not only focus
    needs to be getting relief to the people who are affected by
    that natural disaster as quickly as possible. But when you are
    talking about predisaster mitigation, the things that happen
    before the disasters, when you have time to think about the
    impacts, that is a perfect opportunity to think not only about
    the immediate disaster preparedness impacts but also the
    overall impacts on the economy. And that would be a situation
    where using a domestic preference for iron and steel products
    would have not only the benefit of helping to make certain that
    our infrastructure is hardened, to make certain that the
    products are produced here in the United States where
    environmental emissions are a fraction of what they are
    overseas, but also to get the multiplier effect of
    infrastructure investment so that we get the full bang for our
    buck.
        I think the statistics that you frequently see are that
    every dollar of infrastructure that is invested here in the
    United States produces something like $1.75 or $2 of increased
    GDP. That is even more the case when you invest those dollars
    in domestically produced iron and steel materials.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And how can Congress help industry
    maintain a competitive advantage against foreign nations or
    with foreign nations?
        Mr. Proctor. Is that to me also?
        Mrs. Miller. Should I just yield back my time or may he
    answer?
        Mr. Proctor. Well, one measure that I touched on briefly
    earlier is to make certain that our workforce has the skills
    that they need to be able to operate the foundries, the
    factories and the water systems of today. But the other thing
    is to make certain that, as we build out our infrastructure,
    that we do it in a smart way so that we are more efficient. And
    also, as I mentioned earlier, to level the playing field so
    that when--we are proud of the safety and environmental
    performance of our facilities over here. We have invested
    hundreds of millions of dollars to have the best facilities in
    the world.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Proctor, I think your time is up.
        Mr. Proctor. OK, thank you.
        Mrs. Miller. I yield back my time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, you're on.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you
    to all of you for coming to such an important hearing this
    afternoon.
        I represent, I mentioned earlier, I believe, one of the
    most beautiful districts in this country, the southernmost
    district in Florida. It includes Monroe County, the Florida
    Keys, and we are ground zero for the effects of climate change.
    We, along the Florida Keys, as you probably already know, Ms.
    Scarlett, I did some work with Coral Restoration Foundation as
    well as some work with The Nature Conservancy at the time. And
    we have, it is the only living coral reef in the entire United
    States. It is the third largest coral reefs in the entire
    planet. It is a very delicate ecosystem.
        And I had the opportunity to see firsthand the effects of
    climate change on our corals. We are right now plagued by not
    only the ocean acidification which is impacting the corals by
    causing mass bleaching, but now we have seen a bacterial
    infection that is now going all the way down to Looe Key, which
    is a very delicate and lush coral reef. If you have ever been
    down there, you will know exactly what I mean. But we are
    extremely concerned because it seems that we do not have the
    answers as to why this is happening.
        I want to ask you, Ms. Scarlett, maybe also you can
    comment, Mr. Saumweber, but what is it that we can do to
    protect our coral reefs, since they are part of such an
    important, not just for a way of life but also for our
    commercial industries, for our economy in Florida, what can we
    do in Congress to protect the reefs and to get to the bottom of
    what is causing this bacterial infection that is killing about
    50 percent of the corals that are being infected by this
    bacteria?
        Ms. Scarlett. Thank you very much. I had the opportunity to
    be in the Keys just last week. It was lovely.
        So a couple of things. First, obviously, we need more
    science to the degree that we don't wholly understand what is
    going on with any particular reef. So we know acidification is
    occurring, we know there is runoff, nutrient runoff from on-
    land activities. We know those adversely affect reefs. But to
    find the particular causes in particular reefs requires more
    science.
        But in terms of additionally what we can do, we are very
    active in something, in a Global Mangrove Alliance. And
    mangrove restoration plays a very significant role in sort of
    minimizing coastal erosion, enhancing coastal health in
    general. We are also very actively involved in coral reef
    restoration.
        A lot of people do not realize that there are tools and
    ways to actually restore reefs and we are doing that in a
    number of places actually around the world, not simply on the
    U.S. coast.
        And then finally, you know, reducing those other stressors.
    There is climate change and the effects on a warming ocean,
    ocean acidification. But to the degree that that is amplified
    by nutrient runoff and other factors, it simply puts those
    corals under more and more stress. So thinking about it in a
    systems way is part of the solution coupled with the science.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you. And you did mention
    mangroves. And my only concern with using mangroves as natural
    infrastructure to prevent that runoff and, you know, protect
    our coastal communities is that we saw the destruction of the
    mangroves just last year with Hurricane Irma and it takes years
    for these mangroves to regrow.
        So what can we do, using not only mangroves but maybe other
    types of natural infrastructure to protect our coastal
    communities?
        Ms. Scarlett. I think it is--so thank you for that. You
    know, natural systems cannot do everything everywhere under
    every circumstance. Certainly, we have found that mangroves and
    mangrove restoration are an extraordinarily important tool. But
    when you have extremely high-intensity storms, you are going to
    get some destruction and it does take a long time to restore
    them. And so that is why we are also doing things like coral
    reef restoration. We find that coral reefs themselves, if you
    restore them, attenuate waves, reduce erosion, reduce risks to
    communities. So it is a really multipronged approach and it has
    to be tailored to place.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And if I may, Madam Chair, one more
    question, since I am the last?
        You mentioned also, you know, the runoff. And, as you know,
    we have the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that we
    have been trying to complete for the past 18 years. So what is
    the importance of this type of project to the future resiliency
    of our community?
        Ms. Scarlett. I cannot stress how important Everglades
    restoration is and how congressional support for it and funding
    for it is essential. Everglades restoration does a number of
    things but, one, as you get the waters flowing across the
    rivers of grass, it actually pushes freshwater out and prevents
    saltwater intrusion, an incredibly important issue for Florida,
    so that is one. Secondly, of course, Everglades restoration,
    part of the process of having stormwater management areas is to
    actually reduce the runoff from the agricultural sector that
    then finds its way out to the ocean, so very important.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Very important.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Scarlett, would you mind responding in
    writing to the lady?
        Ms. Scarlett. I would be happy to do that. I spent 8 years
    at the Department of the Interior and hundreds of hours on that
    topic.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I thank everybody for being here,
    the witnesses for testimony. Sorry it was such a long meeting.
    And your comments were very helpful and enlightening for
    today's hearing.
        But before we close, I want to thank the passenger rail
    operator in my district, Metrolink, for being in the audience.
    Their CEO, Stephanie Wiggins--Ms. Wiggins--and board chair,
    Brian Humphrey. Metrolink is in the process of replacing 40
    locomotives with new tier 4 locomotives that reduce NOx and
    particulate matter by 86 percent. Thank you for being here.
        Are there any further questions?
        [No response.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. I ask unanimous consent that the record of
    today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
    have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
    them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain
    open for 15 days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
    of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would like again to thank the witnesses. Sorry for the
    long hearing, but your testimony was very important to all of
    us. And although many were not here, they are listening in
    their office or in other places.
        No other Members have anything to add? No. The committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

     Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the
                              State of Washington
        Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, for calling today's hearing to examine
    how transportation and infrastructure impact climate change and explore
    solutions to promote resiliency.
        For decades, Washingtonians have seen and felt the harmful impacts
    of climate change.
        As detailed in the fourth National Climate Assessment \1\, rising
    temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions in the Pacific Northwest have
    resulted in record-breaking wildfires, an acidifying ocean that hurts
    shellfish hatcheries and declining salmon runs from a lack of suitable
    habitats.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/24/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Washington state's transportation sector is its largest source of
    greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for nearly 50 percent of all
    emissions and nearly 64 percent of an average household's energy
    expenses.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/
    statebudget/highlights/budget19/clean-transportation-policy-brief.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To respond to the growing challenges resulting from climate change,
    Congress, the administration, states and industry must join to reduce
    emissions and foster innovation to encourage sustainability.
        Investing in more sustainable transit, maritime transportation,
    bridge infrastructure and aviation will help maintain the vitality of
    our wildlife, wilderness areas and green spaces for the use and
    enjoyment of current and future generations.
        As someone who uses public transportation every day, and as cochair
    of the bipartisan Bus Caucus, I understand how critical reliable bus
    systems are for commuters.
        With the expansion of more efficient transit options, Congress must
    support states' efforts to meet carbon emission reduction targets. In
    my home state of Washington, localities are taking significant steps to
    ensure a cleaner transportation network.
        Washington state's electric grid is among the most sustainable and
    cleanest in the country, making the electrification of transportation a
    viable option to address the impacts of climate change.
        Recently, the state launched several initiatives to electrify
    transit, including a requirement that 50 percent of all new state-owned
    and leased passenger vehicles be electric by 2020.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have seen firsthand how the transit electrification benefits
    Washington's Second District. Last September, I attended the ribbon
    cutting for Everett Transit's first electric bus.
        With $3.4 million in federal funding from the Low or No Emission
    Bus Program, the City of Everett was able to replace a decades-old
    diesel fuel bus, serve a high-frequency route and reduce local carbon
    emissions.
        Everett Transit estimates that transitioning four of its diesel
    buses will lower carbon emissions by nearly 4,000 pounds annually and
    reduce the amount of particulate matter released into the atmosphere by
    500 pounds each year.
        In the Pacific Northwest, ferries are critical to keeping the
    economy moving, carrying commuters and goods around the region.
        Ferries help relieve congestion, serve rural communities and can
    serve as an interim solution when other transportation systems are
    unavailable.
        However, ferries are among the largest greenhouse gas generators,
    accounting for 73 percent of Washington state's annual carbon
    emissions.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C78A08B-19A1-4919-B6E6-
    E9EF83E6376D/125314/WSFHybridElectricPropulsionConversionProject.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To address this issue, Washington State Ferries is working to
    convert its largest passenger vessels, the Jumbo Mark II, to hybrid-
    electric propulsion.
        The agency estimates this conversion will reduce total carbon
    emissions by 25 percent. Additionally, the new hybrid-electric ferries
    will reduce vessel noise, lessening the impact on endangered Southern
    Resident orcas and other wildlife in the Puget Sound.
        Innovative maritime projects, such as the hybrid-electric
    initiative, promote sustainability, improve the transportation network
    and generate cost-savings. But these goals cannot be accomplished
    without federal buy-in.
        Congress must provide stable and predictable federal funding for
    ``greening'' U.S. maritime to ensure the system remains competitive,
    encourage new jobs and preserve a healthy environment.
        According to the Association of Washington Business, Washington
    state alone needs over $190 billion in infrastructure investment, with
    bridges requiring $4.3 billion.
        Washington state is home to 7,410 bridges. Almost 5,000 have been
    deemed to need maintenance. Significant funding is needed to ensure the
    structural integrity and environmental sustainability of bridges and
    roads.
        In 2017, the Washington State Department of Transportation launched
    a funding initiative to extend the service life of the state's bridges
    through planned and focused preventative maintenance activities.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/
    2016/10/2019-WA-Infrastructure-Report-Card.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To improve the federal government's role in these local projects, I
    joined Reps. Cicilline, Young and Davis to introduce the IMAGINE Act.
    This bill would promote the use of innovative materials and advanced
    technologies to improve safety of the nation's infrastructure, promote
    resiliency and support jobs and local economies.
        As chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I recognize the role
    aviation and aerospace can play in efforts to mitigate the effects of
    climate change.
        The subcommittee will focus on fostering innovation in U.S.
    aviation and aerospace through the advancement of NextGen, as well as
    the development and deployment of new and greener technologies to
    bolster U.S. jobs.
        Washington state is the aerospace capital of the country, and in
    the Second District, 23,000 women and men support the aviation economy
    by making the safest aircrafts and aerospace products in the world.
        Several of the 1,450 suppliers in Washington state are working on
    cutting-edge technologies to make U.S. aviation more efficient and
    environmentally-sound.
        To that end, I am pleased that we have a witness today, Ms. Nancy
    Young with Airlines for America, to speak to how the U.S. aviation
    industry continues to make strides to improve fuel efficiency, green
    ground operations and advance more sustainable propulsion.
        The long-term Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization
    bill that Congress passed last year makes progress toward NextGen
    implementation by including local communities and airports in the
    process.
        NextGen's Performance-Based Navigation procedures and Terminal
    Flight Data Manager deployment will modernize air traffic control to
    allow carriers to fly more directly and precisely, reduce aircraft fuel
    burn and improve the sustainability of the overall aviation system.
        For instance, the FAA's Greener Skies initiative improves
    efficiency of flights landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
    in Washington state.
        It is estimated that Greener Skies will cut fuel consumption by 2.1
    million gallons annually and reduce carbon emissions by 22,000 metric
    tons. In addition, the initiative will reduce aircraft noise exposure
    for nearly 750,000 people living within the affected flight
    corridor.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/stories/?slide=6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, robust funding for the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy,
    Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, supports the development of new
    aircraft technologies to advance sustainable alternative jet fuels.
        Airports across the country are also working to reduce the carbon
    footprint of their operations, through efforts like electric conversion
    of their ground service vehicles, use of renewable energy including
    solar, sustainable fuel initiatives and expanded recycling programs.
        I have had the chance to visit a few companies in my district at
    the forefront of innovative, energy efficient aviation technology.
        For example, Zunum Aero in Bothell, Washington, is developing
    hybrid electric aircraft capable of flying up to 12 people between 350
    and 500 miles. The company aims to bring the aircraft to market as soon
    as 2022.
        Zunum projects its electric propulsion prototype will cut community
    and cabin noise by an estimated 75 percent and emissions by 80
    percent.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://zunum.aero/our-charge/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One area where we will continue to see tremendous growth is in
    unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or drones.
        UAS are flourishing in the skies at a pace we did not imagine ten
    years ago. There is no denying the extensive societal and commercial
    benefits of unmanned aircraft and their applications.
        Drones are used to perform critical infrastructure inspections of
    bridges and railroads and assist in recovery efforts following natural
    disasters and wildfires. In addition, small drone package delivery
    could produce lower greenhouse gas emissions and consume less energy.
        Further, passenger air vehicles (PAVs) are also slated to present a
    dramatic change in the transportation in and around urban centers in
    the very near future.
        With recent advances in design and technology, PAV concepts in
    development will have the ability to reduce traffic congestion and the
    demand on our roads and bridges by carrying every day commuters through
    the air, at low-altitudes, to work and other nearby destinations.
        Of course, before this occurs there are many questions that will
    need to be answered to safely integrate them into complex airspace.
    This effort will require the FAA to develop a comprehensive regulatory
    framework to integrate these operations into U.S. airspace.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this timely hearing.
        This committee is uniquely positioned to make considerable progress
    to address climate change.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how Congress
    can be a better partner to advance efforts to green transportation and
    infrastructure projects across the U.S.

    Article Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative
                   in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
        Science, August 28, 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 ``Climate Impact
    of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'', J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A.
    Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Statement of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association,
              Submitted for the Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
        Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for holding
    this hearing addressing the impact that federal infrastructure policy
    can have on climate change. The American Short Line and Regional
    Railroad Association (ASLRRA) is a non-profit trade association
    representing 603 Class II and Class III railroads in the United States,
    Canada and Mexico as well as numerous suppliers and contractors to the
    short line and regional railroad industry. Short lines operate 47.500
    route miles of track in 49 states, or approximately 29% of the national
    railroad network, touching in origination or termination one out of
    every five cars moving on the national railroad system, serving
    customers who otherwise would be cut off from the national railroad
    network.
        While passenger and freight roadway vehicles account for 83% of
    total greenhouse gas emissions, freight rail accounts for only 2%. As
    Rep. LaMalfa noted during the hearing, freight rail moves one ton of
    freight 479 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. Class II and Class III
    railroads alone moved 12,074,000 carloads of freight in 2015, equaling
    34,778,000 truckloads. According to the Association of American
    Railroads, if 10% of the freight currently moved by truck was moved to
    rail, fuel savings would be more than 1.5 billion gallons per year.
    This is equivalent to removing 3.2 million cars from the highways
    during the same period.
        Transporting goods by rail reduces natural fuel used, and reduces
    wear and tear, assisting the fuel efficiency of the motoring public.
        Congress can facilitate shippers maximizing their use of freight
    rail in two ways:
          Supporting the Short Line Tax Credit, also known as 45G.
    For 12 years the short line tax credit has proven its worth. It has
    enhanced capital investment into short line railroads, it has
    significantly improved competitive rail service for shippers, it has
    helped improve railroad safety and it has been the difference between
    piecemeal and corridor improvements. Helping short lines continue to
    grow freight traffic through infrastructure improvements will deliver
    long term benefits to the environment.
          Opposing any increase in truck size or length is critical
    to keeping freight on the rails. It has been established both in actual
    practice, in those states that have allowed bigger trucks on state
    roads, and in many well-constructed diversion studies, that if truck
    lengths and weights are increased, freight will be diverted from the
    rails onto the highways. This modal shift will contribute to climate
    change by inflicting more damage to pavement, reducing fuel
    efficiencies for cars and trucks that use the roads. Additional weights
    and axles needed to support that increased weights contributes to
    ``rolling resistance,'' which leads to more fuel consumption.
        As Ranking Member Graves noted during the hearing, the freight rail
    industry is making progress in the area of climate change by
    implementing technologies to limit greenhouse gases, increase fuel
    efficiency and reduce its carbon footprint. We believe that policies
    supporting these efforts by the freight rail industry is one answer to
    address climate change.
        ASLRRA and our member railroads urge the committee to consider the
    impact that tax and truck size and weight policies can have on climate
    change and on the efforts that Class II and III railroads are already
    making to provide safe, reliable, and fuel-efficient transportation.

     Statement of Ian J. Jeffries, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                               Graves of Missouri
        On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads,
    thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the record.
    AAR members account for the vast majority of freight railroad mileage,
    employees, and traffic in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
        Railroads have a strong record of success in meeting our nation's
    transportation needs in an environmentally-friendly fashion. They are
    committed to pursuing further technological and operational
    advancements that will lead to continued tangible improvements in fuel
    efficiency, mobility, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality.
        For this reason, I respectfully submit that policymakers should
    take steps to attract more freight to rail, thereby expanding the
    substantial greenhouse gas and other public benefits of freight rail
    transportation. Steps policymakers can take include removing policies
    that inappropriately tilt the transportation marketplace in favor of
    other modes; encouraging greater use of rail-related public-private
    partnerships; and retaining the existing system of balanced regulation
    that protects rail customers against abusive railroad conduct but also
    helps ensure railroads are financially able to make the network
    investments they need to serve their customers safely, reliably, and
    cost effectively.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      railroads are the most fuel-efficient way to move freight over land
        According to the EPA, transportation accounted for 28.2 percent of
    U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2017. The vast majority of
    transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to
    fossil fuel consumption: higher fuel consumption means more emissions.
    Railroads, though, are the most fuel-efficient way to move freight over
    land. In 2017, railroads moved one ton of freight an average of 479
    miles per gallon of fuel--roughly the distance from Coos Bay, Oregon to
    San Francisco, or from Hannibal, Missouri to Columbus, Ohio.
        Indeed, according to an independent study for the Federal Railroad
    Administration, freight railroads on average are four times more fuel
    efficient than trucks. That means, on average, moving freight by rail
    instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent. The
    railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight railroads
    account for just 2.0 percent of transportation-related greenhouse gas
    emissions and just 0.6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
    according to the EPA, even though railroads account for well over a
    third of intercity freight volume.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        If just 10 percent of the freight that moves by Class 7 or Class 8
    (the largest) trucks moved by rail instead, fuel savings would be more
    than 1.5 billion gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions
    would fall by more than 17 million tons--equivalent to removing 3.2
    million cars from the highways for a year or planting 400 million
    trees.
          railroads are constantly working to improve fuel efficiency
        Over the years, railroads have worked hard to improve their fuel
    efficiency--on a ton-miles per gallon basis, rail fuel efficiency in
    2017 was up 104 percent over 1980 and up 21 percent over 2000. In 2017
    alone, U.S. freight railroads consumed 732 million fewer gallons of
    fuel and emitted 8.2 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they
    would have if their fuel efficiency had remained constant since 2000.
    From 2000 through 2017, U.S. freight railroads consumed 8.3 billion
    fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 92 million fewer tons of carbon
    dioxide than they would have if their fuel efficiency had not improved.
        A single train can carry the freight of several hundred trucks,
    meaning that moving more freight by rail also reduces highway
    congestion, which in 2018 cost Americans an average of 97 hours, or
    $1,348, per driver just in terms of lost time, according to INRIX (a
    highway traffic analytics firms). Reducing congestion also reduces
    wasted fuel (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) by motorists who
    take longer to get where they want to go. Moving freight by rail
    instead of trucks has the added bonus of reducing highway wear and tear
    and the pressure to build costly new highways, freeing up limited funds
    for other purposes.
        U.S. freight railroads are moving more freight than in the past,
    but using less fuel to do so. How have railroads managed this? Through
    technological innovations, new investments, improved operating
    practices, and a lot of hard work.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Steps railroads have taken individually or collectively to reduce
    fuel consumption include:
          Acquiring thousands of new, more efficient locomotives
    and removing from service thousands of older, less fuel-efficient
    locomotives.
          Developing and installing highly advanced fuel management
    systems that, among other things, calculate the most fuel-efficient
    speed for a train over a given route; determine the most efficient
    spacing and timing of trains on a railroad's system; and monitor
    locomotive functions and performance to ensure peak efficiency.
          Installing idling-reduction technologies, such as stop-
    start systems that shut down a locomotive when it is not in use and
    restart it when it is needed, and expanding the use of distributed
    power (positioning locomotives in the middle of trains) to reduce the
    total horsepower required for train movements.
          Increasing the amount of freight in rail cars and on
    trains. Thanks to improved freight car design and other factors, the
    amount of freight railroads carried in an average train in 2017 was
    3,630 tons, up from 2,923 tons in 2000.
          Enhancing operating practices and rail car components to
    reduce fuel use. For example, advanced lubrication techniques save fuel
    by reducing friction; improving the aerodynamic profile of trains saves
    fuel by reducing drag.
          Providing employee training to help locomotive engineers
    develop and implement best practices and improve awareness of fuel-
    efficient operations.
          Increasing the use of zero-emission cranes to transfer
    containers between ships, trucks, and trains at ports and rail
    facilities.
        In recent years, railroads have begun to investigate moving away
    from diesel locomotives in favor of alternatives--for example, to
    cleaner burning natural gas, or even potentially to batteries or fuel
    cells. At this point, it's not at all clear that an alternative will
    have the combination of affordability, reliability, and capability to
    be feasible for widespread use, but it does show that railroads are
    willing to ``look outside the box'' in terms of enhancing
    sustainability and environmental preservation.
       what policymakers can do to encourage more freight to move by rail
        Using freight railroads more means emitting fewer greenhouse gas
    emissions. Policy-makers can help make this happen by removing
    impediments to moving freight by rail and supporting policies that
    incentivize shippers to ship by rail.
        For example, policymakers can adopt a more equitable system of
    funding non-rail transportation infrastructure. America's freight
    railroads, which are almost entirely privately owned, operate
    overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and
    pay for themselves. By contrast, trucks and barges operate on highways
    and waterways that are largely taxpayer funded.
        With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public
    road and bridge infrastructure, the United States has historically
    relied upon a ``user pays'' system. Until relatively recently, that
    system worked well. Unfortunately, the user-pays model has been eroded
    as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have not kept up with HTF
    investment needs and so have had to be supplemented with general
    taxpayer dollars. General fund transfers to the HTF since 2008 have
    totaled almost $144 billion, according to the Congressional Budget
    Office, and will require another $191 billion between 2020 and 2029 to
    keep the HTF solvent.
        Unfortunately, moving away from a user-pays system distorts the
    competitive environment by making it appear that trucks are less
    expensive than they really are and puts other modes, especially rail,
    at a disadvantage. Congress could help ameliorate this modal inequity
    by reaffirming the ``user pays'' requirement, preferably through a
    vehicle miles traveled fee or a weight-distance fee.
        On a related note, policymakers should retain existing truck length
    and weight limits. The taxes and fees heavy trucks pay are already far
    less than the cost of the damage heavy trucks cause. This huge
    underpayment would become even greater, and the freight transportation
    marketplace would become even more distorted, if truck length and
    weight limits were increased.
        A greater use of rail-related public-private partnerships would
    also lead to more freight moving by rail. Under these arrangements,
    public entities devote public dollars equivalent to the public benefits
    that will accrue from a project, while railroads contribute resources
    commensurate with the private gains expected to accrue. Without a
    partnership, many projects that promise substantial public benefits
    (such as reduced highway congestion by taking trucks off highways, or
    increased rail capacity for use by passenger trains) in addition to
    private benefits (such as enabling more efficient freight train
    operations) are likely to be delayed or never started at all because
    neither side can justify the full investment needed to complete them.
    Cooperation makes these projects feasible.
        Finally, policymakers should keep the existing system of balanced
    rail rate and service regulation. Today's balanced rail regulatory
    system protects rail customers against unreasonable railroad conduct
    while allowing railroads to largely decide for themselves how to manage
    their operations. The current system has worked extremely well for
    railroads and their customers. However, some want to again give
    government regulators control over crucial areas of rail operations.
    That would be a profound mistake. It would prevent America's railroads
    from making the massive investments a best-in-the-world freight rail
    system requires and would inexorably lead to less freight moving by
    environmentally friendly rail.
                                   conclusion
        The key to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions
    is reducing fuel consumption in transportation. Research and
    development of new technologies and alternative fuels offers much
    promise and as previously noted the railroad industry is driving many
    initiatives in this arena. However, future promise does not help the
    nation today. Here's the takeaway that I ask each of you to remember.
    There is no need to wait for the promises of tomorrow from technologies
    and new alternative fuels that are not yet ready to be brought to
    market. America's freight railroads offer a simple, Cost-effective and
    meaningful way to help. I urge the Committee to consider the simple
    infrastructure policy considerations that I outlined on behalf of our
    member railroads. Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity
    to provide a written statement.

     Comments of the Southern Environmental Law Center, Submitted for the
                        Record by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon
        The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) thanks the U.S. House
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its recent hearing
    on ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate
    and Adapt to Climate Change.'' This critically important subject
    demands far greater attention than it has received at the federal level
    in recent years. We offer these comments on key issues and strategies
    related to transportation and climate change, and provide insight into
    how these issues are affecting our region.
        The connections between our transportation system and climate
    change are clear and significant. Transportation has surpassed the
    electricity sector as the nation's largest contributor of greenhouse
    gas (GHG) pollution, comprising 28.7% of the national total in 2017.\1\
    In addition, the effects of climate change on our transportation
    infrastructure, including sea level rise and increased flooding from
    more severe storms, are being felt in both coastal and inland
    communities across the country. There is a critical need to increase
    our efforts at the federal, state, and local levels on each of these
    topics. We must both reduce our transportation system's contribution to
    global GHG emissions and enhance the resiliency of our transportation
    systems and our communities to the effects of climate change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Draft Inventory of U.S.
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017'' at Table 2-10 (2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Below we outline a number of approaches and strategies to reduce
    GHG pollution. Higher fuel efficiency standards and increased adoption
    of electric and other zero- and low-emission technologies are important
    components of any transportation-related emission reduction strategy.
    Achieving meaningful reductions, however, will also require substantial
    efforts to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in our
    transportation system. To accomplish this, we must pay close attention
    to how our transportation system drives land use patterns, as well as
    encourage a shift away from motor vehicle use to cleaner transportation
    modes and reduce single-occupancy travel with a particular emphasis on
    shared and active transportation. Congestion pricing and similar
    strategies can also play a role in reducing vehicle emissions. In
    addition, as important as it is to address passenger vehicle emissions,
    VMT reductions and shifts to cleaner alternatives are needed in the
    freight sector as well. It is also imperative that we make
    consideration of GHG emissions a central factor in our transportation
    planning processes--either directly, or indirectly via a proxy like
    VMT.
        Enhancing the resiliency of our transportation infrastructure and
    communities is also essential. Resiliency considerations must be
    incorporated into the location and planning decisions for new projects,
    as well as decisions about whether and where to rebuild at-risk
    infrastructure. Effective maintenance of our existing infrastructure is
    also increasingly important. In addition, we must protect and augment
    the many features that provide natural resiliency and serve as
    effective carbon sinks, such as our forests, wetlands, and marshes.
                           i. reducing ghg emissions
        As others noted during your hearing on this matter and in written
    testimony, there are many available approaches and opportunities to
    reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. Efforts to promote cleaner
    technologies such as electric and other zero- and low-emissions
    vehicles are an essential piece of this puzzle, and have significant
    growth potential in the coming years due in part to rapid improvements
    in electric vehicle (EV) technology and affordability. But to achieve
    meaningful reductions from our transportation sector, we must also
    substantially reduce VMT, favor transportation investments that
    encourage more compact, walkable development, and incorporate GHG
    emissions considerations in our transportation plans and project-
    specific environmental reviews.
        In addition to achieving GHG reductions, advancements in these
    areas provide important co-benefits, including more equitable and
    accessible transportation systems, economic growth and vibrancy,
    traffic congestion reductions, and improvements to public health--both
    physical and mental. Such advancements are also necessary to meet the
    changing needs of America's residents and businesses, which
    increasingly seek walkable communities with diverse transportation
    options.
    A. Promoting Cleaner Technologies
        i.)  Fuel Efficiency Standards
        Fuel efficiency standards are one area in which the federal
    government plays a crucial role in promoting a shift toward cleaner
    transportation technologies. Unfortunately, the current administration
    has set us down the wrong path. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
    and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standards adopted by the Obama
    Administration in 2012 for passenger cars and light duty trucks were
    estimated to save 4 billion barrels of oil and to reduce GHG emissions
    by the equivalent of 2 billion metric tons over the lifetime of these
    light duty vehicles produced in model years 2017 to 2025.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 Fed. Reg.
    62624, 62627 (Oct. 15, 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last summer, however, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
    to roll back these clean car standards and freeze fuel economy and CO2
    emissions standards for light duty vehicles at 2020 levels for five
    years--a proposal that would result in an increase in petroleum
    consumption of 0.5 million barrels per day by the early 2030s. This
    proposed rollback is a step in the wrong direction, and would seriously
    undermine future efforts to reduce GHG emissions across our
    transportation system. Additionally, as explained in a letter SELC sent
    to the U.S. Department of Transportation and EPA, the change calls into
    question the accuracy of many environmental reviews completed for
    projects in recent years that assumed the Obama-era clean car standards
    would be in place in their future emissions projections.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Letter from Trip Pollard et al., SELC to Elaine Chao, U.S.
    Department of Transportation et al., ``Re-evaluating Completed NEPA
    Reviews under Proposed Rollback of Clean Car Rules'' (Aug. 27, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ii.)  Electric and Other Zero- and Low-Emissions Vehicle
    Technologies
        This is an important time for the future of zero- and low-emissions
    technologies, particularly in the case of EVs. In recent years, EV
    battery prices have dropped dramatically even as vehicle ranges have
    increased. For instance, the range of the Nissan Leaf has increased
    from 73 miles in 2011 to 151 miles for the 2018 version. The Southeast
    is now home to over 65,000 EVs--a five-fold increase since 2013, and
    the rate of adoption is expected to continue to increase in the coming
    years with further improvements in technology and as most major auto
    manufactures have pledged to significantly increase their EV
    production.
        The significant influx in funding for clean vehicles and electric
    charging infrastructure resulting from the Volkswagen emissions
    cheating settlement serves as another key catalyst in the anticipated
    future growth of EVs. As part of this settlement, $2 billion was set
    aside for EV charging infrastructure and education (which has become
    the ``Electrify America'' program), as well as $2.9 billion in
    additional mitigation funds apportioned to states in which the relevant
    VW vehicles were sold. States are already taking advantage of this new
    funding to further promote EVs. Last fall, Virginia awarded a contract
    to a private entity to install new EV charging stations across the
    state--devoting the maximum allowable 15% of its mitigation funds
    toward this effort, and also announced that it will be allocating an
    additional 15% for electric transit buses. North Carolina has likewise
    committed to devote the maximum 15% of its mitigation funds toward
    charging stations.
        Foremost among the benefits of EVs is that they are a ``zero
    emissions'' technology, producing no tailpipe emissions. Although EVs
    require electricity to operate, which does not always come from
    renewable energy sources, the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative
    Fuels Data Center estimates that even in the traditionally fossil fuel-
    reliant Southeast, EVs are responsible for roughly 75% less GHG
    emissions than gasoline-powered vehicles.\4\ This benefit will increase
    over time as these states continue to shift toward cleaner energy
    sources. Additional public health and environmental benefits flow from
    a reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
    compounds (VOCs), reducing harmful ground-level ozone as well as
    nitrogen loads to water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. EVs are also
    typically less expensive to maintain and operate than gasoline-powered
    vehicles, and the purchase price of EVs is predicted to decline to a
    level on par with gasoline vehicles in the near future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center,
    http://afdc.energy.gov/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are many steps that Congress and federal agencies can take
    (or continue taking) to support these efforts. Important grants and
    funding sources that support electric and low-emissions technologies
    should be continued and expanded, such as federal tax credit programs
    for EV purchases, the Federal Transit Administration's ``Low or No
    Emission Vehicle'' and EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
    grant programs, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
    administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Additional
    areas where federal support is needed include providing data and
    technical support to states, localities, and metropolitan planning
    organizations (MPOs) to identify and plan for EV charging
    infrastructure needs. Increased federal funding should also be provided
    to support the installation of charging stations in key areas such as
    Alternative Fuel Corridors designated by FHWA under the FAST Act.
        iii.)  Other State and Regional Efforts
        It is also important to recognize initiatives being undertaken by
    regional, state, and local bodies across the country to reduce
    transportation-related GHG emissions. For example, the Transportation
    and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a coalition of Northeast and Mid-
    Atlantic states and the District of Columbia working to reduce carbon
    emissions and develop clean energy solutions for the transportation
    sector. Significantly, TCI members announced in December that they will
    embark on a year-long study to explore the creation of a regional ``cap
    and invest'' program that would limit transportation-related emissions
    and encourage investment in low-carbon technologies.\5\ Other important
    regional efforts include the bi-coastal Multi-State ZEV Task Force,
    comprised of eight states committed to taking action to expand the
    adoption of zero emissions vehicles and charging infrastructure.
    Similar initiatives include the West Coast Electric Highway and TCI's
    Northeast Electric Vehicle Network--both regional programs to create a
    network of EV charging stations to enable convenient travel both
    locally and throughout these regions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See TCI, ``Transportation and Climate Initiative Statement''
    (Dec. 18, 2018), available at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/
    Final_TCI-statement_20181218_formatted.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are also a host of individual and collaborative efforts being
    undertaken by states, localities, MPOs, and non-governmental
    organizations and businesses to contribute toward reducing our
    transportation GHG emissions. California is leading the way on a number
    of these initiatives, including through the adoption of its Sustainable
    Communities and Climate Protection Law (S.B. 375). S.B. 375 requires
    GHG reduction targets to be set for light duty vehicles for each MPO
    area of the state, as well as the development of transportation and/or
    land use strategies to meet these targets. California, along with New
    York, Massachusetts, and Oregon (all of which are U.S. Climate Alliance
    Members), have also established statewide VMT reduction targets.
        Congress and federal agencies should encourage these transformative
    efforts through data sharing and technical support, as well as
    increased grant and/or direct funding for these activities wherever
    possible through programs such as those identified in the previous
    section (Low-No, DERA, CMAQ, etc.). The U.S. Department of Energy's
    Clean Cities Coalition Network should also be continued and expanded,
    with an increasing emphasis on zero emissions vehicles. Finally, as
    discussed further below, we urge you to strengthen (or in some cases,
    reinstate) nationwide strategies along the lines of a number of these
    efforts, including transportation GHG performance standards and
    reduction targets for the National Highway System applicable to all
    states and MPOs, as well as the potential establishment of related VMT
    reduction targets.
    B. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
        Studies are clear that technological improvements alone--such as
    EVs--will not sufficiently reduce GHG emissions from the transportation
    sector. Meaningfully reducing GHG emissions from transportation will
    also require reducing VMT from both passenger and freight vehicles. In
    order to do so, we must provide greater travel options for both
    residents and businesses, while also prioritizing transportation
    investments that encourage more compact and transit-oriented
    development patterns and enable our communities to reduce their
    reliance on personal car travel.
        i.)  Encouraging Cleaner Transportation Modes
        An essential component in reducing VMT is to significantly increase
    our investment in multimodal, shared, and active transportation
    options. Public transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and pedestrian
    options can meet people's transportation needs without the high GHG
    emissions associated with solo private car trips. When bus and ride-
    sharing fleets are powered with electricity, the GHG emissions
    reductions are even greater. Increasing investment in freight rail can
    also provide significant benefits--railroads are on average four times
    more fuel efficient than trucks, generating 75% fewer GHG emissions.\6\
    Congress should explore how best to incentivize, and increase funding
    for, multimodal transportation projects and services which will help
    reduce VMT, while also benefitting Americans beyond the direct
    reduction in GHG emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See 2017 Virginia Statewide Rail Plan at 2, available at http:/
    /www.drpt.virginia.gov/rail/reference-materials/virginiastate-rail-
    plan/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reducing VMT through greater mode options creates healthier
    communities. One study of individuals living near the Charlotte Lynx
    light rail system showed significant increases in physical health,
    including that light rail users lost weight and substantially reduced
    their likelihood of becoming obese.\7\ Public transportation access and
    walkable communities are also associated with numerous mental health
    benefits, such as reducing emotional stress and symptoms of
    depression.\8\ Moreover, public transit use is generally safer, with a
    much lower fatality rate than private automobile travel.\9\ As one
    researcher has observed, ``[p]eople who live or work in transit
    oriented communities tend to drive fewer annual miles, drive at lower
    speeds, and have better travel options that allow them to avoid high
    risk driving, such as after drinking alcohol or when ill.'' \10\ Mixed-
    use neighborhoods with public transportation access correspond to lower
    rates of obesity, while sprawling neighborhoods correspond to higher
    rates of hypertension, diabetes, asthma, and cancer.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ John M. MacDonald, et al., The Effect of Light Rail Transit on
    Body Mass Index and Physical Activity, 39 AM. J. PREVENTIVE MED. 105,
    108 (2010). The study concluded that ``[t]he findings from the current
    study suggest that increasing the access to LRT transit for individuals
    to commute to work may help overcome some of the barriers to engaging
    in daily utilitarian exercise.'' Id. at 110.
        \8\ TODD LITMAN, VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE, EVALUATING
    PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HEALTH BENEFITS 17 (2015), available at http://
    www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf.
        \9\ Id. at 8-9.
        \10\ Id. at 8.
        \11\ Id. at 15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Expanding public transit and designing for ``complete streets''
    that serve all transportation users, including bicyclists and
    pedestrians, are also important in creating a more equitable
    transportation system. Elderly and disabled residents often rely on
    public transit for their transportation needs. Similarly, ensuring
    public transit is affordable and connects key employment and education
    hubs helps provide disenfranchised communities, such as low-income and
    minority families, with greater access to upward mobility
    opportunities. In turn, transit stations that can be reached by
    bicycling or walking are more accessible by a diverse array of
    passengers.
        Further, reducing VMT through shifts to other modes does not come
    at a cost to economic development. Recent examples have illustrated
    that businesses are increasingly seeking to locate and invest in
    communities with good public transit systems, and which are walkable
    and bikeable. During their respective headquarters searches, both
    Amazon and Apple identified access to public transit as important to
    their decisions. Mercedes-Benz relocated to downtown Atlanta, \12\ and
    Kaiser-Permanente decided on Georgia over Colorado because of the
    public transit options available, specifically the rail system in
    Atlanta's Midtown area.\13\ The Charlotte Lynx light rail system has
    proven to be an enormous economic success for the area with around $2
    billion invested in development along the rail line's original route,
    and a slew of new development projects along the line's extension that
    opened in 2018.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Matt Kempner and J. Scott Trubey, MARTA A Sudden Factor in
    Company Moves, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Jan. 16, 2015, http://
    www.myajc.com/news/business/marta-a-sudden-factor-in-company-moves/
    njpnF/.
        \13\ Maria Saporta, Transit and Walkability Key Factors in Kaiser
    Permanente's Decision to Put 900 New Jobs in Midtown, SAPORTAREPORT,
    Apr. 17, 2015, http://saportareport.com/transit-and-walkability-key-
    factors-in-kaiser-permanentes-decision-to-put-900-new-jobs-in-midtown/.
        \14\ Melissa Oyler, Charlotte's Light Rail: A City Changed Forever,
    BISNOW, Mar. 12, 2018, https://www.bisnow.com/charlotte/news/
    construction-development/development-popping-up-like-weeds-along-
    charlottes-light-rail-opening-this-week-85974.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ii.)  Prioritizing Investments that Encourage Sustainable Land Use
    Patterns
        In order to make effective reductions in VMT, and in turn GHG
    emissions, state, local and federal transportation planners need to
    plan for a future transportation network that is less dependent on
    single occupancy driving. Simply put, transportation and land use
    decisions need to be considered together. Much of our current land use
    patterns have been developed with private car use in mind.\15\ In turn,
    we have a transportation network that facilitates car-centric suburban
    and exurban sprawl--this both leads to increased VMT and swaths of
    natural areas being destroyed for large highways and corresponding
    sprawling neighborhoods. Such destruction of key environmental
    resources further contributes to climate change by eliminating carbon
    sinks like forests and wetlands. These pressures are particularly acute
    in the South, where sprawling suburban development has already led to
    environmental destruction, and where population numbers are expected to
    explode in coming years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ DOT, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions--Volume 1: Synthesis Report to Congress ES-10 (2010),
    available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/
    DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf. (``[O]ur
    historic approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-
    intensive system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moving away from these land use patterns is both necessary for
    climate goals and in line with changing preferences of the American
    public. Suburban living with lengthy commutes is no longer the American
    dream. Instead, younger generations are increasingly looking to live in
    communities where they can live, work, and play without getting into a
    car. More and more people, particularly in the Millennial generation,
    are consciously driving less and prefer to use alternate modes of
    transportation.\16\ The vast majority of Millennials express a
    preference for living in more urbanized, mixed-use, walkable
    communities with public transportation access.\17\ Existing compact,
    mixed-use development along public transportation routes have shown
    that such less automobile-dependent communities are a reality with
    corresponding real benefits: ``[r]esidents of communities with high-
    quality, well integrated public transit . . . own half as many
    vehicles, drive half as many annual miles, walk and bicycle four times
    more, and use public transit ten times more than residents of more
    automobile-dependent communities.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ TONY DUTZIK & PHINEAS BAXANDALL, U.S. PIRG FUND & FRONTIER
    GRP., A NEW DIRECTION: OUR CHANGING RELATIONSHIP WITH DRIVING AND THE
    IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 21-25 (2013), available at http://
    www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf.
        \17\ Id. at 23; Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs, Subways to
    Driveways, NIELSON (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/
    insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-
    driveways.html.
        \18\ LITMAN, supra note 8, at 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These preferences are pertinent to decisions about our future
    transportation network and climate change. A USDOT report identified
    changes to land use patterns as one of the transportation-related
    strategies with the greatest potential to reduce emissions,\19\ and it
    has been estimated that compact development can decrease driving rates
    by as much as 40% and in turn help reduce GHG emissions.\20\ These
    considerations must be a key factor in transportation planning and
    funding decisions at all levels of government, not only to meet our
    communities' evolving transportation needs, but also to ensure that we
    are capturing the significant GHG reduction potential offered by these
    changing preferences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ DOT, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions--Volume 1: Synthesis Report to Congress 3-18 (2010),
    available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/
    DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf.
        \20\ Reid Ewing et al., Urban Land Institute, Growing Cooler: The
    Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change 9, 33, 114 (2008).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Considering GHG Emissions in Planning and Environmental Reviews
        Another crucial strategy to reduce GHG emissions from the
    transportation sector is to ensure that GHG considerations are made a
    central component of planning and decision-making for our
    transportation systems. An important action was taken in this area in
    early 2017 when FHWA published a final rule to incorporate a CO2-
    specific performance measure into transportation planning
    processes.\21\ This measure would have required states and MPOs to
    track carbon emissions of vehicles traveling on the National Highway
    System, establish targets for reducing these emissions, and report on
    progress in meeting their targets. The Trump Administration, however,
    subsequently delayed and then ultimately repealed the performance
    measure. This measure would have been a key step toward ensuring that
    states and MPOs give due consideration to the GHG emissions-related
    effects of their transportation planning decisions, and should be
    reinstated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
    Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
    Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    Improvement Program, 82 Fed. Reg. 5970 (Jan. 18, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A similar scenario has played out in the context of environmental
    reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the wake
    of court decisions finding that NEPA requires consideration of the GHG
    emissions of proposed actions and in relation to reasonable
    alternatives, and after years of public input and discussion, the
    Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidance in August
    2016 outlining how federal agencies should approach climate change
    analyses in NEPA documents to ensure compliance with the statute.\22\
    Among other things, CEQ provided that NEPA reviews should include
    analysis of a proposed action's expected GHG emissions, the relative
    GHG emissions of the proposal and alternative options, and potential
    climate-related risks and resiliency considerations related to the
    action and potential alternatives.\23\ In March 2017, President Trump
    signed an Executive Order directing that this guidance be revoked.\24\
    We understand that new guidance may soon be issued, and we hope that
    such guidance will be consistent with settled law that requires
    agencies to consider air quality and climate change impacts likely to
    result from a project, including indirect impacts.\25\ It is also
    important that this new guidance echo the 2016 version in providing
    clarity to federal agencies about the proper review of alternatives in
    relation to climate change, as well as resiliency considerations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Christina Goldfuss, CEQ, ``Final Guidance for Federal
    Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act
    Reviews'' (Aug. 1, 2016); see also Notice of Availability at 81 Fed.
    Reg. 51866 (Aug. 5, 2016).
        \23\ In this regard, the guidance stated: ``Considering
    alternatives, including alternatives that mitigate GHG emissions, is
    fundamental to the NEPA process . . . Agency decisions are aided when
    there are reasonable alternatives that allow for comparing GHG
    emissions and carbon sequestration potential, trade-offs with other
    environmental values, and the risk from--and resilience to--climate
    change inherent in a proposed action and its design.'' Goldfuss, supra
    note 23 at 14-15.
        \24\ Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (Mar. 28, 2017).
        \25\ See, e.g. Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp.
    Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an Environmental
    Impact Statement insufficient with regards to climate impacts from
    increased coal consumption because ``when the nature of the effect is
    reasonably foreseeable but its extent is not,'' the agency cannot
    ignore that effect); Sierra Club, et al. v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375
    (D.C. Cir. 2017) (concluding that FERC should have estimated amount of
    power-plant carbon emissions that would result from project pipelines).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   ii. enhancing resiliency of infrastructure
        Even as we discuss how to reduce GHG emissions, we are experiencing
    the effects of climate change right now with rising sea levels,
    increasing frequency and severity of storms, heavier rainfall events
    and more.\26\ Southeastern states are being hit particularly hard with
    many coastal communities regularly suffering from flood and storm
    events. Indeed, Southern communities such as Hampton Roads and
    Charleston are among the areas most-threatened by sea level rise in the
    nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ See Trip Pollard, Damage Control: Adapting Transportation to a
    Changing Climate, 39 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 365 (2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On average, Southeastern coastline areas have already experienced
    one foot of sea level rise in the last century.\27\ By the end of this
    century, Southeastern shorelines could see over six feet of sea level
    rise by intermediate estimates, and the severity of storms and the
    damages they cause will continue to increase. For example, with
    Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018, the Carolina
    coast was dealt two so-called 1,000-year storms in only two years.\28\
    Scientists found that climate change made Florence able to grow larger
    and drop 50% more rain compared to a world without high greenhouse gas
    emissions.\29\ One study found that if there had not been the
    significant sea level rise seen in the area since 1970, one out of five
    of the homes impacted by Florence along the Carolina coast would have
    had far less damage.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ According to gauge observational data not modeling. S.
    Jevrejeva et al., Sea Level Projections to AD2500 with a New Generation
    of Climate Change Scenarios, 80-81 GLOBAL & PLANETARY CHANGE 14 (2012),
    doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.09.006.
        \28\ Exceedance Probability Analysis for Selected Storm Events,
    Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.'s Nat'l Weather Serv.'s
    Hydrometeorological Design Studies Ctr., http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/
    hdsc/aep_storm_analysis (last modified Apr. 21, 2017).
        \29\ Kevin A. Reed et al., The Human Influence on Hurricane
    Florence, Stoney Brook University (Sept. 12, 2018), https://cpb-
    use1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/
    climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf.
        \30\ Andrew Freedman, Study: Sea Level Rise Boosted Hurricane
    Florence's Coastal Flooding, Axios (Sept. 24, 2018), https://
    www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-hurricane-florence-coastal-flooding-
    a32d013f-5b66-470a-9536-7a54c3001d64.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Transportation infrastructure projects must be planned, and
    maintained, against this backdrop of climate change impacts. While much
    discussion of adaptation and resiliency focuses on how to effectively
    rebuild after a flood or storm event, more attention must be paid to
    how thoughtful planning of transportation projects can prevent some of
    this damage from happening in the first place.
    A. Incorporating Resiliency into Location and Planning Decisions
        Large transportation infrastructure projects have a profound impact
    on the built and natural environments. For example, large highways
    often require the destruction of significant natural resources in their
    path such as forests and wetlands, and can cause further indirect harm
    by inducing growth into previously undisturbed areas. In the context of
    sea level rise and storm events, this dynamic of induced growth
    counsels against supporting projects that will bring growth into flood-
    prone areas. For example, the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge along the
    North Carolina Outer Banks would encourage growth in areas that will be
    underwater from rising seas within a few decades. Similarly problematic
    are proposals that would encourage growth in flood plains that are
    becoming increasingly subject to flood events. In essence, such
    projects invite greater future storm damage. Additionally, as sea level
    rise brings the coast inland, marshes will similarly migrate inland,
    which means that transportation proposals must be considered based on
    both existing wetland areas as well as anticipated future wetland
    locations. Transportation planners must take a long view when
    considering whether a project makes sense; just because it can be built
    now, does not mean it should be.
        Such transportation projects also run the risk of replacing natural
    features that manage flood events and sea level rise--such as forests,
    wetlands, and marshes--with impervious surfaces, undermining the
    natural ability of a project area to mitigate these effects and
    potentially exacerbating flooding issues. Transportation agencies must
    take a hard look at how proposed projects might harm natural resiliency
    features in the face of storm, flooding, and sea level projections.
    Specifically, as discussed above, transportation agencies must take
    these climate change impacts into account in their environmental
    reviews under NEPA. This should include reconsidering the regulations
    that allow agencies to rebuild a road, highway or bridge in its exact
    same location after being destroyed in a state-declared emergency
    event, without being subject to NEPA review to consider whether the
    facility should in fact be rebuilt at all in light of changing storm,
    flooding, and sea level patterns. See 23 C.F.R. Sec.  771.117(c)(9).
    B. Ensuring Proper Maintenance of Existing Facilities
        A proactive approach with a long-term view is also needed with
    existing transportation facilities. Increasingly extreme weather events
    have meant increasing wear on our transportation infrastructure. Main
    corridors have been shut down for days at a time in the wake of severe
    storms, such as I-40 in North Carolina after Hurricane Florence. As
    these events become increasingly common, transportation agencies need
    to inventory their existing facilities and determine how best to
    maintain or upgrade infrastructure to be ready for the next severe
    weather or flooding event. Adequate and properly maintained stormwater
    facilities can help to guard against flooding of our roads and bridges
    and in some cases enable agencies to avoid building costly and
    unnecessary new infrastructure to address flooding issues. Such a ``fix
    it first'' approach is more cost-effective both in terms of dollars and
    environmental impacts.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. To
    meaningfully reduce GHG emissions and plan for a resilient future it is
    imperative that transportation laws, policies, and decision-makers take
    climate change seriously. We encourage you to continue exploring and to
    take steps to increase funding opportunities and make policy changes to
    reduce transportation-related GHG emissions along the lines of the
    recommendations provided above. We further encourage you to ensure that
    climate change and its effects, like sea level rise and severe storm
    events, are being adequately considered during transportation project
    planning and environmental reviews.

     Letter of February 22, 2019, from Matthew J. Strickler, Secretary of
     Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia, Submitted for the Record
                           by Hon. DeFazio of Oregon
                                                     February 22, 2019.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio
    Chair
    Hon. Sam Graves
    Ranking Member
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2134 Rayburn
            Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Chairman Defazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        I am writing today to offer the Commonwealth of Virginia's
    perspective on ways the federal government can better assist Virginia
    and other states in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of sea level
    rise and extreme weather events. Please accept this testimony for the
    record of the February 27, 2019 Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee hearing titled ``Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy
    Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change.''
        Virginia has much at stake as Congress considers legislation to
    address our country's aging infrastructure. In addition to help
    repairing and modernizing roads, bridges, and railways, the
    Commonwealth requires the assistance of the federal government to make
    coastal communities and critical assets more resilient to climate
    change and natural hazards.
        Sea level rise and more frequent and intense weather events have
    combined with land subsidence to dramatically increase flooding and
    storm damage risk to coastal Virginia. We are not unique among coastal
    states in this regard, but with nearly 10,000 miles of tidal shoreline,
    the deepest and one of the busiest ports on the east coast, and
    numerous military installations including the largest naval base in the
    world, we are uniquely vulnerable.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/faqs/shoreline_miles.php
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recently published, Fourth National Climate Assessment report
    summary includes the following findings regarding infrastructure:

          Climate change and extreme weather events are expected to
    increasingly disrupt our Nation's energy and transportation systems,
    threatening more frequent and longer-lasting power outages, fuel
    shortages, and service disruptions, with cascading impacts on other
    critical sectors. The continued increase in the frequency and extent of
    high-tide flooding due to sea level rise threatens America's trillion-
    dollar coastal property market and public infrastructure, with
    cascading impacts to the larger economy . . . Expected increases in the
    severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events will affect inland
    infrastructure in every region, including access to roads, the
    viability of bridges, and the safety of pipelines. Flooding from heavy
    rainfall, storm surge, and rising high tides is expected to compound
    existing issues with aging infrastructure in the Northeast.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

        In Virginia, these warnings are already ringing true. According to
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2017 Sea Level
    Trends Map, all eight of the sea level monitoring stations in the
    Commonwealth show a relative sea level rise of one to two feet per
    century, among the highest rates of sea level rise on the east or west
    coasts.\3\ The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission estimates the
    negative impacts on private property and public infrastructure from
    three feet of sea level rise in Southeastern Virginia, in the tens of
    billions of dollars.\4\ As this trend continues, the costs and profound
    impacts of natural hazards associated with climate change will only
    increase the longer we wait to address them. Public health and safety,
    our environment and natural resources, and the economic wellbeing of
    the Commonwealth, including our ports, military installations,
    transportation infrastructure, tourism assets, farms, forests, and
    fisheries are all at risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.html
        \4\ https://www.hrpdcva.gov/uploads/docs/
    HRPDC_ClimateChangeReport2012_Full_
    Reduced.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We must act now to protect lives and property and reduce taxpayer
    exposure through fiscally responsible planning. It is important to
    understand that we must not only work to make our existing
    infrastructure more resilient to sea level rise and other natural
    hazards, but that we will need to build new infrastructure, both green
    and grey, for the express purpose of making our coastal communities
    more resilient.
        Virginia is already doing its part. Last November, Governor Northam
    issued Executive Order (EO) 24: Increasing Virginia's Resilience to Sea
    Level Rise and Natural Hazards. This sweeping directive establishes a
    roadmap for making Virginia more resilient, including the creation of a
    Coastal Resilience Master Plan for the Commonwealth. A copy of E0-24 is
    attached for your reference.
        Given the enormous scope of this problem and the significant cost
    required to better protect people and property from extreme weather and
    sea level rise, Virginia will require the assistance of the federal
    government to address this pressing issue and to implement our Master
    Plan. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, we respectfully urge
    the Committee and Congress to consider the following recommendations as
    you develop infrastructure legislation:
    1. Provide robust funding to help states and localities address sea
            level rise and extreme weather events
        As detailed in this letter, the cost of making the United States
    more resilient to extreme weather and sea level rise is enormous.
    Without consistent, dedicated funding, coordinated fully across federal
    agencies, states like Virginia will not be able to adequately protect
    their citizens and the built and natural infrastructure that underpins
    their economies. In particular, we urge Congress to make significant
    investments in pre-disaster mitigation and resilience funding, and U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood protection projects. To meet the
    challenge before us, we will need unprecedented investment from the
    federal government to better protect America's coasts. We urge the
    committee to prioritize flood control projects for those areas most at
    risk, and to also prioritize projects that are part of comprehensive
    regional or multi-state plans rather than free-standing projects that
    may be advanced by a particular locality or interest.
    2. Encourage green infrastructure solutions where applicable
        Science has shown us that natural defenses against flooding, storm
    surge, erosion, and other forces are often our most effective--and most
    cost effective--solutions for protecting vulnerable areas. By reducing
    storm water runoff and allowing floodplains to function, green
    infrastructure can help manage both localized and riverine floods. In
    areas impacted by localized flooding, green infrastructure practices
    absorb rainfall, preventing water from overwhelming pipe networks and
    pooling in streets or basements. In coastal areas, natural or nature-
    based buffers and living shorelines can reduce storm surge and absorb
    flood waters. In addition, green infrastructure provides an array of
    co-benefits including improved water quality and productive fish and
    wildlife habitat. To the maximum extent possible, the Corps should look
    first toward natural and nature based infrastructure solutions for
    coastal protection and flood risk reduction, reserving more costly gray
    infrastructure for situations where it is the only feasible option. In
    Virginia, we hope to anchor our Coastal Resilience Master Plan with a
    limited number of structural flood protection projects, while we fill
    in the gaps with an array of softer solutions including coastal barrier
    protection, land acquisition, property buyouts, buffers, living
    shorelines and more.
    3. Help states organize and prioritize flood control proiects
        For years, cities and towns have taken the lead on requesting Army
    Corps flood control studies and construction projects, which has led
    led to a long list of regional studies that either overlap or leave
    gaps in coverage along jurisdictional lines. To ensure that studies are
    providing the maximum benefit, the Corps should assist states in
    prioritizing and aggregating flood control projects. Furthermore, the
    Corps should prioritize new studies and new projects according to the
    greatest flood risk and the greatest economic needs, as well as giving
    priority to projects that are part of a regional comprehensive plan. In
    addition, the Corps should provide regional guidance for how to best
    address sea level rise and pre-disaster hazard mitigation.
    4. Deliver timely Army Corps studies and consider third party analysis
            and study
        In recent years, appropriations bills have limited the number of
    Corps flood control feasibility studies and project starts in any given
    year. We simply cannot afford the delay. Congress and the Corps must
    devise a way to expand capacity to complete such studies more quickly
    and begin detailed planning and project execution to reduce flooding
    and extreme weather risk.
        In an effort to address the critical need for flood control and
    pre-disaster hazard mitigation, some cities or towns have engaged
    private engineering companies to undertake studies on how to best
    reduce flooding. For example, Virginia Beach has spent more than $4
    million studying its vulnerabilities to flooding and sea level rise.
    Rather than begin a new feasibility study by the Corps, Congress should
    ensure that the Corps will accept and validate viable commercial and
    academic study work as the basis for, or in lieu of, a full feasibility
    study.
    5. Ensure strong environmental review
        While both the need and desire for coastal protection projects are
    urgent, we must resist the temptation to circumvent or weaken bedrock
    environmental laws. This goes for all infrastructure projects. Robust
    reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act will help ensure
    that projects with negative unintended consequences are not selected,
    and that the needs of impacted communities--particularly environmental
    justice communities--are taken into account. Similarly, thorough and
    effective consultation under the Endangered Species Act is necessary to
    protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plants that serve as proxies for
    the health of entire natural systems.
        I understand and appreciate the challenging task that lies ahead of
    you in developing this infrastructure package, and I thank you for your
    consideration of these requests. Please do not hesitate to contact me
    if I can be of further assistance.
            Sincerely,
                                          Matthew J. Strickler,
               Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

     Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Daniel Sperling

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. I apologize, but I have no expertise in this area.

            Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Daniel Sperling

    Question 2: Your testimony raised the issue of the importance of land
    use in reducing greenhouse emissions. One problem we face in California
    is a shortage of housing located at a reasonable distance from job
    opportunities, with the consequence of more development sprawling out
    from urban centers and long, ``super commutes.''
        How do you think federal policy changes can achieve better
    coordination of land use and housing production with infrastructure
    investments?
        Answer. The federal government should review the design of two
    California laws (Senate Bills 375 and 743), and what we have learned.
    These two laws, described below, provide a framework for better
    coordinating land use, housing and transportation.
        The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,
    Senate Bill (SB) 375, (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) is intended to
    encourage regional planning that integrates land use, housing and
    transportation policy in a way that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG)
    emissions from driving, and ultimately results in healthier, more
    efficient, and equitable communities. Under SB 375, metropolitan
    planning organizations (MPOs) incorporate sustainable transportation
    strategies (e.g. local, regional and state transportation projects) and
    land use decisions (e.g. local general plans) in the development of
    their regional transportation plans to meet greenhouse gas reduction
    targets.
        We have learned two lessons so far from the implementation of this
    law. First, most of the strategies for achieving GHG emission
    reductions are the same strategies one would pursue to improve the
    performance and benefits of transportation investments and decisions.
    And second, for this type of law to be successful, strong carrots are
    needed. Carrots are needed to motivate local leaders and community
    groups to reframe and align transportation and environmental strategies
    and investments--a paradigm shift for the transportation community.
        California's Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of
    2013), creates a process to change the way transportation impacts are
    analyzed under the California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    Specifically, it changes the metric of transportation impact in
    environmental reviews of projects from ``level of service'' to vehicle
    miles travelled (VMT). Lead agencies evaluate vehicle travel associated
    with new development as part of the project's environmental review and,
    if the impact is significant, mitigate those impacts by reducing
    vehicle travel. This new metric is aligned with the achievement of SB
    375 and more broadly, sustainable transportation goals.

        Question 3: What role do you think metropolitan planning
    organizations can play in helping to reduce emissions of greenhouse
    gases? What should the federal government ask MPOs to do differently in
    the way that they formulate transportation plans and prioritize
    investments in transportation improvements?
        Answer. See above No. 2. CARB has compiled a list of best practices
    for MPOs in the development of regional transportation plans that meet
    GHG reduction targets under SB 375. They can be found in Appendix C of
    a legislatively-required review of SB375 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
    sites/default/files/2018-11/
    Final2018Report_SB150_112618_05_AppendixC.pdf

        Question 4: Should the federal government require states to measure
    and report on their annual greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
    sources? What about measuring and reporting on aggregate vehicle miles
    traveled (VMT)?
        Answer. Yes. The California Department of Transportation and the
    California Air Resources Board submitted comments on the Federal
    Highway Administration (FHWA) MAP-21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
    the National Performance Management Measures. California strongly urged
    the FHWA to retain and implement the GHG performance measure
    established in the third performance measure final rule. As FHWA
    correctly recognized then, the GHG performance measure is an important
    mechanism to contribute to states' and U.S.'s efforts to reduce
    transportation's contribution to climate change by creating
    transparency and clarity in tracking total emissions from the sector.
    The comment letter can be found here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
    transprog/map21/implementation/
    ctcarb_110317_jt_cmt_ltr_for_the_fhwa_map-21_pm3_ghg_mea_nprm.pdf

    Question 5: Even when transit service options exist, passengers may
    instead choose to drive or take a taxi, because they perceive that the
    transit service is unreliable, too slow, or simply too inconvenient.
        Besides the obvious need for greater investment in transit and the
    need for land use planning and housing development coordinated with
    transit, is there anything the federal government can do to incentivize
    transit agencies to perform better, spend money more effectively, and
    do more to innovate to provide better service to passengers?
        Answer. A wide variety of new technologies and business models have
    come into existence in the past few years. They present many
    opportunities to reduce costs to users, transit operators, and
    infrastructure providers. But they are new and often untested.
        i.  The federal government should create a large program to fund
    pilot projects that bring together innovators, technical experts,
    community members, and decision-making partners to find creative
    solutions for accelerating a change in travel choices away from single-
    occupancy vehicles while improving accessibility and access to
    opportunity. Pilot projects could test which incentives best motivate
    travelers to shift to more sustainable travel modes; provide real-time
    consumer information; develop strategies for making the traveler
    experience outside of the single-occupancy vehicle more seamless;
    explore enhancements to transit operations; and/or better integrate
    walking, cycling, transit, and carpool options via mobility hubs or
    other approaches.
        ii.  Leverage experts to provide insight into the demands on the
    future transportation system, identify the transformative technologies,
    solutions, partnerships, and critical steps to meet those demands, in a
    way that provides clear environmental benefits and fosters greater
    livability, access to destinations, and compact infill development
    rather than accelerating sprawl. To highlight a few examples in
    California that could be done nationally: the State has initiated a
    Multi-agency Workgroup on Automated Vehicles to address deployment of
    connected and automated vehicles in California, and Senate Bill 1014
    (Skinner, 2018) now directs a number of agencies within the state to
    foster the use of cleaner cars and more carpooling in ride-hailing
    trips and directs establishment of goals for reducing the greenhouse
    gas emissions, including targets for the use of zero emission vehicles.
        iii.  Electrification of buses. Electric buses substantially lower
    operating costs, due to more efficient use of fuel and substantially
    lower maintenance costs. It is likely that EV transit buses will
    eventually have a lower total cost of ownership than diesel in most
    applications.
        iv.  New types of buses. DOT and others should start re-evaluating
    the standard 40 foot bus as the default transit vehicle. Automated and
    networked technologies may offer the ability to provide high-grade
    service using minibuses or vans, to areas which are often uneconomical
    for conventional buses.

    Question 6: Between electrification, automation, and so-called ``smart
    cities'' we are clearly in the midst of technological innovations in
    transportation. Some may go so far as to put complete faith in
    technology's ability to solve many of our urban transportation
    challenges, believing that advances in technology will make certain
    forms of public transit obsolete. However, these technological advances
    will not necessarily, by themselves, address our needs for greater
    equity in mobility and accessibility, for connecting underserved
    communities with more opportunities, for walkable and bike-able urban
    spaces, for dynamic, diverse, and thriving neighborhoods. And our
    transit systems are clearly suffering from inadequate investment.
        Given our current need for better public transit on one hand, and
    the many technological innovations that are appearing on the horizon on
    the other hand, how should the current, changing landscape of
    technology innovations inform our planning and decision-making around
    public transportation?
        Answer. Planning should explore a range of possible futures and
    identify what policies can be expected to provide win-win solutions.
    California's MPOs are already exploring the impacts on innovations on
    their plans and policies.
        Also see No. 5 above.

              Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Daniel Sperling

    Question 7: You mention in your testimony that California has, in part,
    addressed energy efficiency through performance standards. In 1993,
    President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
    Planning and Review'', which instructed regulatory agencies to
    ``specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior
    or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt.'' This
    policy was maintained by President George W. Bush and President Barack
    Obama.
        In your experience, do you agree that performance and outcome-based
    regulations, which provide just as much safety, are more effective than
    prescriptive procedural regulations in seeing efficiencies made across
    various industries?
        Answer. As a generalization, using market-based and performance-
    based policies are preferable because they do not pick winners and
    losers and they motivate innovation. Prescriptive regulations are
    sometimes appropriate, but only if the desired technologies or actions
    are clear, obvious, and likely to be effective. CARB's success in
    reducing emissions from mobile sources has relied on a combination of
    incentives, prescriptive regulations, performance standards, and market
    instruments. This approach has allowed the state to overcome market and
    technology barriers for low carbon fuels and low and zero emissions
    vehicles, and develop pilot programs to support innovation and
    technology deployment. California has long recognized that there is no
    single solution for any sector and that working with industry and the
    broader public through a transparent process can help identify which
    approach is most cost-effective and feasible while achieving the
    desired environmental and public health outcomes. California's
    regulatory process requires that a performance-based regulation be
    considered when any rule is proposed. As a result, in practice, most of
    California's regulations are performance based and most major
    greenhouse gas regulations affecting transportation include a credit-
    trading market mechanism.

          Question from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia for Vicki Arroyo

    Question 1: In your testimony, you discussed the historical burdens
    disproportionately shouldered by low-income communities.
        Can you discuss how climate change heightens those discrepancies
    for communities of color or low-income individuals and what Federal
    programs can help to reverse years of inequitable planning and
    development?
        Answer. The negative impacts of climate change are not experienced
    equally by all individuals and communities; rather, communities of
    color, low-income communities, and individuals with disabilities are
    among those that typically feel the burdens of increased heat and heat
    waves, flooding, drought, hurricanes and other storms, and other
    climate stressors disproportionately.\1\ These ``frontline
    communities'' are more likely to live in areas with higher exposure to
    pollutants and impacts like extreme heat and flooding that are
    exacerbated by a changing climate. At the same time they are less
    likely to have the resources to adapt to the impacts of climate change
    or to evacuate when faced with a major disaster event like a hurricane,
    as was clearly demonstrated during Hurricane Katrina.\2\ This unequal
    distribution of climate and disaster impacts is due in large part to
    the effects of decades of systematic oppression through inequitable
    planning and policymaking at federal, state, and local levels. As a
    result, individuals in frontline communities may be more vulnerable to
    health-related effects (e.g., asthma) and infrastructure failures
    (e.g., due to sub-standard housing and aging infrastructure) resulting
    from climate change and natural disasters, while receiving less
    protection from government services and policies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For more discussion on how frontline communities experience
    climate change and disaster event impacts disproportionately, see
    NAACP, In the Eye of the Storm: A People's Guide to Transforming Crisis
    and Advancing Equity in the Disaster Continuum, (2018), available at
    https://live-naacp-site.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/
    NAACP_InTheEyeOfTheStorm.pdf; Rejane Frederick, Rebecca Cokley, Hannah
    Leibson, and Eliza Schultz, Center for American Progress, Serving the
    Hardest Hit: Centering People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning
    and Response Efforts, Sept. 24, 2018, available at https://
    www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/reports/2018/09/24/458467/
    serving-hardest-hit/.
        \2\ For a discussion of historical inequality in disaster law and
    policy, see Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and Inequality, available at
    https://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/
    Disaster_Law_and_Inequality_Farber.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, in addition to the disproportionate effects of
    environmental disasters on frontline communities, recent research has
    shown that FEMA disaster aid may also be contributing to an increase in
    wealth inequality along racial lines.\3\ While the researchers note
    that the cause is unclear, it has been shown from past events (e.g.,
    Hurricane Katrina) that FEMA aid is not distributed equitably and the
    impacts of selective infrastructure redevelopment, while positive for
    some communities, can be conversely detrimental to others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ University of Pittsburgh News Services, ``Natural Disasters,
    FEMA Aid Widen Racial Wealth Gap,'' Aug. 27, 2018, http://
    www.news.pitt.edu/news/natural-disasters-fema-aid-widen-racial-wealth-
    gap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should act to ensure that funding through Federal disaster
    recovery programs (as well as other programs that provide funding to
    states and local governments for infrastructure or community
    investments) is distributed equitably to help reverse decades of
    inequality in Federal investments at state and local levels.
    Additionally, more could be done to ensure that frontline communities
    and environmental justice and community-based organizations have a
    voice in decision making relating to Federal investments and disaster
    planning and recovery. The Federal government should also be doing more
    to track these disproportionate impacts of climate change and natural
    disasters so as to better target future investments and government
    services (e.g., emergency management and response) to benefit frontline
    communities.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ For example, in Disaster Law and Inequality, Farber notes that
    FEMA should include demographic information alongside flood hazard maps
    and consider such information in environmental reviews of major federal
    projects that impact disaster preparedness (e.g., levees), and
    demographic statistics should be collected and immediately published
    following disaster events. Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and
    Inequality, 13, available at https://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/
    Disaster_Law_and_Inequality_Farber.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Vicki Arroyo

    Question 2: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. Governors from both parties are enacting ambitious
    proposals to invest in transportation infrastructure, reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions, and make transportation systems more resilient to the
    impacts of climate change. For example, Massachusetts Governor Baker
    established the Commission on the Future of Transportation in the
    Commonwealth to advise his administration on the needs and challenges
    of the transportation system of the future.\5\ In California, governors
    from both parties have enacted a cap-and-trade system that includes
    transportation fuels, and have used the proceeds generated from the
    program to invest in multi-modal low-carbon transportation
    solutions.\6\ A federal infrastructure bill would be strengthened and
    made more effective by building from the successful investments and
    planning processes underway in states across the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission on the Future of
    Transportation, https://www.mass.gov/orgs/commission-on-the-future-of-
    transportation
        \6\ State of California, California Climate Investments, http://
    www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Vicki Arroyo

    Question 3: A Your testimony raised the issue of the importance of land
    use in reducing greenhouse emissions. One problem we face in California
    is a shortage of housing located at a reasonable distance from job
    opportunities, with the consequence of more development sprawling out
    from urban centers and long, ``super commutes.''
        How do you think federal policy changes can achieve better
    coordination of land use and housing production with infrastructure
    investments?
        Answer. One important strategy for transportation and housing
    policy is transit-oriented development. One policy idea to incentivize
    transit-oriented development would be a federal program to provide low-
    cost financing for housing investment near transit and rail hubs. This
    program could be structured similarly to the Federal Highway
    Administration's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
    Act (TIFIA).\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Smart Growth America, Legislative Priorities, https://
    smartgrowthamerica.org/our-vision/advocacy/legislative-priorities/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        States have explored incentive programs for smart growth and in-
    fill development, as an effective strategy for creating more affordable
    housing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In Massachusetts, the
    Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act has offered cities and towns a
    financial incentive to build residential dwellings in designed ``smart
    growth'' districts.\8\ A federal program that made community
    development funding available for smart growth, infill, and transit-
    oriented development could serve as an effective policy mechanism.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See: 760 CMR 59, http://www.mass.gov/hed/community/planning/
    chapter-40-r.html

        Question 4: What role do you think metropolitan planning
    organizations can play in helping to reduce emissions of greenhouse
    gases? What should the federal government ask MPOs to do differently in
    the way that they formulate transportation plans and prioritize
    investments in transportation improvements?
        Answer. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have a critical
    role in reducing transportation GHG emissions through their roles
    coordinating active transportation, public transit, and traffic demand
    management strategies as part of the transportation planning process.
    The importance of MPOs to transportation and emission reduction
    planning is increasingly due to demographic trends: suburban counties
    are the fastest growing area type in the United States, with a 16
    percent growth since 2000, \9\ and MPOs can play a critical ensuring
    that population and economic growth in urban and suburban counties is
    decoupled from increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Pew Research Center, Demographic and economic trends in urban,
    suburban and rural communities (May 22, 2018), https://
    www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-
    urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While most land use planning authority is held at the state and
    local level, the federal government could incentive MPOs and regional
    planners to consider GHG emissions and develop strategies to reduce
    emissions through the structure of transportation funding programs. For
    example, the federal government could require transportation GHG
    emissions evaluation as part of the longrange transportation plans and
    three-year statewide transportation improvement programs developed by
    MPOs.
        Several states already require MPOs to set and meet mandatory or
    voluntary GHG emission reduction goals for transportation. For example,
    under California's Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
    of 2008 (S.B. 375), the state sets a GHG target for each MPO and
    requires each MPO to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategies to
    meet its GHG target.\10\ These Sustainable Communities Strategies are
    incorporated into each MPO's federally required long-range
    transportation plan.\11\ The California requirement does not penalize
    MPOs that do not achieve the target, but does provide incentives for
    those that do. Oregon has passed legislation that requires the MPO for
    Portland (and encourages other MPOs) to conduct scenario planning for
    meeting transportation-sector GHGs reductions targets set by the
    state.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ California Air Resources Board, Sustainable Communities,
    https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm
        \11\ Cal . Gov't Code Sec.  14522.1
        \12\ Chapter 865 Oregon Laws 2009 (House Bill 2001); Chapter 85
    Oregon Laws 2010 Special Session (Senate Bill 1059). See also Oregon
    Land Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Greenhouse
    Gas Reduction Targets, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012, (May
    19, 2011).

        Question 5: Should the federal government require states to measure
    and report on their annual greenhouse gas emissions from mobile
    sources? What about measuring and reporting on aggregate vehicle miles
    traveled (VMT)?
        Answer. In January 2017, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration
    (FHWA) issued a regulation requiring states to identify a GHG
    performance measure and report on progress.\13\ The GHG performance
    measure was repealed in May 2018.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
    Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
    Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    Improvement Program, 82 Fed. Reg. 5979, 5993-6003 (Jan. 18, 2017).
        \14\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing
    Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the
    Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    Improvement Program, 83 Fed. Reg. 24920, (May 31, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When U.S. FHWA issued the draft rule to establish the performance
    measure (and again during regulatory repeal of the performance
    measure), several state departments of transportation submitted
    comments in favor of the GHG performance measure. For example,
    Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner Zelle submitted a
    comment suggesting that the performance measure was ``needed as an
    authority to track efforts to reduce transportation GHG emissions'' and
    that the rule as originally promulgated would not be an administrative
    burden; estimating the ``burden for analysis and reporting to be less
    than two hours per year.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Comment from Charles A. Zelle, Commissioner, Minnesota
    Department of Transportation; Re: Federal Highway Administration's
    ``National Performance Management Measures; Assessing the Performance
    of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate
    System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
    Program;'' proposed rule (Docket Number FHWA-2017-0025); https://
    www.regulations.gov/document?D=FHWA-2017-0025-0148
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For an institution such as Georgetown Climate Center, with a goal
    of supporting state and local government policymakers, accurate and
    timely data on vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions from the
    transportation sector is important for conducting analysis.

    Question 6: Even when transit service options exist, passengers may
    instead choose to drive or take a taxi, because they perceive that the
    transit service is unreliable, too slow, or simply too inconvenient.
        Besides the obvious need for greater investment in transit and the
    need for land use planning and housing development coordinated with
    transit, is there anything the federal government can do to incentivize
    transit agencies to perform better, spend money more effectively, and
    do more to innovate to provide better service to passengers?
        Answer. Electric transit buses offer an enormous opportunity for
    improved public transit that reduces air pollution and GHG emissions,
    while providing a better experience for passengers. Federal programs to
    increase technical support for transit agencies will lead to a more
    efficient and faster transition to electric fleets. Additionally,
    federal funding programs could significantly increase their impact by
    incentivizing private financing of transit buses (monetizing the
    operational cost savings of electric buses).
    Technical Assistance to Support Fleet Transition:
        The federal government could provide valuable support for transit
    fleet electrification by significantly expanding grant funding for both
    technical analyses and fleet transition planning for transit agencies.
    This planning assistance could be highly effective at ensuring cost-
    efficient investments in electric buses and charging infrastructure.
    Transit agencies with medium-term plans to electrify their entire fleet
    face significant logistical challenges for operations, routing, and
    charging buses. While limited-scale pilot deployments of electric
    transit buses provide valuable experience, many of the challenges of
    full fleet electrification will not be answered through a pilot
    deployment. For example, the charging infrastructure considerations for
    five electric buses will be very different than those for 100 electric
    buses (for example, depending on electric distribution infrastructure
    capacity and constraints, a transit agency may favor `depot' charging
    for a limited pilot deployment, but will require on-route charging for
    a fully electrified fleet). Federal funding for fleet assessment and
    transition plans for transit agencies will help to ensure that pilot
    projects are effectively and efficiently deployed.
    Leveraging Public Funds with Electric Transit Bus Financing
        Electric transit buses are already nearly competitive with diesel
    buses on a total cost of ownership basis (when including fuel and
    maintenance costs), and will reach cost parity over the coming
    years.\16\ One important opportunity is to explore how clean energy
    financing strategies, such as ``Pay As You Save'' financing, \17\ could
    to increase the impact of federal funding and help meet the huge demand
    from transit bus fleets for federal support. Clean energy financing
    strategies could leverage limited public-sector funding by attracting
    low-cost private financing that monetizes the operational cost savings
    of electric transit buses. The U.S. Department of Transportation
    Federal Transit Administration's ``Low- or No-Emission'' (``Low-No'')
    Grant program has been instrumental in providing the funding needed by
    transit agencies to add zero-emission buses to their fleets, but this
    funding is generally not paired with financing--in general, the grant
    funding pays for the entire upfront cost premium of electric transit
    buses. Congress could authorize a modified or expanded Low-No grant
    program that incentivizes transit agency applications that include
    private financing and investment. As an alternative (to avoid
    penalizing transit agencies without a willing financing partner) this
    could be developed as a complementary program in addition to the
    existing Low-No grant program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
    Lower CO2, C40 (Mar. 29, 2018),
    https://c40-productionimages.s3.amazonaws.com/other_uploads/images/
    1726_BNEF_C40_Electric_buses_in_cities_
    FINAL_APPROVED_%282%29.original.pdf?1523363881.
        \17\ Tariffed On-Bill Finance to Accelerate Clean Transit, CLEAN
    ENERGY WORKS, http://www.cleanenergyworks.org/home/clean-transit/

    Question 7: Between electrification, automation, and so-called ``smart
    cities'' we are clearly in the midst of technological innovations in
    transportation. Some may go so far as to put complete faith in
    technology's ability to solve many of our urban transportation
    challenges, believing that advances in technology will make certain
    forms of public transit obsolete. However, these technological advances
    will not necessarily, by themselves, address our needs for greater
    equity in mobility and accessibility, for connecting underserved
    communities with more opportunities, for walkable and bike-able urban
    spaces, for dynamic, diverse, and thriving neighborhoods. And our
    transit systems are clearly suffering from inadequate investment.
        Given our current need for better public transit on one hand, and
    the many technological innovations that are appearing on the horizon on
    the other hand, how should the current, changing landscape of
    technology innovations inform our planning and decision-making around
    public transportation?
        Answer. While automated vehicles have the potential to create
    significant benefits for public safety and mobility; the energy,
    emissions, equity, and land use implications are very uncertain, and
    may depend on the fuel type and public transportation infrastructure
    used by these vehicles, as well as public policy intervention.\18\
    Leading transportation researchers and forecasts are showing that the
    deployment of automated vehicles could lead to a significant increase
    or decrease in emissions. A recent study conducted by several U.S.
    national labs concluded that the deployment of highly automated
    vehicles (in the absence of electrification) could lead to a 200
    percent increase or 60 percent decrease in fuel use.\19\ Recent
    analysis has discussed the enormous opportunities from aligning the
    emerging technology trends of vehicle electrification and automation,
    along with shared use of vehicles. However, most analyses point to the
    need for strong public policies to ensure that automated vehicles
    result in a reduction in vehicle emissions and increase in mobility
    options, rather than an increase in congestion, vehicle miles traveled,
    fuel use, and emissions.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Zia Wadud, Don MacKenzie, and Paul Leiby (2016) https://
    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415002694
        \19\ T.S. Stephens, et. al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
    Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs
    of Connected and Automated Vehicles (2016), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
    fy17osti/67216.pdf
        \20\ See generally UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies,
    Three Revolutions Policy Initiative, https://3rev.ucdavis.edu/
    policybriefs/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the timeline for deployment of fully automated
    vehicles outside of small geo-fenced areas is highly uncertain. Ford
    Motor Co. chief executive officer Jim Hackett said at an April 2019
    event: ``We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles,'' and
    that the near-term applications will be limited.\21\ Policy makers
    should not wait for the arrival of full vehicle automation to address
    challenges such as air pollution, GHG emissions, and more inequitable
    mobility.
        At the same time, policymakers can implement programs to improve
    transportation in the near term while preparing for the ultimate
    arrival of highly automated vehicles. For example, transitioning to
    zero-emission transit and for-hire vehicle fleets will establish the
    charging infrastructure and routing logistics that will enable zero-
    emission driverless transit (when the technology is mature). Cities
    across the country are developing strategies and working with
    businesses to deploy shared electric mobility.\22\ The federal
    government could provide additional support to better integrate
    traditional, fixed-line transit with new on-demand shared-use options.
    For example, transit agencies across the country are exploring
    partnerships with transportation networking companies to offer
    discounts for trips that begin or end at a transit station.\23\ Another
    idea being piloted is transit agencies replacing low-occupancy transit
    routes with an on-demand ride-hailing option, \24\ which can create the
    opportunity to reinvest cost savings into providing better service
    along core transit routes. If done effectively and in consultation with
    affected communities, programs such as these can help to modernize
    transit services and prepare for upcoming technology deployments. On
    the other hand, policymakers should be mindful of recent studies
    finding that transportation networking companies such as Lyft and Uber
    are increasing vehicle miles traveled and congestion and decreasing
    transit use.\25\ Policies to encourage shared trips (such as a per-trip
    fee, rather than per-booking fee), connections with transit, and
    electrification of these vehicles will be critical for this new
    mobility option to be in the public interest.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Keith Naughton, Bloomberg News, ``Ford CEO Tamps Down
    Expectations for First Autonomous Vehicles'' (April 9, 2019), https://
    www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-09/ford-ceo-tamps-down-
    expectations-for-first-autonomous-vehicles
        \22\ Seattle Department of Transportation, EVSE Roadmap for Shared
    Mobility Hubs (December 2018), http://evsharedmobility.org/wpcontent/
    uploads/2018/12/SDOT_EVSE_Roadmap_
    for_Shared_Mobility_Hubs.pdf
        \23\ See, e.g., City of Charlotte, North Carolina, ``CATS Announces
    First Mile / Last Mile Partnership with Lyft'' (April 9, 2018), https:/
    /charlottenc.gov/newsroom/releases/Pages/PR-20180409.aspx
        \24\ For example, the City of Arlington, Texas, contracts with Via
    to provide on-demand rides. ``Transportation--City of Arlington, TX,''
    www.arlington-tx.gov/residents/transportation
        \25\ See e.g., Schaller Consulting, The New Automobility: Lyft,
    Uber and the Future of American Cities (July 25, 2018), http://
    www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf
        \26\ Daniel Sperling, Three Revolutions: Steering Automated,
    Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future, Island Press 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Vicki Arroyo

    Question 8: In your testimony, you talk about how the United States has
    experienced extreme weather-related events that have cost over $1
    billion (adds up to $1.6 trillion since 1980). In fiscal year 2018
    alone, Congress provided over $100 billion in assistance for federal
    disasters, in large part due to hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria--
    causing damage to infrastructure, communities, and cities.
    Understanding your testimony focuses on transportation resiliency,
    clearly there is more that the federal government can do on projects to
    mitigate and help communities recover from disasters.
        Do you think the federal government can be doing more to track how
    federal money is being spent on disasters, including the nature of
    specific awards and loans?
        Answer. Better tracking of federal disaster recovery dollars across
    the many agencies involved in recovery efforts could significantly
    improve the efficiency of research efforts relating to disaster
    recovery, and lead to improved program effectiveness. Organizations
    that have conducted research in the past on federal disaster recovery
    programs have overwhelmingly noted the complexity and administrative
    challenges of these programs, and lack of transparency in assessing how
    funds are spent and how effective those investments are after the fact.
    For example, our Center hosted workshops with federal agencies, states,
    and other stakeholders several years back to discuss opportunities for
    improving federal programs to better support state and local
    resilience, including one workshop focused primarily on disaster relief
    programs. Based on input at those events, we found across the board
    that beneficiaries of federal program funding could benefit from
    improved interagency collaboration and alignment of program funding
    streams, paperwork, and regulatory requirements. Along these lines,
    stakeholders reported a need for recipients' reporting requirements to
    be aligned across federal disaster relief programs as well.\27\
    Similarly, by aligning federal agencies' reporting requirements
    relating to their disaster-related expenditures, overall transparency
    regarding disaster costs could be improved; this was suggested in a
    recent CRS report on 2017 disaster supplemental appropriations.\28\
    Improved tracking of federal spending related to disaster events could
    also help to identify where post-disaster investments are contributing
    to improved resilience and future hazard mitigation, which ultimately
    will help translate to cost savings through avoided losses in the
    future when the next disaster strikes, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ See Georgetown Climate Center, Preparing Our Communities for
    Climate Impacts: Recommendations for Federal Action, Chapter 2 (2014),
    available at https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/report/GCC%20-
    %20Recommendations%20for%20Federal%20Action%20-%20September%202014.pdf.
        \28\ See Congressional Research Service, 2017 Disaster Supplemental
    Appropriations: Overview, 22-23 (March 20, 2018), available at https://
    fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45084.pdf.

        Question 9: Should the Federal government have a more centralized
    way to report how Federal money is being spent so that researchers like
    you can better understand what efforts the federal government is doing
    to focus and help mitigate disasters?
        Answer. A centralized reporting system for tracking federal
    spending relating to disasters would be a vast improvement in terms of
    government transparency and accountability. With a trend towards
    increasing extreme weather events and related costs, it is important
    for the Federal government and researchers to understand where and how
    recovery dollars are being utilized. This may help identify
    opportunities for cost-effective pre-disaster mitigation, and ensure
    that post-disaster recovery funds in the future are spent wisely on
    investments that will withstand extreme storms and other environmental
    conditions of the future.

    Question 10: As a follow-up, my home state of North Carolina has been
    recovering from Hurricane Matthew for more than two years. Extreme
    weather conditions like hurricanes and flooding put immense strain on,
    not only federal resources, but also on state and local resources in
    responding to these events. We have identified that there are more than
    17 federal agencies involved in federal assistance, not to mention
    countless state, local, tribal, and various non-profit organizations as
    well. In your research of states and cities and how they respond to
    natural disasters, surely you must have seen many instances of
    bureaucratic slow-downs and inefficiencies that should be addressed.
        Do you think it would be beneficial to have a lead federal agency
    in charge of coordinating state, local, and federal response efforts,
    as well as undertaking efforts to provide assessments related to damage
    caused by disasters to better streamline the federal response?
        Answer. If done effectively, having a lead federal agency to
    coordinate disaster response across federal agencies and with state and
    local emergency management agencies could prove useful to improve the
    efficiency and effectiveness of disaster response and recovery.
    Similarly, it would benefit federal agencies, researchers, and the
    American public if federal agencies improved in their tracking of
    disaster spending and efforts, and having a single agency to coordinate
    the gathering and reporting of these efforts could help to improve
    government efficiency and accountability.

                Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Vicki Arroyo

    Question 11: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
    nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
    electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
    clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
    the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
    gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
    (ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
    homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
    ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
        Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
    developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
        Answer. States across the country are taking different approaches
    to existing nuclear power generation assets as part of the transition
    to lower carbon electricity generation. For example, New York developed
    a clean energy standard (CES) that includes a renewable energy standard
    (RES) and the zero-emissions credit (ZEC) requirement.\29\ The CES was
    established to ``provide[]support for safely-operating upstate nuclear
    plants'' while ensuring that 50 percent of New York State's electricity
    will be generated by renewables by 2030 (this goal was later increased
    to 70 percent renewable sources, such as solar and wind, by 2030).\30\
    The New York Clean Energy Standard complements other regulatory
    programs, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The New York
    Public Service Commission order approving the CES cited the example of
    Germany, where an ``abrupt closure of all its nuclear plants resulted
    in a large increase in the use of coal, causing total carbon emissions
    to rise despite an aggressive increase in solar generation.'' \31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard, N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm.,
    Case 15-E-0302 (Aug. 1, 2016).
        \30\ New York State Energy Research and Development Agency,
    ``Renewing the Energy Vision, Clean Energy Standard,'' https://
    www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Clean-Energy-Standard
        \31\ Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard, N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm.,
    Case 15-E-0302 (Aug. 1, 2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Vicki Arroyo

        Question 12: Please list all the modes of transportation you used
    en-route to this hearing (If a vehicle was used for travel, please
    clarify if it had an internal combustion engine).
        Answer. I drove from my home in Arlington to the Georgetown Climate
    Center in the morning in my electric car, a Chevrolet Bolt. For the
    trip from Georgetown Law to the Capitol Visitor Center, my staff and I
    traveled in a taxi cab licensed by the District of Columbia Department
    of For-Hire Vehicles. It had an internal combustion engine, but may
    have been a hybrid.

        Questions 13 and 14: During the hearing, I asked about spatial gaps
    in the global surface temperature station coverage and the impact these
    unaccounted-for swaths of the globe on the temperature record's
    validity. Based on your response, it seems like there was some
    confusion about the study I cited and the temperature record it
    referred to so I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few
    things and explore this issue further.
        First, the global average surface temperature data refers to the
    input data for the three main global temperature histories--the NOAA
    Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature (MLOST) record, the NASA-GISS
    (GISTEMP) record, and the Hadley-CRU (HADCRU) record--not the satellite
    record. The satellite datasets did not begin until 1979 so even if this
    was the dataset in question, it would do nothing to alleviate the gaps
    in station coverage in the Southern Hemisphere and the oceans
    referenced in Hansen et al. (1981). It is incredibly important to
    understand that the gap in coverage referenced by Hansen et al. (1981)
    is not for any one of the three temperature records, rather this
    surface area is not recorded in the data archives used as the land
    temperature and sea surface temperature (SST) inputs used for all three
    records. Though they are produced by different entities, these three
    records are comprised of nearly identical surface temperature input
    data--the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) for land surface
    temperature (LST) inputs and the International Comprehensive Ocean-
    Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) for SST inputs--with very little
    exception; the best available estimate is that 90-95 percent of the raw
    data is the same in all three records.\32\ \33\ Given the significant
    overlap of raw data underlying the three temperature records, it is
    incredibly important that the data be accurate and its coverage be
    widespread. As I stated in my line of questioning, Hansen et al.
    (1981), relaying concerns about the existence of Southern Hemisphere
    and oceanic data,\34\ seriously calls into question the extent of the
    raw data coverage and the validity of the three temperature records
    relying upon the raw data in the GHCN and ICOADS that now claim to have
    credible station temperature records going back to 1880.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ McKitrick, Ross, A Critical Review of Global Surface
    Temperature Data Products (August 5, 2010): 4. https://ssrn.com/
    abstract=1653928
        \33\ Pielke, R. A., Sr. et al., Unresolved issues with the
    assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends, J.
    Geophys. Res., 112, (December 29, 2007), D24S08, doi:10.1029/
    2006JD008229.
        \34\ ``Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due
    to the uneven station distribution with the Southern Hemisphere and
    ocean areas poorly represented, and the small number of stations for
    earlier times.'' James Hansen et al., ``Climate Impact of Increasing
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'', Science, Vol. 213, no. 4511 (August 28,
    1981): 961. See: http://www.sealevel.info/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf.
        \35\ ``Source of the temperature data: GHCN-v3 1880-01/2019'',
    NASA-GISS, S.HEMISPH. Station Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees
    Celsius, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts.txt
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It should be noted that Dr. James Hansen is not a scientist who
    ``might quibble with'' the theory of global warming; in fact, he was
    one of the earliest and remains one of the most prominent proponents of
    the theory of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. Dr. Hansen
    became the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1981
    and oversaw the creation and development of the GISTEMP temperature
    analysis; which filled in the gaps by extrapolating the existing
    southern hemisphere data to fill the entire hemisphere.\36\
    Interestingly, GISTEMP was refined in 1987; providing the scientific
    basis of his 1988 testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources where he claimed ``it was 99 percent certain that the
    warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup
    of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.'' \37\
    This timeline is suspect and his predictions were significantly warmer
    than what has been observed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ NASA-GISS, ``History of GISTEMP'', https://data.giss.nasa.gov/
    gistemp/history/
        \37\ Shabecoff, ``Global Warming Has Begun'', NYT (1988).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Years later, other leaders in the climate science community
    privately acknowledged the lack of temperature data and its impact on
    the warming trend in the data. Dr. Raymond Bradley, Research Director
    at the Climate System Research Center at UMass-Amherst, responded to an
    email from Dr. Thomas Crowley, at the University of Edinburgh, stating:
    ``One cautionary note--talking to Phil Jones last week, he mentioned
    that the recent addition of SH buoy data has added data from areas of
    the globe hitherto undersampled; it may have `suppressed' the ocean
    area warming relative to land.'' \38\ In response to this exchange, Dr.
    Phil Jones, then-Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
    University of East Anglia, responded, ``in addition to the issue of
    many more drifters providing measurements over the last 5-10 years, the
    measurements are coming in from places where we didn't have much ship
    data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normal are
    mostly made up as there is very little ship data there. Whatever causes
    the divergence in your plot is down to the ocean.'' \39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Email from Dr. Raymond Bradley to Drs. Thomas Crowley and
    Michael Mann. April 13, 2009. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt
        \39\ Email from Dr. Phil Jones to Dr. Thomas Crowley April 14,
    2009. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is an especially damning admission because it shows that the
    addition of actual observational data curbed the warming trend in the
    extrapolated data. Worse, the directors of two of the three main
    organizations overseeing global temperature histories have admitted
    that the raw data underlying their histories are incomplete.
        Questions 13 and 14 Given this background information, do you
    believe the data is credible and there is a sufficient enough amount of
    it to claim that it is a reasonable depiction of the global average
    surface temperature since the 1880s? If so, please explain how these
    significant problems with the data were overcome in a manner that
    allows you to claim this.
        Answer. It is important to point out that the Hansen paper you cite
    was from 1981, the year I graduated from high school. This was long
    before the dramatic increase in computing power that has revolutionized
    climate science and allowed us to carry phones with as much power as
    the original supercomputers in our pockets. Since then, scientists have
    collected 38 years of additional data, both from sensors all over the
    world and from satellites. They have also made tremendous strides in
    analyzing the data. All of this scientific work tells the same story:
    that the planet has warmed at a rapid pace since pre-industrial days.
        For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
    aimed to address many of the questions and concerns raised by the
    congressman. The project used 39,390 unique stations in their analysis,
    ``more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global
    Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M).'' http://
    static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf
        Using this vastly larger data set led them to the same conclusions
    as earlier studies. In fact: ``Berkeley Earth also has carefully
    studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban
    heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We
    have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.'' http://
    berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
        In addition, four leading scientific institutions, UK's Met Office
    Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA's
    National Climatic Data Center, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency
    have all analyzed the temperature data using different approaches.\40\
    Their results are remarkably similar, increasing the level of
    confidence in the results. There is no question that the planet has
    warmed significantly (and rapidly) due to human activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ NASA Climate 365 project--a collaboration of the NASA Earth
    Science News Team, NASA Goddard and Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    communications teams, and NASA websites Earth Observatory and Global
    Climate Change. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/9/graphic-
    earths-temperature-record/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, even though the planetary warming as seen in actual
    temperature measurements is both complete and scientifically
    persuasive, it is also important to add that the detailed record of
    past climate does not rely on temperature measurements alone. Important
    data also come from tree rings, coral reefs, sediments, pollen--and
    especially ice cores. In fact, data from those sources have enabled
    scientists to put together a remarkably detailed picture of the
    planet's temperature over thousands and even millions of years. That
    record shows that the recent planetary warming from human activities is
    unprecedented in the planet's history, in both the size and speed of
    the warming.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. https://
    earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

        Question 15: In response to my questions regarding the extent of
    the global temperature observational station coverage, you stated the
    following: ``The impacts have only become more severe and more obvious
    based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme events. We know
    that we are at CO2 levels that have never been experienced since
    millions of years ago and that's going to lead to dramatic impacts like
    sea level rise and more intense and frequent storms, etc., etc.'' Given
    the pervasiveness of these claims in the public discourse about climate
    change and the Committee's jurisdiction over the federal management of
    emergencies, natural disasters, and flood control, I'd like to explore
    the link between human greenhouse gas emissions and these extreme
    weather events.
        All the rhetoric around rapid climate change related sea level rise
    in the 20th century are not in line with the validated tidal gauge
    data. For example, the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4)
    claimed ``global average sea level has risen by about 7-8 inches since
    1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since
    1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantia contribution to
    this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater
    than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years.'' \42\ Dr.
    Nils-Axel Morner reviewed the rates of sea level change projected by
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others with
    the actual tidal gauge and satellite data. He found, ``At most, global
    average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per
    century. It is probably not rising at all.'' \43\ Claims that tidal
    gauges show a significant trend in sea level rise fail to account for
    non-climate change related factors causing localized rise; this leaves
    them ``bound to exaggerate sea-level rise.'' \44\ Removing the gauges
    that are sited in uplifted and subsiding locations, separates the
    actual sea level rise from the noise created due to shifts in the
    gauges physical location. ``This leaves 68 [NOAA] sites of reasonable
    stability. These sites give a present rate of sea level rise of 1.0
    ( 1.0) mm/year [.039 ( .039) in/year].'' \45\
    \46\ The raw data from ``two distinct satellite systems [the TOPEX/
    POSEIDON sea-level satellites and the GRACE gravitational-anomaly
    satellites], using very different measurement methods, produced raw
    data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at
    all.'' \47\ This shows the NCA4 significantly over-estimated the sea-
    level rise of the past century.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive summary: 10.
        \43\ Nils-Axel Morner, Sea level is not rising, Centre for
    Democracy and Independence, Reprinted by Science and Public Policy
    Institute, December 6, 2012: 4. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2012/12/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
        \44\ Ibid.
        \45\ Ibid. 11.
        \46\ This sample size of 68 sites is still significantly larger
    than those used by IPCC authors in their ``representative'' records.
    Morner notes that the studies used rely upon 6, 9 and 25 gauges
    respectively; their rates of rise of higher than the mean of all 159
    NOAA sites by a range of 0.8-1.3. Morner, 10-11.
        \47\ Ibid. 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given this track record of failure, do you still believe they are
    correct in claiming: ``Global average sea levels are expected to
    continue to rise--by at least several inches in the next 15 years and
    by 1-4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be
    ruled out''? \48\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive summary: 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. The ``researcher'' whom you cite on sea level rise, Dr.
    Nils-Axel Morner is a well-known climate ``denier \49\'' funded by such
    climate-denying donors as the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family
    Foundation.\50\ His interpretation of the sea level rise data has been
    thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. To quote from one of
    the rebuttals, ``Nils-Axel Morner's claims regarding sea level rise are
    the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy
    theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification which
    are easily proven untrue. The mainstream media needs to realize that
    Morner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level
    rise or climate science in general.'' \51\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/18/climate-denial-co2-
    coalition-trump-morner-funding-sea-level-research-dodgy-journals
        \50\ https://www.desmogblog.com/co2-coalition
        \51\ https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-
    sea-level-rise.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Morner's assertions have also been considered in the NCA4's
    assessment of the data, which has concluded, as your question states,
    that sea levels ``are expected to continue to rise. . . . [and] a rise
    of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.'' Given the NCA4's
    thorough analysis of the data (and the careful debunking of Dr.
    Morner's false claims), there is, in fact, no ``track record of
    failure'' (as your question claims) and no reason to doubt the NCA4's
    conclusion. If you have further concerns with the NCA4's conclusions,
    it would be more appropriate to raise those concerns with the federal
    agency scientists who conducted the Assessment directly.
        It is also important to note that many of the past predictions
    about the rate of climate change (including sea level rise) have been
    wrong--because they underestimated the rate of change. As scientists
    have gathered more empirical data, they have consistently learned that
    planetary warming is occurring at a faster rate than previously
    expected.\52\ In two of the many recent examples, research has shown
    that oceans are warming 40% faster than expected \53\, and that
    glaciers are melting faster than expected.\54\ Both phenomena are
    contributing to a faster-than-predicated rate of sea level rise.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Global warming will happen faster than we think, Nature 564,
    30-32 (2018)doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07586-5
        \53\ How fast are the oceans warming? Science, 11 Jan 2019: Vol.
    363, Issue 6423, pp. 128-129, DOI: 10.1126/science.aav7619
        \54\ Zemp, M., Huss, M., Thibert, E., Eckert, N., McNabb, R.,
    Huber, J., Barandun, M., Machguth, H., Nussbaumer, S.U., Gartner-Roer,
    I., Thomson, L., Paul, F., Maussion, F., Kutuzov, S., and Cogley, J.G.
    Global glacier mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise
    from 1961 to 2016. Nature, 2019 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1071-0
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our Center serves states and cities on a bipartisan basis that are
    already struggling with the impacts of climate change, including
    increased ``sunny day'' flooding (not associated with storms) and with
    saltwater intrusion. To the residents of these communities, this is not
    an academic question or debate.

        Question 16: NCA4 claimed, ``A projected increase in the intensity
    of hurricanes in the North Atlantic (medium confidence) could increase
    the probability of extreme flooding along most of the U.S. Atlantic and
    Gulf Coast states beyond what would be projected based solely on
    relative sea level rise.'' \55\ It is important to note that NOAA's
    overview of the current research on the topic concluded, ``Therefore,
    we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that
    human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already caused
    a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.'' \56\
    Additionally, the claim that climate change will contribute to more
    intense storms is not brought out by the recent past. Despite claims of
    rapid warming during the past century, the recent past is marked by an
    overall lack of intense storms. As noted in the Wall Street Journal,
    there was a 12-year drought in major land-falling US hurricanes prior
    to Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and despite the intensity of the
    2017 hurricane season it was not the most active, ``Last year's
    Atlantic hurricane season was particularly hyperactive, ranking as the
    seventh most intense Atlantic season since records began in 1851.''
    \57\ They further note, that ``cyclones (as hurricanes are known
    elsewhere) are found in all three tropical oceans, and globally the
    Accumulated Cyclone Energy index--which measures the combined intensity
    and duration of these storms--is currently running 20% below its long-
    term average.'' \58\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017, Executive Summary: 27.
        \56\ Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Global Warming
    and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results, (Last Revised:
    February 8, 2019). https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-
    hurricanes/
        \57\ Peiser, B. and Ridley M., ``Bad Weather is No Reason for
    Climate Alarm'', Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2018. https://
    www.wsj.com/articles/bad-weather-is-no-reason-for-climate-alarm-
    1515779859
        \58\ Peiser and Ridley, ``Bad Weather''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given the above information, can you please elaborate on what you
    meant when you claimed, ``the impacts have only become more severe and
    more obvious based on what we are seeing in terms of these extreme
    events'' and explain the causal link to human-caused greenhouse gas
    concentrations?
        Answer. As mentioned above, our Center supports communities and
    states on the front lines of climate impacts experiencing changes that
    are not consistent with past norms since recordkeeping began.This
    question suggests that you may not yet be familiar with a relatively
    new field of climate science that is known as ``climate attribution''
    science. The idea is to ask the question of whether extreme events like
    severe rain storms or heat waves have become more intense or common
    because of climate change caused by human activities. Thanks to recent
    advances in climate science, the question can now be addressed with a
    significant amount of certainty and accuracy.\59\ \60\ \61\ More than
    170 studies have shown that, in case after case, from the European heat
    wave of 2003 \62\ to Hurricane Harvey, \63\ actual events were more
    extreme or more likely, or both, because of human-caused climate
    change. The link between events that are more extreme and/or more
    frequent can also be predicted from basic physics. Because of planetary
    warming, the atmosphere contains more energy and more moisture. And
    because of more complicated atmospheric physics, that moisture is more
    likely to be released in more extreme rainfall events.\64\ This has
    been projected by models for some time but now it is coming to pass.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ ``Droughts, heatwaves and floods: How to tell when climate
    change is to blame,''Nature 560, 20-22 (2018)
        \60\ ``Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on
    Climate Change,'' Scientific American, January 2, 2018. https://
    www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-
    natural-disasters-on-climate-change/
        \61\ Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of
    Climate Change, National Academies of Science, 2016.https://
    www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
        \62\ Daniel Mitchell et al 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 074006,
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006
        \63\ Trenberth, K. E., Cheng, L., Jacobs, P., Zhang, Y., & Fasullo,
    J. (2018). Hurricane Harvey links to ocean heat content and climate
    change adaptation. Earth's Future, 6. https://doi.org/10.1029/
    2018EF000825
        \64\ ``Why extreme rains are gaining strength as the climate
    warms.'' Nature 563, 458-460 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/
    d41586-018-07447-1

        Question 17: The NCA4 Climate Science Special Report claimed:
    ``Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by
    about 1.8 +F (1.0 +C) over the last 115 years (1901-2016). This period
    is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization . . . it is
    extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of
    greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since
    the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is
    no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the
    observational evidence.'' \65\ These claims are contradicted by EPA's
    US Annual Heat Wave Index,\66\ which clearly shows the 1930s to be the
    hottest decade on record and Dr. John Christy's testimony before the
    House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, ``In terms of heat
    waves, the number of 100 +F days observed in the U.S. from a controlled
    set of weather stations. It is not only clear that hot days have not
    increased, but it is interesting that in the most recent years there
    has been a relative dearth of them.'' \67\ The US data record is by far
    the most complete in the world so using it alleviates the station
    distribution concerns that exist in the global record. By using a
    controlled set, Dr. Christy eliminates the potential contamination
    effects by citing stations in compliance with NOAA standards. Once the
    data quality concerns are significantly addressed, it becomes clear
    that temperature doesn't necessarily rise as greenhouse gas
    concentrations increase.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Wuebbles, D.J., et al., 2017: Executive summary. In: Climate
    Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I
    [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart,
    and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
    Washington, DC, USA, pp. 10, doi: 10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.
        \66\ EPA. US Annual Heat Wave Index. Updated August, 2016. https://
    www.epa.gov/climate-
    indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
        \67\ Christy, J.R., Testimony before the House Science, Space, and
    Technology Committee, February 2, 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given this information, can you explain why the NCA4 claim provides
    a reasonable representation of the temperature throughout the 20th
    century?
        Answer. The 1930s were indeed a relatively hot period in U.S.
    history. But that information needs to be put in the proper context--
    which, if done, actually supports the overwhelming evidence for human-
    caused planetary warming.
        First, the complete temperature record shows that 1934, while warm,
    was not as hot as temperatures in the U.S. in at least seven other
    years (all recent)--1998, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016 (and possibly 2017 &
    2018).
        Second, and more important, it's crucial to remember that the U.S.
    represents only 2% of the total surface area of the planet. When the
    whole planet is considered, 1934 was not especially hot. In fact,
    globally, 1934 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the
    20th century.\68\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ https://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, there is some intriguing evidence that suggests that the
    1934 heat wave in the U.S. is actually an early example of human-caused
    climate change. To quote from the paper, ``We identify the first
    record-breaking warm summers and years for which a discernible
    contribution can be attributed to human influence. We find a
    significant human contribution to the probability of record-breaking
    global temperature events as early as the 1930s.'' \69\ Since the
    Industrial Revolution was already well underway, perhaps this finding
    should not be surprising after all.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \69\ King, A. D., M. T. Black, S.-K. Min, E. M. Fischer, D. M.
    Mitchell, L. J. Harrington and S. E. Perkins-Kirkpatrick (2016),
    Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences,
    Geophys Res. Lett.,43, 3438-3443, doi:10.1002/2015GL067448
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Thomas P. Lyon

        Question 1: Is there a conflict between calling for continuing tax
    cuts for EV and for EV technology, versus relying on the market to
    place where those EV charging stations are, much like we rely on the
    market to place gas stations? Should the market lead or should Federal
    tax credit policy lead?
        Answer. Thank you for this question, which raises some complex
    issues. As Jaffe et al. (2005) explain, markets--while extremely useful
    for allocation of most goods and services--may fail us in a variety of
    ways when it comes to the environment. First, pollution harms innocent
    third parties and damages the environment, but market prices will not
    force the polluter to pay for these damages; as a result there tends to
    be too much pollution and too much damage to human health and to the
    natural environment. Second, research and development (R&D) generates
    an accumulation of knowledge whose benefits cannot be fully
    appropriated by the researcher; as a result there tends to be too
    little R&D. Third, early adopters of a new technology produce benefits
    for later adopters by testing the product and building a network of
    users, benefits that are not appropriated by the early adopter; as a
    result adoption of beneficial new technologies tends to be too slow.
        Subsidies for the adoption of new technologies such as electric
    vehicles (EVs) and EV chargers redress the first and the third of these
    market failures. With regard to the first failure, subsidies directly
    induce buyers to switch from internal combustion engines (ICEs) to EVs,
    which are cleaner in most parts of the U.S. This aspect of the subsidy
    will remain justifiable as long as the U.S. fails to impose a price on
    carbon. With regard to the third failure, subsidies accelerate the
    adoption of the new technology, helping it come down the learning curve
    faster and thereby lower its production costs and improve its quality.
    As adoption diffuses throughout society, and the new technology reaches
    maturity, the need for this aspect of the subsidy will gradually
    disappear.
        It is appropriate to raise the question of how close EV technology
    is to maturity. There are over a million EVs on the road in the U.S.,
    \1\ out of 276.1 million registered vehicles, roughly 0.3% of the
    total. This suggests that EV technology has some way to go to reach
    maturity. Nevertheless, most manufacturers see them becoming a much
    bigger part of the market over the next decade, suggesting that
    maturity is within sight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-has-1-
    million-electric-vehicles-but-does-it-matter/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The placement of charging stations raises a separate issue. There
    is a chicken-and-egg aspect to the rollout of EVs and fast charging
    stations. Manufacturers are reluctant to install charging stations
    until the market for EVs gets large enough to make them profitable. But
    consumers are reluctant to buy EVs until the network of charging
    stations is extensive enough to allay range anxiety. To make matters
    worse, there is currently a range of charging standards used in the
    market place, which means not all EVs can charge at all charging
    stations. This further weakens incentives to invest in charging
    stations, because the competing standards reduce the demand for any one
    of them. Thus, there is a case to be made for public policy to lead by
    (1) requiring compatibility between charging standards, and (2) funding
    the rollout of EV charging stations.

      Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Thomas P. Lyon

    Question 2: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. Thank you for this question. Unfortunately, I am afraid I
    am not in a good position to answer it. It is of a political nature,
    and I would defer to members of the Committee on questions like this,
    as they will likely have more insight into the politics of the
    situation than I will.

               Question from Hon. David Rouzer for Thomas P. Lyon

    Question 3: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
    nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
    electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
    clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
    the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
    gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
    (ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
    homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
    ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
        Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
    developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
        Answer. Thank you for this question, which raises two different
    sets of complex issues. Nuclear power in the U.S. has been at a virtual
    standstill since the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979. No new
    nuclear plants were begun after the incident until 2013, when
    construction on the V. C. Summer Generating Station Units 2 and 3 in
    South Carolina and the Vogtle Generating Station units 3 and 4 in
    Georgia commenced. The Summer units have subsequently been cancelled,
    after the company invested roughly $9 billion in them. South Carolina
    customers have already paid out $2 billion to cover the costs of these
    units that will never produce a single megawatt-hour of energy.\2\ On
    October 19, 2016, TVA's Unit-2 reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear
    Generating Station became the first US reactor to enter commercial
    operation since 1996--after being under construction for 43 years.
    Unfortunately, the plant has already suffered an extended, unplanned
    shutdown for maintenance.\3\ These plants illustrate the challenging
    economics of building new nuclear plants in the U.S.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/
    gov-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors.html
        \3\ https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nuclear-
    shutdown-20170508-story.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the difficulty of building new nuclear plants, there is a
    strong case to be made for continuing to operate existing plants, since
    they produce carbon-free electricity. In fact, one could make a case
    for providing subsidies for the continued operation of nuclear plants
    due to their climate benefits.
        Natural gas raises a different set of issues. Some argue that it
    can be used as a ``bridge fuel'' in the medium-term because it is
    cleaner than burning coal. Others argue that we should not be investing
    in long-lived equipment that will lock us into using natural gas for
    the next 50 years. It is true that when combusted to produce
    electricity, natural gas is much cleaner than coal--provided methane
    leakage is controlled. New evidence has emerged in recent years that
    there is substantial leakage from natural gas pipelines and associated
    equipment, and this can overwhelm the climate benefits of using natural
    gas to produce electricity if there is as much as 3% leakage of
    methane. The most recent estimates put the leakage rate at 2.3%, so the
    climate benefits of natural gas do appear to exist, but they are
    considerably smaller than once thought.\4\ Even as a ``bridge fuel,''
    then, natural gas needs to be monitored much more carefully than it has
    been in the past and leaks must be eliminated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-
    leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-
    matters-98918
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There remains the question of whether it makes sense to commit to
    new infrastructure that would lock the U.S. into the use of fossil
    fuels for 50 years or more, corresponding to the expected lifespan of a
    new pipeline. Scientific research indicates a need to radically reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years, \5\ so investing in
    new infrastructure that will increase natural gas production and its
    associated emissions for 50 years is hard to justify. Justification
    from a social perspective would require that natural gas will displace
    coal-fired electric generation, that any new pipelines will be
    monitored intensively for leaks, that there is a credible system for
    remediation of leaks, and that there is no realistic possibility of
    using renewable sources instead of natural gas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-
    2040.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    References
    Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A tale of
    two market failures: Technology and environmental policy.'' Ecological
    economics 54, no. 2-3 (2005): 164-174.

      Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Ben Prochazka

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. Historically, there has been a critical need for federal,
    state, and local governments to cooperate on transportation
    infrastructure. In general, our hope is that any federal infrastructure
    bill would help to support the nationwide expansion of charging
    infrastructure and help to support all sectors of on-road electrified
    transportation.
        While range anxiety is gradually decreasing as battery capacity
    improves, there is a clear need to expand electric vehicle (EV)
    charging infrastructure across the country in order to accelerate the
    transition to EVs and meet the future needs of our transportation
    system. There are opportunities to simultaneously enhance coordination
    around signage and wayfinding in order to increase the visibility of EV
    chargers and bolster consumer and business confidence in their
    availability.
        As I highlighted at the hearing, we can address this challenge
    through a combination of incentives, sound policies, and pilot programs
    to spur the installation of more EV chargers--and, more broadly,
    establish a network of charging corridors spanning the United States.
        Some of this work has already begun at the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) through the Alternative Fuel Corridors program,
    which was authorized under the FAST Act of 2015. Since enactment, FHWA
    has already conducted two rounds of designations for sections of the
    National Highway System that currently have, or are on track to have,
    sufficient EV charging infrastructure. However, much work remains to be
    done. Significant gaps remain throughout the National Highway System--
    and the FAST Act did not authorize funding through this program to
    support state and local efforts to expand the availability of charging
    infrastructure in their jurisdictions.
        It is our hope that any infrastructure legislation advanced in this
    Congress will empower the federal government, states, and localities to
    accelerate the transition to electrified transportation. This is best
    accomplished through sound, forward-looking policies that promote
    productive collaboration across all levels of government.

               Question from Hon. Lloyd Smucker for Ben Prochazka

        Question 2: How do electric vehicles do their part in providing for
    user fees to pay for our roads and highways?
        Answer. For nearly a century, gasoline taxes have been a primary
    method for extracting user fees to fund transportation infrastructure.
    There is not yet a widely agreed-upon solution for charging EV drivers
    for their use of the road. However, as EVs begin to comprise a larger
    share of the national fleet, they will need to do their part in
    contributing to the federal Highway Trust Fund, as well as state and
    local transportation funds. In the process, and in order to not stifle
    American innovation, it will be important to make sure we are only
    asking EV drivers to pay no more than their fair share.
        While drivers of battery electric vehicles do not pay gas taxes at
    the pump, there are other ways that they contribute to transportation
    funding at the state and local level today. Whenever drivers charge
    their EVs, there is a tax associated with the electricity usage that
    goes toward the general fund of their state and/or locality, which has
    a formula that is used to finance transportation infrastructure.
    Additionally many states are already working to address a fair and
    equitable cost solution for all who use our nation's roads.
        One proposed solution is the establishment of a vehicle miles
    traveled (VMT) fee, which can align user fees with the number of miles
    driven rather than quantity of gas purchased. This would also insulate
    dedicated transportation funding from further volatility as EVs take a
    growing share of the U.S. fleet. VMT pilot programs are currently
    underway in states like Oregon and Washington, which are experimenting
    with a range of different technologies and reporting methods that would
    be needed to support the creation of a statewide VMT fee. The findings
    of these pilots will provide valuable insights for other states and
    Congress in evaluating how to adequately fund our infrastructure in the
    future.
        Ultimately, providing the necessary funding to support our roads
    and highways is a challenge that extends far beyond EVs, which still
    account for a very small portion of road use and road impacts at this
    stage. Increases in fuel efficiency and the growing hybrid vehicle
    market have also contributed to reductions in the amount of fuel
    purchased. This represents an opportunity to reevaluate the concept of
    anchoring transportation funding to a single commodity, rather than a
    driver's actual use of the roadways. Moving forward, we must remain
    open to a range of solutions in order to establish a user fee system
    wherein everyone pays their fair share.

      Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Nancy N. Young

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. As noted in A4A's March 26, 2019 Statement for the Record
    submitted to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
    the testimony A4A presented at the February 26, 2019 hearing on the
    intersection of infrastructure and climate change policy, A4A and our
    members strongly support necessary investments in aviation
    infrastructure and airports across the country. The facts clearly show
    that airport development is blossoming--and it is doing so within a
    multi-tool financing system that easily allows for investment without
    adding additional taxes on passengers. Further, the historic five-year
    FAA reauthorization bill that Congress approved last year provided
    significant, consistent and stable funding for airports and broadly
    supported an array of aviation infrastructure programs. That said,
    there are significant opportunities in Congress' consideration of a
    broad-based infrastructure bill and other legislation to home in on
    making aviation investments more business-case-based and efficient. For
    example, A4A supports the Chairman's proposal to shield FAA programs
    and personnel from the effects of government shutdowns, which would
    prevent the delays to infrastructure advancement we saw with the most
    recent partial government shutdown. Further we urge additional
    congressional support for smart implementation of NextGen projects
    prioritizing existing equipage and renew our call for an end to the
    practice of revenue diversion, which inappropriately siphons away from
    aviation a significant portion of aviation infrastructure dollars.
        A4A looks forward to continuing to constructively engage in these
    important infrastructure discussions and we welcome such engagement
    from an array of stakeholders across the country.

              Question from Hon. Garret Graves for Nancy N. Young

    Question 2: You noted that moving forward with NextGen and performance-
    based navigation procedures will further enhance airlines' carbon-
    efficiency and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.
    Yet many people are objecting to such ``NextGen'' procedures at their
    local airports because new flight procedures--even if they reduce
    aviation emissions--may shift aircraft noise exposures to new
    communities.
        Based on this apparent conflict, how should the government and
    industry address both climate change and noise?
        Answer. The U.S. airlines have been simultaneously limiting both
    greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with climate change and
    aircraft noise exposures, with a strong record of success. As detailed
    below, A4A and our members are committed to further progress in both
    areas, which is best supported by complementary government policies.
        As noted in our February 26, 2019 testimony, between 1978 and year-
    end 2017, the U.S. airlines improved their fuel efficiency by more than
    125 percent, saving over 4.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide
    (CO2), equivalent to taking 25 million cars off the road each of those
    years. And we carried 34 percent more passengers and cargo in 2017 than
    we did in 2000, while emitting no more CO2. Over that same time period,
    we reduced the number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise
    by 94 percent, even as the number of people flying quadrupled. And even
    though enplanements rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2017, significant
    aircraft noise exposures were decreased by 48 percent.
        The U.S. airlines and aviation industry achieved these records
    through technology, operational and infrastructure advances that have
    made aircraft and aircraft operation quieter and ever more fuel-
    efficient, and additional improvements are on the way. For example,
    with improved finances, U.S. airlines have invested billions of dollars
    to upgrade their fleets with newer, quieter aircraft that produce less
    noise and fewer emissions, purchasing more than 480 new aircraft in
    2017, and more than 1,550 additional planes are expected in the coming
    years. Additionally, airlines, airframe and engine manufacturers,
    business aviation and the FAA continue to break new ground through the
    public-private research and development programs highlighted in A4A's
    February 26 testimony. Indeed, although we cited in our testimony the
    energy efficiency and emissions reduction projects under FAA's
    Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, FAA's
    Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment
    (ASCENT), and NASA's Aeronautics Research (ARMD) program, all of these
    initiatives include noise projects and projects that address potential
    interdependencies between aircraft noise and emissions.
        Likewise, more efficient air traffic management, such as that
    enabled by well-implemented NextGen procedures, can simultaneously
    reduce both noise and emissions. For example, performance-based
    navigation can enable Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs), which reduce
    noise exposure on the ground by holding arriving aircraft at higher
    altitudes for longer and reduce noise and emissions by supporting
    reduced thrust as aircraft glide toward landing.
        As noted in your question, even though more efficient and precise
    flight paths can result in fewer people being exposed to aircraft
    noise, these procedures can shift who is exposed or concentrate noise
    exposures, raising community concerns. This potential is addressed by
    the array of statutory and regulatory provisions for aircraft noise
    assessment and management and community outreach and engagement
    policies, which have been greatly enhanced in recent years to further
    address ATC procedure changes.
        Current law requires significant environmental review and outreach,
    expressly including aircraft noise exposure assessment, when new or
    revised ATC procedures are considered. Specifically, the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires environmental assessment of
    and community outreach regarding procedure changes. Further, Section
    4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act and the
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) require assessment of and
    notice to the public regarding potential impacts on environmentally
    sensitive resources, historic properties and communities and include
    provisions to avoid excessive noise or other impacts to them. Moreover,
    in response to congressional direction included in Public Law 114-328
    and consistent with recommendations from the NextGen Advisory Committee
    (NAC), FAA has updated and significantly augmented its community
    outreach policies attendant to consideration of new and revised ATC
    procedures.
        In addition to and separate from the environmental review,
    mitigation and community engagement provisions directly applying to
    FAA's consideration and approval of new and revised ATC procedures, FAA
    regulates aircraft noise and management of community noise exposures.
    In 2017, FAA codified into U.S. law a new (``Stage 5'') aircraft noise
    standard, which requires future aircraft to be seven decibels quieter
    than the previous standard, equating to a 35 percent noise reduction at
    the source. Further, under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
    (ASNA), FAA has the obligation to establish science-based noise
    exposure metrics and thresholds to assess community noise exposure and
    received direction from Congress in last-year's FAA reauthorization
    legislation on timing for the latest assessment. Moreover, ASNA and the
    regulations thereunder provide for noise assessment and mitigation
    funding to airports and surrounding communities, noise compatibility
    planning, sound insulation and other noise abatement programs.
        We are confident that the measures A4A and our members are taking
    will continue to limit and reduce aviation's carbon footprint and limit
    aircraft noise exposures, while allowing commercial aviation to
    continue to provide an invaluable service and be a key contributor to
    our nation's economy. Efficient implementation of NextGen procedures,
    supported by the web of environmental assessment, community outreach
    and aircraft noise management provisions, can reduce both noise and
    emissions impacts while providing means for resolving local concerns.
    Further, we urge continued congressional support for the public-private
    CLEEN, ASCENT and NASA ARMD programs, which, as noted in A4A's February
    26 testimony, are critical to further breakthroughs.

       Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Kevin DeGood

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. I cannot speak to the possible future actions of U.S.
    governors.

                Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Kevin DeGood

    Question 2: In your written testimony, you stated, ``If federal, state,
    and local officials and administrators are to succeed, they need access
    to the most accurate--and to the greatest extent possible localized--
    models for temperature, precipitation and peak storm flows, and sea
    level rise.'' I could not agree more. If the models aren't correct,
    then they offer little assistance in projecting future climate trends.
    This is why I'm extremely concerned about the continued use of the
    model predictions found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) for public policy. Dr.
    John Christy, the head of climate research at the University of Alabama
    in Huntsville, conducted research on the efficacy of these modeled
    predictions and his findings were alarming. These models, on average,
    over-predicted measured temperatures by more than a factor of three.
    These significantly overheated projections were the basis of the
    Climate Science Special Report released by the U.S. Global Change
    Research Program in November 2017.
        Given this disparity--modeled projections are warmer observations
    by a factor of three, on average--do you believe these models produce
    credible estimates of the impact increased atmospheric CO2
    concentrations on future global average surface temperatures that are
    valid for policy analysis?
        Answer. My comments were directed at the need for the production of
    localized climate impact models by the U.S. government.

        Question 3: Is it possible that, over the years, the models have
    been tuned to data not reflective of the observed state of the climate,
    leading them to make projections based on a historical climate record
    that never existed?
        Answer. I cannot speak to the validity of the modeling methodology
    of either the IPCC report nor the rebuttal by Dr. Christy.

    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for James M. Proctor
                                       II

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. I am not familiar enough with the details of the plan or
    how governors might react to comment about how the proposal might
    affect their ineteractions, but I can offer some thoughts about what an
    infrastructure bill might include. In addition to the topics discussed
    in my written testimony, legislation should:
        1.  Incentivize partnerships among water and wastewater systems and
    the consolidation of failing water and wastewater systems.
          a.  Reduce the number of water systems that lack operational,
    technical and financial capacity to meet federal and state water
    quality standards. Many failing systems serve small to midsize
    communities (less than 100,000 population) and lack the capacity to
    maintain compliant and resilient water and wastewater systems.
    Thousands of such systems are in significant non-compliance (SNC) and
    unable to meet minimal performance and health-based standards. These
    systems should be incentivized and, in cases where public health is
    seriously compromised or in long-standing SNC status, compelled, to
    partner with or seek a new owner/operator that can adequately provide
    water services. Regionalization should also be encouraged by, among
    other things, repurposing SRF and other grants for that purpose.
          b.  Provide more financial incentives and ``safe harbor''
    protections for ``Good Neighbors''. To encourage financially sound and
    well-managed water systems to partner with or take over distressed
    systems, the government must reduce the significant financial and legal
    liabilities posed to the acquirer or ``Good Neighbor''. Provide set
    asides and expand SRF funding exclusively to fund consolidation. For
    example, California currently provides up to $5M for systems that wish
    to explore and implement consolidation.
        2.  Encourage more private sector participation and investment by
    eliminating barriers.
          a.  Remove debt defeasance penalty. A simple way to accelerate
    investment is the elimination of the need to ``defease'' public bonds
    alongside an asset purchase. This can be achieved through a simple IRS
    interpretation change, thereby allowing municipal system acquisitions
    to improve net proceeds the municipalities receive when their systems
    are purchased or consolidated at their option. The current rule
    inadvertently deters beneficial agreements, as its requirements are
    often cost-prohibitive, adding up to 15-20% of the total value of the
    transaction. Treasury could make this change through a rule-making.
          b.  Remove tax-exempt water infrastructure private activity bonds
    from state volume caps. In addition to federal dollars, another
    effective option for the federal government to provide long-term,
    capital-intensive infrastructure projects is the private activity bond
    (PAB). These bonds are a form of tax-exempt financing for state and
    municipal governments that want to collaborate with a private entity to
    meet a public need. This partnership approach makes infrastructure
    repair and construction more affordable for municipalities and
    ultimately for users or customers. This well-established program would
    provide significant benefit to water-sector investments were the state
    volume cap to be lifted and defeasance penalty eliminated.
          c.  Provide all water systems with equal access to SRF loans. EPA
    has long interpreted the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to
    apply only to the publicly owned systems due to the statute applying to
    ``publicly owned treatment works'' (POTW). Although EPA has long held
    that private water systems are eligible for Drinking Water SRF funds,
    numerous states disallow such funds for private entities. This
    disparity prevents the private sector from leveraging federal
    investment to benefit the same communities (and rate payers) otherwise
    eligible for federal funds.
        3.  Modernize and streamline the SRFs.
          a.  Streamline procedures. Eliminate federal/state redundancies
    in cross-cutters and streamline the application process and paperwork
    to make it easier for smaller systems to seek assistance.
    Additional Considerations:
        Although Congress should hold communities accountable for results,
    they should encourage federal agencies to defer to local communities
    and their engineers of record by the means employed. For too long
    Washington has imposed unfunded, one-size-fits-all mandates that have
    increased burdens and costs on local water systems without regard to
    the diverse water and wastewater infrastructure needs of local
    communities, who must evaluate numerous factors when considering the
    proper design and materials for their community and water projects.
    Encouraging and supporting local governance allows those closest to the
    problem to determine the best solutions, including the use of green
    infrastructure and water recovery and recycling solutions, which
    stimulates innovation and saves money as local communities can hold
    those in their community more accountable.
        The recommendations described above focus on more immediate actions
    that either Congress or the President could initiate to help improve
    and rebuild the Nation's water infrastructure. These recommendations
    are actions that can be taken in addition to supporting certain
    existing programs and policies. For example, tax-exempt municipal bonds
    are the principal finance tool that most utilities use to finance
    large-scale projects. Congress and the Administration need to protect
    these as tax reform moves forward. Other useful existing tools are in
    the Rural Utility Services programs at the Department of Agriculture
    and Community Development Block Grants.
        Similarly, there is a type of secondary infrastructure that
    supports the water sector: the network of research organizations that
    support and execute research that guides the water sector toward
    smarter, more efficient water infrastructure. Currently, federal
    support is virtually absent for water infrastructure-related research.
        In addition, while the bulk of infrastructure discussion focuses on
    capital assets, the people who manage and operate water systems are the
    sector's most valuable assets. The sector faces the aging workforce
    issues that many other sectors of American society faces. While there
    is already a strong cadre of technical training organizations in the
    water sector, federal funding to facilitate ongoing sector-led training
    would be beneficial. EPA, through its oversight capabilities, could be
    a mechanism for facilitating greater coordination and consistency in
    training across state borders to enable the water workforce to move
    more easily from one state to another to meet workforce needs.
        Lastly, in addition to legislative and administrative options, the
    President should consider issuing a Presidential Policy Directive
    outlining a vision for the development of integrated, efficient and
    effective water infrastructure strategy to (1) elevate water
    infrastructure modernization, improvement, and security as a national
    priority; (2) establishing inter-agency coordination and oversight
    mechanisms, resources, and staffing to align U.S. government agencies'
    priorities, actions and budgets, and improve collaboration,
    coordination, and efficiency across federal agencies; (3) encourage
    local co-finance, full-cost and life-cycle accounting, and information
    sharing for federal assistance; (5) promoting economic growth,
    development, and exports of U.S. technologies, products and services;
    and (6) advance national security and international cooperation over
    water.

            Question from Hon. David Rouzer for James M. Proctor II

    Question 2: Any discussion of energy infrastructure must include
    nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's
    electricity, creates good paying jobs, and is reliable around the
    clock, all without producing emissions. My community is lucky to have
    the Brunswick Nuclear Plant and is also poised to benefit from natural
    gas pipeline infrastructure, specifically the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
    (ACP). Energy customers in eastern North Carolina--including
    homeowners, small businesses, and manufacturers--are depending on the
    ACP to provide affordable and reliable natural gas.
        Shouldn't we keep assets like the Brunswick running while
    developing new critical infrastructure like the ACP?
        Answer. Although I am not an expert on power generation issues, I
    do believe that nuclear power is an undervalued and underutilized
    alternative for the production of carbon-free electricity.

             Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen for Whitley Saumweber

    Importance of Funding the Coast Guard
    Question 1: You provided several recommendations in your written
    statement regarding Arctic maritime infrastructure, most of which
    highlighted responsibilities of the U.S. Coast Guard. In fact, as our
    nation's sole military, maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast
    Guard appears to be a pivotal element to ensure the Federal Government
    can capably provide an active presence in an open and accessible Arctic
    region.
        Do our future efforts in the Arctic depend on having the Coast
    Guard present and active in the region?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 2: What are the security implications if the Coast Guard
    is unable to maintain mission readiness and operational capability in
    the Arctic?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 3: Considering the importance of the Coast Guard, not only
    in the Arctic but in the coterminous United States, should Congress
    pass legislation such as H.R. 367, the Coast Guard Pay Parity Act, to
    ensure that in any future lapse in appropriations that the Coast Guard
    gets paid just like the other four military services?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

    Arctic Risk Assessment
    Question 4: In your testimony, you recommended that Congress invest in
    Coast Guard programs to support comprehensive risk assessments at major
    U.S. ports to the primary climate risk factors found in the Committee
    on the Marine Transportation System's Risk Matrix.
        Should the Coast Guard itself conduct a comprehensive assessment of
    how climate risk factors might affect all Coast Guard facilities and
    the Service's operational readiness?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 5: Are all of the risk factors in the CMTS Risk Matrix
    applicable to the Coast Guard?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 6: Should Congress pass H.R. 1322, to direct the Coast
    Guard to undertake such an assessment and report to Congress?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

    Port Infrastructure Resiliency
    Question 7: In the recently passed Fiscal Year 2109 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, the Congress appropriated $293 million for a new
    Port Infrastructure Development Grant program. You recommended in your
    written statement that resiliency standards should be developed for
    port infrastructure that map to regional predictions of sea level
    change under a variety of scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
        To your knowledge, have port infrastructure resiliency standards
    been developed, either in the U.S. or abroad?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 8: What factors should be included in resiliency standards
    for port infrastructure?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

        Question 9: Regarding the new port infrastructure development grant
    program, should we prioritize grant applications that design resiliency
    into the project? Are there other types of incentives you might
    recommend to encourage applicants to account for resiliency in their
    grant proposals?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Whitley Saumweber

    Question 10: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.

      Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Lynn Scarlett

    Question 1: A few days ago, Vice President Mike Pence promised members
    of the National Association of Governors that Congress would pass an
    historic infrastructure bill next year. And of course, that would
    require bipartisan support.
        Do you believe that the administration's unpopular infrastructure
    proposal with this panel will muzzle governors in terms of their
    interactions with the Federal Government henceforth on infrastructure?
        Answer. A backlog of investment needed to upgrade, maintain and
    make more resilient our nation's infrastructure is widely understood
    and accepted. Congress has demonstrated bipartisan cooperation on
    infrastructure related bills in the last couple of years as seen in
    passage of the Water Resources Development Act and the Federal Aviation
    Administration reauthorization, among others. Thoughtfully drafted,
    such bills address significant infrastructure needs facing our nation.
        My testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
    focused in large part on the need to consider natural infrastructure
    when making our nation's infrastructure investments. Infrastructure
    investments should include nature-based solutions to support robust
    economic development, improve the quality of life in our communities
    and sustain America's lands and waters for future generations. When
    using the term ``natural infrastructure,'' we mean actions like
    restoring floodplains along rivers to allow better absorption of
    floodwaters and enlarging and using natural features for culverts to
    allow for larger flows of water to pass through without blowing out the
    culverts and the road structures along with them.
        Natural infrastructure can be used alone or alongside gray
    infrastructure (like seawalls, dams, levees and water and wastewater
    systems) to provide cost-effective and sustainable solutions that bring
    multiple benefits. In addition to helping reduce risk, natural
    infrastructure can deliver clean water and air, sustain lands that grow
    food and provide enhanced recreational opportunities and wildlife
    habitat--all benefiting local economies.
        During the past several years, Congress has included provisions in
    bills such as the Water Resources Development bill just passed in 2018
    that includes increased consideration of using natural infrastructure.
    These provisions received bipartisan support, and the bill passed with
    overwhelming bipartisan support.

          Question from Hon. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Lynn Scarlett

    Question 2: You discussed runoff in your testimony. As you know, South
    Florida has been trying to complete the Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Project for the past 18 years.
        What is the importance of this type of project to the future
    resiliency of our community?
        Answer. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is a
    critical resiliency effort benefiting Floridians, U.S. residents and
    beyond. In addition to the restoration of the Everglades, CERP will
    help protect the domestic wellfields in south Florida, provide ongoing
    aquifer recharge through its existence and maximize water management
    flexibility to serve the areas of six million residents. The work of
    the CERP also helps preserve a globally important ecosystem,
    maintaining the important source of tourism for the region as well as
    natural infrastructure that provides storm risk reduction benefits and
    critical habitat to important plants and animals.