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

                                 THE NEXT MILE:
                             TECHNOLOGY PATHWAYS TO
                        ACCELERATE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN
                           THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 18, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-45

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-663PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
                                     ------

                             Subcommittee on Energy

                    HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois            RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           VACANCY
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                               September 18, 2019

                                                                       Page
    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    14
        Written statement............................................    15

                                   Witnesses:

    Ms. Ann M. Schlenker, Director, Center for Transportation
      Research, Argonne National Laboratory
        Oral Statement...............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    19

    Mr. James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy, Rivian
      Automotive, LLC
        Oral Statement...............................................    29
        Written Statement............................................    31

    Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels
      Business Council
        Oral Statement...............................................    35
        Written Statement............................................    37

    Dr. Claus Daniel, Director, Sustainable Transportation Program,
      Oak Ridge National Laboratory
        Oral Statement...............................................    52
        Written Statement............................................    54

    Mr. Tim Cortes, Vice President, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Plug
      Power, Inc.
        Oral Statement...............................................    66
        Written Statement............................................    68

    Discussion.......................................................    78

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Ms. Ann M. Schlenker, Director, Center for Transportation
      Research, Argonne National Laboratory..........................    98

    Mr. James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy, Rivian
      Automotive, LLC................................................   105

    Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels
      Business Council...............................................   112

    Dr. Claus Daniel, Director, Sustainable Transportation Program,
      Oak Ridge National Laboratory..................................   118

    Mr. Tim Cortes, Vice President, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Plug
      Power, Inc.....................................................   125

                                 THE NEXT MILE:
                             TECHNOLOGY PATHWAYS TO
                        ACCELERATE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN
                           THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Hearing will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any
    time. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing, called ``The
    Next Mile: Technology Pathways to Accelerate Sustainability
    within the Transportation Sector.'' I want to thank all of our
    witnesses for joining us here today. We're obviously discussing
    a critical topic: How to decarbonize, and make more
    sustainable, the cars we use every day--the trucks that handle
    transportation of our manufacturing and other goods all across
    the country, airplanes, trains, ships. It's clear that all of
    this stuff is vital to everyday life, but we have to be smarter
    about it.
        In 2017, transportation overtook electricity as the sector
    of our economy with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas
    emissions, when it got up to 29 percent, and so finding
    pathways to reduce these emissions is essential. It's also
    crucial that we, as leaders, support jobs and industries at the
    same time, and I think we can do that. The R&D (research and
    development) that we're going to talk about here today will
    drive the development of these technologies, improve our
    economy, create new jobs, make us safer, improve national
    security, all while improving the climate.
        Our labs, universities, business, and research institutions
    have all worked on these projects for decades. They've had
    great success, but a lot of the transportation landscape has
    not budged. Henry Ford first sold the Model T just over a
    century ago, and a lot of the cars, trucks, and buses on our
    roads, the vast majority of them still use a similar internal
    combustion engine. Larger vehicles, airplanes, trains, and
    ships, become even more complicated, so that's what we're
    trying to figure out now, is how can we finally drive some
    serious change in this area?
        Scientists have been working hard at it. We've seen huge
    development in growth of clean electric vehicles (EVs) that can
    go hundreds of miles on a single charge. We've seen hydrogen
    vehicles, we've seen hybrid electric, and the demand is
    continuing to go up and up. In 2018, by our figures, more than
    1.7 million plug-in and battery electric vehicles were sold
    worldwide, which is a 40 percent increase in just 1 year. One
    point seven million in 2018 alone, so this is a huge market.
        The Department of Energy (DOE) is researching other
    technologies in this sector as well. Bioenergy Technologies
    Office is working to develop commercially viable biofuels that
    are compatible with the infrastructure that we already have.
    There's a variety of feedstocks being talked about waste
    organic materials, crops grown specifically for this purpose.
    Some of these fuels, known as drop in fuels, are nearly
    identical, but they would burn much more cleanly than existing
    fuels. This means we wouldn't need to make as many changes as
    we would with a purely electric system, and we're going to go
    full speed down both tracks.
        The Fuel Cell Technology Office at DOE is also working to
    develop hydrogen fuel cells, and I'll just put in a plug,
    there's a lot of great work being done at a local university
    for us in Western Pennsylvania, Carnegie-Mellon, and the Scott
    Institute, on the future of hydrogen fuel cell technology. All
    of these things combined will help make our transportation
    sector more sustainable. Although it is incredibly complex, we
    think that, with enough investment on our part, in partnership
    with private sector and nonprofit university partners, we can
    solve this riddle. And I think we have to, because someone will
    solve it. There is enough demand at this point worldwide that
    we know some of our closest competitor nations are doing
    everything they can to dominate the future of electric vehicles
    and similar technologies, and I want the United States to win
    that race. So, very excited to hear from all of you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]

        Good afternoon and thank you to all our witnesses joining
    us here today to discuss a topic that is critical for our
    nation: sustainable transportation. This includes the cars that
    we use every day to drive to work, the trucks that help us
    transport goods across the country, the planes that fly all
    over the world, and the trains and ships that help us get
    products and people to the places they need to be.
        It's clear that transportation is vital to our everyday
    lives. But we need to be smarter about our investments in
    technologies that can help reduce emissions from this sector.
    In 2017, transportation overtook electricity as the sector of
    the U.S. economy with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas
    emissions, accounting for 29% of emissions economy-wide.
    Finding pathways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from this
    sector is an essential part of solving our climate challenge.
    At the same time, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we are
    leaders in supporting the jobs and industries of the future.
    The research and development of these innovative technologies
    improve our economy, our national security, and our climate.
    That's what we are here to talk about today.
        While our labs, universities, businesses and research
    institutions have worked on these problems for decades - even
    centuries - much of the transportation landscape remains
    unchanged. Ford first sold the Model T just over a century ago
    (1908) and most cars, trucks, and buses on our roads still use
    an internal combustion engine. And with larger vehicles - think
    airplanes, trains, and ships - the problem becomes even more
    complicated.
        Scientists have been working hard to come up with solutions
    that will help these technologies evolve for decades - and we
    need to ensure they can continue doing so. We have seen the
    development and growth of clean electric vehicles that can
    travel hundreds of miles on a single charge, and hybrid
    electric vehicles that can travel even further. Demand for
    electric vehicles is projected to increase in the coming years,
    both worldwide and in the United States and this is already
    growing rapidly: in 2018, more than 1.7 million plug-in and
    battery electric vehicles were sold worldwide - a nearly 40%
    increase over 2017.
        The Department of Energy is researching other technologies
    in this sector as well. For example, the Bioenergy Technologies
    Office is working to develop commercially viable biofuels that
    are compatible with our modern transportation infrastructure.
    These fuels can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including
    waste organic materials or crops grown specifically for
    creating energy. Some of these fuels, known as ``drop-in''
    fuels, are nearly identical to the fuels they are designed to
    replace, but burn much more cleanly than existing fuels. That
    means we wouldn't need to make any changes to engines, fuel
    pumps, and other vehicle technologies in order to use these
    fuels, while still reaping the benefits.
        The Fuel Cell Technologies Office at the DOE is working to
    develop vehicles that run off of hydrogen fuel cells. These
    fuel cells use hydrogen to produce electricity, which then
    powers an electric motor, similar to how an electric vehicle
    operates. Fuel cell vehicles emit zero carbon; in fact the only
    by-product from these vehicles is water. While hydrogen-powered
    cars are showing promise, hydrogen can be produced in a variety
    of ways and scientists are working hard to identify a cost-
    effective, commercial scale method of production that is also
    clean, including through the use of renewables and nuclear
    power.
        Making our transportation sector more sustainable is an
    enormously challenging and complex problem. It requires
    significant investment on our part and coordination across
    government, our labs and universities, and the private sector.
    But it's a must-solve riddle, and I believe it is critical we
    develop and manufacture the answer - these technologies - here
    at home. Doing so is a clear win for our economy, national
    security, and climate.
        I am excited to hear from our excellent panel of witnesses
    assembled here today on their ideas on how to tackle this
    problem, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
    across the aisle to advance legislation on this critical and
    timely topic.

        Chairman Lamb. And now I will recognize my friend and
    colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a
    little late. Appreciate you holding today's hearing. I'm
    looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about innovative
    transportation technologies, and about DOE's research and
    development activities in these areas. The United States
    transportation sector is a critical part of the U.S. economy.
    Annually in the United States, vehicles transport 11 billion,
    with a B, tons of freight, equal to 35 billion, with a B,
    dollars in goods every single day. My District 14 on the Gulf
    Coast of Texas is the 13th largest exporting district in the
    country, so the transport of goods for us is huge.
        Last year, almost one-third of the United States' energy
    consumption was used for the transportation of people and goods
    across the country. Currently this massive energy is met with
    petroleum products, which account for 92 percent of U.S.
    transportation energy use. It's clear, and essential, I might
    add, that we will rely on this incredible resource long into
    the future, so we need to consider this reality as we seek to
    reduce emissions, and grow other energy sources. As energy
    demands increase, American researchers are exploring
    sustainable technologies that will make fossil fuel consumption
    cleaner and more efficient. They'll introduce new fuel pathways
    while maintaining U.S. energy security.
        Industry stakeholders are also prioritizing innovation,
    commercializing electric vehicles, as the Chairman talked
    about, biofuels, and advanced fuel cell technologies. And this
    afternoon we'll hear from some of our friends in these
    successful industries. But although industry is taking
    advantage of incentives to reduce transportation sector
    emissions, the Federal Government still has a significant role
    to play in conducting fundamental research that will, in fact,
    drive innovation in these technologies.
        At the Department of Energy, DOE, sustainable
    transportation R&D is funded through the Department's Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, and carried
    out through its Vehicle Bioenergy and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
    Technologies Offices. It bears repeating that the EERE is by
    far the Department of Energy's largest applied research
    program. At almost $2.4 billion in annual funding, EERE is
    bigger today than all of the Department's applied R&D programs
    combined. Let me repeat that. At $2.4 billion in annual
    funding, EERE is bigger today than all of the Department's
    applied R&D programs combined. That's huge. Currently the
    sustainable transportation portfolio makes up about a third of
    EERE's budget.
        Today's hearing also provides an opportunity for us to
    discuss potential vehicle technology legislation, H.R. 2170,
    the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2019. This bill would authorize
    modest growth in funding for DOE's vehicle research activities.
    It would support a broad range of research efforts to reduce or
    eliminate vehicle emissions and petroleum usage in the United
    States. And while it should come as no surprise that I don't
    agree with everything in this bill, I'm pleased to see that our
    friends across the aisle are considering a more reasonable
    approach to funding authorization levels. So I look forward to
    the discussion on this bill moving forward, and I want to be
    clear, I support DOE funding for innovative research in
    transportation technologies.
        I'm also supportive of American industry taking the lead,
    and of the kind of basic research that benefits not just
    transportation, but all energy technologies. As we all know,
    the majority of the basic research is carried out in our
    National Labs, so I'm pleased that we will hear from not one
    but two Department of Energy labs today about how American
    researchers are leveraging DOE's unique and unparalleled user
    facilities to drive innovation and transportation technologies.
    For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, researchers have
    access to not only the National Transportation Research Center,
    NTRC, the Nation's only transportation-focused user facility,
    but also the lab's Spallation Neutron Source Center for
    Nanophase Material Science and the Oak Ridge Leadership
    Computing Facility, which currently houses the world's most
    powerful supercomputer.
        When it comes to vehicle technology research, we need to
    look at the big picture, and take the long-term approach.
    Industry simply cannot conduct the fundamental research needed
    for the next technology breakthrough, but industry can get
    these technologies out on the road. By prioritizing the basic
    research capabilities and user facilities that have broad
    applications, we can still enable the private sector to bring
    innovative, new transportation technologies to the market,
    while at the same time advancing science and innovation across
    this American economy.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

        Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding today's subcommittee
    hearing. I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses
    about innovative transportation technologies, and about DOE's
    research and development activities in these areas.
        The U.S. transportation sector is a critical part of the
    U.S. economy. Annually, in the United States, vehicles
    transport 11 billion tons of freight, equal to $35 billion
    dollars in goods each day. Last year, almost one third of U.S.
    energy consumption was used for the transportation of people
    and goods across the country.
        Currently, this massive energy need is met with petroleum
    products, which account for 92 percent of U.S. transportation
    energy use. It's clear that we will rely on this incredible
    resource long into the future - so we need to consider this
    reality as we seek to reduce emissions and grow other energy
    sources.
        As energy demand increases, American researchers are
    exploring sustainable technologies that will make fossil fuel
    consumption cleaner and more efficient, introduce new fuel
    pathways, and maintain U.S. energy security.
        Industry stakeholders are also prioritizing innovation,
    commercializing electric vehicles, biofuels, and advanced fuel
    cell technologies. And this afternoon, we'll hear from our some
    of our friends in these successful industries.
        But although industry is taking advantage of incentives to
    reduce transportation sector emissions, the federal government
    still has a significant role to play in conducting fundamental
    research that will drive innovation in these technologies.
        At the Department of Energy (DOE), sustainable
    transportation R&D is funded through the Department's Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (or EERE) and carried
    out through its Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
    Technologies Offices.
        It bears repeating that EERE is by far DOE's largest
    applied research program. At almost $2.4 billion in annual
    funding, EERE is bigger today than the all of the Department's
    applied R&D programs combined.
        And currently, the sustainable transportation portfolio
    makes up almost a third of EERE's budget.
        Today's hearing also provides an opportunity for us to
    discuss potential vehicle technology legislation: H.R. 2170,
    the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2019. This bill would authorize
    modest growth in funding for DOE's vehicle research activities,
    supporting a broad range of research efforts to reduce or
    eliminate vehicle emissions and petroleum usage in the U.S.
        And while it should come as no surprise that I don't agree
    with everything in this bill, I am pleased to see that my
    friends across the aisle are considering a more reasonable
    approach to funding authorization levels. So I look forward to
    the discussion on this bill moving forward.
        I want to be clear that I support DOE funding for
    innovative research in transportation technologies. I'm also
    supportive of American industry taking the lead, and of the
    kind of basic research that benefits not just transportation,
    but all energy technologies.
        As we all know, the majority of that basic research is
    carried out in our National Labs. So I'm pleased that we will
    hear from two DOE labs today about how American researchers are
    leveraging DOE's unique and unparalleled user facilities to
    drive innovation in transportation technologies.
        For example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, researchers
    have access to not only the National Transportation Research
    Center (NTRC) the nation's only transportation focused user
    facility, but also the lab's Spallation Neutron Source, Center
    for Nanophase Materials Sciences, and the Oak Ridge Leadership
    Computing Facility - which currently houses the world's most
    powerful supercomputer.
        When it comes to vehicle technology research, we need to
    look at the big picture and take the long term approach.
    Industry simply cannot conduct the fundamental research needed
    for the next technology breakthrough. But industry can get
    these technologies out on the road.
        By prioritizing basic research capabilities and user
    facilities that have broad applications, we can still enable
    the private sector to bring innovative new transportation
    technologies to the market, while advancing science and
    innovation across the American economy.

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Now recognize Chairwoman Johnson
    for an opening statement.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    good afternoon. Let me thank you for holding this timely
    hearing on how we can best accelerate the sustainability of our
    Nation's transportation sector. I'd also like to join you in
    welcoming this distinguished panel of witnesses to the hearing
    today.
        This Committee recently held a hearing where we discussed
    the need for a national surface transportation agenda. Today's
    hearing expands upon our commitment to addressing the
    environmental impacts of transportation in order to mitigate
    its impacts on climate change and air pollution. While there
    are many exciting developments in sustainable transportation
    such as electric cars, alternative fuels, and new concepts of
    mass transit systems, there are also many barriers to these
    technologies that we as a country must work to overcome. That's
    why this hearing is so important.
        The transportation sector's carbon emissions are largely
    attributable to petroleum-based fuels. A transition to a mix of
    low-carbon fuels and electricity could reduce these emissions
    by more than 80 percent, and eliminate petroleum use almost
    entirely. According to the Department of Energy's Vehicle
    Technologies Office, while researchers believe that this is
    technically feasible with technologies that already exist
    today, further R&D will be critical to reducing their cost, and
    improving their reliability and scalability to meet our
    economic, environmental, and mobility needs.
        As I have stated before, my hometown of Dallas is a hub for
    air travel and freight--two forms of transportation that are
    particularly challenged to decarbonize. Those sources of
    emissions are projected to grow in coming years, as the demand
    for travel and goods steadily increases. For example, emissions
    from aviation currently account for almost 3 percent of the
    total global emissions. However, based on current aviation
    trends, it could grow to be above 4 percent by 2040,
    representing 14 percent of the transportation sector emissions.
    That number may sound inconsequential, but it is significant
    when you consider the amount of emissions we must reduce to put
    us on a path to limit global warming in this century.
        As I know we'll hear more about from today's panel, several
    of our National Labs and private companies are dedicated to
    providing solutions to these very challenges, but Congress must
    also act and allocate low-carbon R&D funding to further drive
    innovation within this sector. So I look forward to this
    discussion, and to working with my colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle, as we consider ideas to better support the
    Department of Energy's research and development activities in
    this crucial area. I thank you, and yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding
    this timely hearing on how we can best accelerate the
    sustainability of our nation's transportation sector. I also
    would like to join you in welcoming this distinguished panel of
    witnesses to today's hearing.
        This Committee recently held a hearing where we discussed
    the need for a national surface transportation agenda. Today's
    hearing expands upon our commitment to addressing the
    environmental impacts of transportation in order to mitigate
    its impacts on climate change and air pollution. While there
    are many exciting developments in sustainable transportation,
    such as electric cars, alternative fuels, and new concepts for
    mass transit systems, there are also many barriers to these
    technologies that we as a country must work to overcome. That's
    why this hearing is so important.
        The transportation sector's carbon emissions are largely
    attributable to petroleum-based fuels. A transition to a mix of
    low carbon fuels and electricity could reduce these emissions
    by more than 80 percent and eliminate petroleum use almost
    entirely, according to the Department of Energy's Vehicle
    Technologies Office. While researchers believe that this is
    technically feasible with technologies that already exist
    today, further R&D will be critical to reducing their costs and
    improving their reliability and scalability to meet our
    economic, environmental, and mobility needs.
        As I have stated before, my hometown of Dallas is a hub for
    air travel and freight - two forms of transportation that are
    particularly challenging to decarbonize. Those sources of
    emissions are projected to grow in coming years as the demand
    for travel and goods steadily increases. For example, emissions
    from aviation currently account for almost 3% of total global
    emissions. However, based on current aviation trends it could
    grow to above 4% by 2040, representing 14% of the
    transportation sector emissions. That number may sound
    inconsequential; but it is significant when you consider the
    amount of emissions we must reduce to put us on a path to limit
    global warming this century.
        As I know we'll hear more about from today's panel, several
    of our National Labs and private companies are dedicated to
    providing solutions to these very challenges. But Congress must
    also act and allocate low-carbon R&D funding to further drive
    innovation in this sector. So I look forward to this
    discussion, and to working with my colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle, as we consider ideas to better support the
    Department of Energy's research and development activities in
    this crucial area.
        Thank you and I yield back.

        Chairman Lamb. If there are Members who wish to submit
    additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
    the record at this point.
        At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. First,
    Ms. Ann Schlenker is the Director of the Center for
    Transportation Research at Argonne National Lab. Her
    responsibilities include evaluating the energy and
    environmental impacts of advanced technology and new
    transportation fuels. Ms. Schlenker's portfolio includes light-
    and heavy-vehicle research, with an emphasis on low-carbon
    solutions. She also helps to lead the DOE student vehicle
    competitions for advanced powertrain technologies in connected
    and automated vehicles. Before her position at Argonne, Ms.
    Schlenker worked for Chrysler for more than 30 years.
        We also have Mr. James Chen, the Vice President of Public
    Policy at Rivian Automotive, where he oversees policy issues,
    and is tasked with oversight of regulatory requirements
    applicable to Rivian's products and facilities. Before his
    position at Rivian, Mr. Chen worked at the EPA (Environmental
    Protection Agency), and spent 6 years at Tesla, where he held
    the position of Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Deputy
    General Counsel.
        Mr. Brooke Coleman is a co-founder and Executive Director
    of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC), whose
    membership includes companies in the advanced biofuels and
    cellulosic ethanol sectors. The ABBC's mission is to support
    the development and commercialization of the next generation of
    biofuels and bio-based products.
        Dr. Claus Daniel is the Director of Sustainable
    Transportation Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak
    Ridge's sustainable transportation researchers support the
    development of a range of technologies to improve the energy
    efficiency of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. Dr.
    Daniel is a materials scientist by training, with over 20 years
    of experience in the automotive technologies sector.
        The Chair now welcomes Mr. Tonko to the Energy Subcommittee
    for the day, and recognizes him to introduce our last witness,
    Mr. Cortes. And although it is welcome for the day, sir, you
    will always be welcome back, and we would even consider you for
    full admission--based in part on your performance today.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Music to my ears. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair. It is my honor to introduce Tim Cortes, the Vice
    President of Hydrogen Energy Systems at Plug Power, a leader in
    commercially viable fuel cell systems based in the Capital
    Region of New York. With proven hydrogen and fuel cell
    products, Plug Power replaces lead/acid batteries to power
    electric industrial vehicles, such as the lift truck customers
    use in their distribution centers. They're headquartered in the
    20th congressional District in Latham, New York, and have
    facilities in Spokane, Washington; Rochester, New York; Dayton,
    Ohio; Romeoville, Illinois; and Montreal, Canada.
        Tim Cortes joined Plug Power as Vice President of Hydrogen
    Energy Systems in January 2015. In this role my friend, Mr.
    Cortes, is responsible for overseeing the gen fuel business,
    including interactions with customers, partners, and suppliers
    critical to increasing Plug Power's growing market share within
    the hydrogen fuel industry. Prior to joining Plug Power, Mr.
    Cortes served as Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of
    Engineering at Smith's Power. In these positions, he was
    responsible for research and development, as well as solutions
    for global applications. During his tenure at Smith's Power,
    Mr. Cortes led product line expansion that resulted in a
    doubling of revenue growth in less than 6 years.
        Tim has worked in the development of critical power
    infrastructures in both the data center and telecommunications
    markets, including positions with AT&T Bell Labs, GNB/XI
    Technologies, and Power Distribution, Incorporated. He received
    his bachelor of science in electrical engineering from New
    Mexico State University, and he holds several patents in power
    system architecture. In 2016, Food Logistics named him the rock
    star of the supply chain for his work making it possible for
    smaller truck fleets to adopt hydrogen fuel cell technology.
    And I'm proud that our Capital Region's own Plug Power
    continues to build success as a leader in clean energy in New
    York, and throughout the country, and thank Tim for his
    leadership, and welcome him to the panel today. Thank you, Tim.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chairman Lamb. And thank you. As our witnesses should know,
    you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony. Your
    written testimony will be included in full in the record of the
    hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony, we'll
    start with questions, and each Member will have 5 minutes to
    question the panel. We will start now with Ms. Schlenker.

                     TESTIMONY OF ANN M. SCHLENKER,

             DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH,

                      ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Ms. Schlenker. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
    Chairman Lamb, Member Weber, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for this opportunity today. It is my honor to talk to
    you about how the U.S. Department of Energy National
    Laboratories are helping realize the goal of sustainable
    transportation. I'm Ann Schlenker, and I'm privileged to lead
    the Argonne Center for Transportation Research just outside of
    Chicago.
        Multiple DOE offices, including the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, fund important research and
    development at the component, the vehicle, and the
    transportation system levels. DOE National Laboratories create
    new knowledge; develop, enhance, and analyze automotive medium-
    duty and heavy-duty truck technologies; and create new tools.
    The research spans conventional internal combustion engines,
    hybrid electric systems, battery electric vehicles, fuel cell
    electric vehicles, and off highway applications.
        At the level of vehicle components, the labs develop and
    de-risk battery technologies. We test new batter materials,
    develop scale-up processes for the most promising ones, and
    ultimately hand that off to industry. Argonne's cell analysis
    modeling and prototyping camp facility, as an example, has
    worked with more than 4 dozen industrial partners, from
    startups to Fortune 500 companies. Our research also
    encompasses the entire battery lifespan. In February of this
    year, DOE established a battery recycling center at Argonne
    with many partners to develop, and reclaim, and recycle
    critical materials and components from lithium-based battery
    technology to recover the economic value.
        Combustion engines still power the majority of our Nation's
    vehicles. Laboratory research provides deep insights into our
    combustion processes so we can achieve predictable and reliable
    engine performance with the lowest possible environmental
    footprint. Researchers use sophisticated tools, like the
    advanced photon source at Argonne, to peer into fuel spray
    streams to optimize the mixture delivery for cleaner ignition
    processes. They apply high performance computing capabilities
    and artificial intelligence techniques to in-house developed
    computational fluid dynamic codes in order to better understand
    the combustion variability from cycle to cycle, and then
    transfer this knowledge to industry.
        National Laboratory researchers investigate the complete
    supply chain of biofuel production, from farm to wheels, to
    assess the energy consumption and environmental impacts of
    fuels used in ground transportation, aviation, and the marine
    sector. This life cycle analysis uses Argonne's GREET
    (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
    Transportation) model, which enables this fuel comparisons.
    Fuel cell and hydrogen technology investigations extend from
    materials to components in vehicle, and seek to improve
    performance, durability, and cost. New approaches to renewable
    hydrogen production as an industrial fuel choice, paired with
    fuel cell vehicle development, have the potential to create
    market demand.
        National Laboratories research at the vehicle level
    includes technology to integrate electric vehicles with the
    grid, and enable faster charging. At the Smart Energy Plaza at
    Argonne, researchers work to verify the interoperability of
    chargers in cars. Extreme fast charging and megawatt charging
    will enable longer distance electric travel, making medium-duty
    and heavy-duty vehicles more marketable.
        Finally, National Laboratories are experts in the vital
    study of vehicles within a system. The Labs collaborate, and I
    co-chair, the DOE Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research
    in Transportation, or the Smart Mobility Consortia, and we
    focus on connecting automated vehicles, the built environment,
    alternative fuel infrastructure, freight and goods delivery,
    and decision science. We use models and field experiments to
    study the effects of not only advanced vehicles with the
    infrastructure technologies, but also the impacts of new
    business models and modes of transportation. The result is a
    greater understanding from the vehicle to the city level.
        An example of a key insight from this work is really the
    consumer appetite for e-commerce as a replacement to shopping
    trips. One might guess that the frequent trips of an Amazon or
    FedEx delivery truck to your house results in a net energy
    penalty. However, system analysis shows the inverse is actually
    true. Avoiding a personal shopping trip in the family car for
    the average 8-mile trip, as compared to an efficient package
    delivery system, saves overall vehicle miles traveled and
    energy used. Combining the DOE National Laboratories
    computational horsepower with our capabilities in artificial
    intelligence, Big Data, computation, and predictive analytics
    gives lab researchers and their partners a scenario-based
    framework to analyze potential mobility futures.
        The National Laboratories and their facilities are
    America's powerhouses of science, technology, and engineering.
    They are principle agents of execution in missions of national
    importance. I am proud to be a member of the National
    Laboratories sisterhood. Thank you for your time, and I welcome
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schlenker follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Chen?

                        TESTIMONY OF JAMES CHEN,

                    VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY,

                         RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC

        Mr. Chen. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson,
    Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, Members of the Committee
    and the Subcommittee. My name is James Chen, and I'm the Vice
    President of Public Policy for Rivian Automotive. I wish to
    thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today on
    technology pathways to accelerate sustainability in the
    transportation sector. I've submitted my written testimony, and
    will summarize the points briefly in this verbal testimony.
        Founded in 2009, Rivian is an independent U.S. company
    dedicated to keeping the world adventurous through the
    development, production, and distribution of all electric
    pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, or SUVs. Scheduled to
    commence production next year from our Midwest manufacturing
    facility, the R-1T pickup truck, and the R-1S SUV, will have a
    number of compelling features, including a range of up to 400
    miles on a single charge; quad-motor all wheel drive; a 0 to 60
    time of 3 seconds; 11,000 pound towing capability; and the
    ability to forge through 3-feet of water safely due to the
    sealed components. These are among many of the other features
    we have built into the vehicle. Backed by strategic investors
    that include Amazon, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and most
    recently Cox Automotive, we employ over 750 people currently at
    our various U.S. locations in Plymouth, Michigan; Normal,
    Illinois; and several locations throughout California.
        Rivian's products are being developed and released as part
    of the technology revolution in transportation. In fact,
    vehicle electrification is the platform that will enable the
    development, optimization, and introduction of new
    transportation technologies such as, and including,
    connectivity and autonomy. The benefits of electrification are
    numerous, and, the Chairman, you had mentioned quite a few of
    these: Reducing dependence on foreign oil, promoting use of
    domestically produced electricity, national security, energy
    independence, a strong economy, and a cleaner environment.
        Of these many benefits, three of the key benefits include
    the following, that I would like to highlight. First,
    leadership in technology. Lithium-ion battery technology was
    invented by an American scientist, now a professor at the
    University of Texas in Austin. Use of this technologies in cars
    was pioneered and matured by American companies. The U.S.
    cannot cede leadership and control of this technology to
    foreign countries, who are spending billions, literally
    billions of dollars, to foster and dominate this transportation
    technology in their own countries.
        Second, maintaining this leadership is good for the
    economy. Using Rivian as an example, we purchased the formerly
    shuttered Mitsubishi manufacturing plant in Normal, Illinois
    back in 2017, less than a year after it shut down. We have
    already spent tens of millions of dollars in equipment and
    labor to rehabilitate that facility. When all is said and done,
    we will have spent over $400 million to rehabilitate this
    former facility. We will create over 1,000 manufacturing jobs,
    and we'll be producing, with luck, several hundred thousand
    vehicles out of this facility. Supporting EV technology
    increases investment in the United States, creating economic
    opportunity, and jobs in America.
        Finally, electric vehicles are good for the environment.
    Every electric pickup truck and SUV supplants its internal
    combustion engine-equipped counterpart, lowering the emission
    of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Minimizing
    emissions have very real benefits to public health, by lowering
    the causes of asthma, and other respiratory-related illnesses.
    Introducing electric vehicles reduces greenhouse gases. With 7
    of the last 10 years being the warmest on record globally, we
    must do more to reduce greenhouse gases, and mitigate the
    effects of climate change.
        While some critics of electric vehicles complain that the
    technology merely shifts the emissions from the vehicles to
    power plants at a greater level, this is simply not true.
    Several studies, including a BloombergNEF study from just last
    year, shows that, on average, carbon dioxide from battery
    electric vehicles are about 40 percent lower than their
    internal combustion engine counterparts, even when including
    the emissions from power plants providing the electricity for
    these vehicles. And the vehicle emission profile only becomes
    cleaner over time as power plants improve emission controls,
    include a greater mix of generation of sources, including
    renewables.
        In conclusion, the U.S. is best served by robust investment
    and support of transportation electrification technologies.
    Congress has a strong role to play in promoting R&D in this
    technology, and supporting the manufacture and market
    introduction of this American innovation. Thank you again for
    this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Coleman?

                      TESTIMONY OF BROOKE COLEMAN,

                          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

                   ADVANCED BIOFUELS BUSINESS COUNCIL

        Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamb,
    Ranking Member Weber, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is
    Brooke Coleman. I am the Executive Director of the Advanced
    Biofuels Business Council. The Council represents worldwide
    leaders developing and commercializing next-generation advanced
    and cellulosic biofuels, ranging from cellulosic ethanol made
    from agricultural residues to advanced biofuels made from
    sustainable energy crops and municipal solid waste.
        Let me start by thanking the Committee and staff for
    looking at the question of how we are going to make the
    transportation sector more sustainable. As you know, the
    transportation sector now emits more carbon than any other in
    the United States, and yet, take it from the biofuels industry,
    it is not an easy sector to disrupt. One of the underlying
    challenges we face on the fuel side is the unfortunate reality
    that fuel markets are not free markets. They are highly
    subsidized, vertically integrated, and consolidated. That makes
    Federal agency engagement, from R&D, to loan guarantees, to
    vehicle readiness, much more difficult. The corrective policies
    driving demand for us, like the renewable fuel standard, must
    move together with front-end technological development and
    back-end market readiness related to vehicles, pumps, and fuels
    to be optimized. If one piece falls out, commercial deployment
    slows, sometimes to a grind.
        This is where we find ourselves with many advanced biofuel
    technologies. DOE, together with USDA (U.S. Department of
    Agriculture), was instrumental in pushing cellulosic biofuels
    forward. We are producing commercial volumes now, but we are
    also grinding on the scaling side, largely because the demand
    side part of the equation faltered. And I know this isn't an
    RFS hearing, but EPA did stop enforcing the RFS for 3 years,
    starting in 2013, then destroyed four billion gallons of
    policy-driven demand thereafter with the oil refinery waivers
    you're reading about in the news today. It's just hard to hit
    milestones when the demand-side policy isn't enforced, and it's
    hard to expect DOE to absorb 100 percent of that demand risk.
        So the question is, where do we go from here? First and
    foremost, and I'm not just saying this because I'm bookended by
    them, we need robust support from the National Labs. This is,
    to set the record straight, what is actually happening type of
    work essential for emerging industries trying to break through
    information warfare campaigns designed to impede important
    change. I cannot tell you the number of times I have cited, and
    my community has cited, vehicle emissions testing led by NREL
    (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), carbon modeling led by
    Argon, and compatibility analysis led by Oak Ridge to set the
    record straight against industry-funded misinformation
    campaigns.
        Second, programs designed to showcase, perhaps at smaller
    scale, what can be done in the near term are invaluable. The
    Co-Optima Program is one example. To my knowledge, ethanol is
    the only cost-reductive technology available today in the
    transportation sector to reduce GHG emissions. Optimizing its
    use leverages a global competitive advantage that we have in
    agriculture, and supports rural American economies struggling
    under the weight of trade wars, more extreme weather, and
    urbanization. We need to harvest ready-made solutions if we're
    going to harness the full potential of biomass to displace or
    compete with petroleum.
        Demonstrations on the crop side are also valuable. When
    implemented, the Biomass Research and Development Initiative
    showcased the degree to which land management practices can
    reduce carbon emissions, while improving bottom lines. New
    initiatives could be patterned after the Novozymes Acre Study,
    which demonstrated the viability of boosting feed, fuel, and
    energy derived from one acre of corn, while avoiding 1.1 metric
    tons of CO2 emissions.
        Finally, there's the question of where best to engage, and
    it's a difficult question, on the commercial deployment side.
    For many of our companies it's all about deployment. There's a
    big difference between testing a new enzyme at small scale and
    throwing it into your main fermenter that you rely on every day
    to pay the bills. There's a difference between turning a bale
    of stover into cellulosic ethanol, which we've done many times,
    and turning a conveyor belt of stover into cellulosic ethanol.
        Many of our companies simply don't have the staff, time,
    and resources to do the planning, engineering, and
    implementation of plant-scale testing necessary to deploy new
    technology. The expense of outsourcing stalls the deployment of
    integrative biorefining technologies that we know to work.
    That's the sweet spot for expenditure of applied deployment
    dollars and agency time for us. Of course, excuse me, many
    staff, including DOE staff, understand this because they ran
    programs just like this for several years. An important
    adjustment going forward would be to balance the desire to
    focus on ultra new technologies, and overly constrained
    categories like ``non-food'' with engagement with ready-made
    solutions at existing plants that could produce transformative
    results in the immediate term. There are just too many clear
    benefits of using commercially available and abundant
    agricultural feed stocks for renewable chemicals, biodegradable
    plastic, and new fuels, while meeting demand for food and feed.
        I will also close with a brief appeal. It's not always
    about budget. We have American-made, deployment-ready, low-
    carbon bioenergy solutions unnecessarily parked as we speak.
    DOE has been very supportive of reviewing testing protocols to
    determine how much corn fiber cellulosic ethanol conversion we
    are getting out of our processes. This is a fuel with a 126
    percent benefit over petroleum. From a greenhouse gas
    perspective, a true carbon sink. We don't need technological
    breakthrough there. We need EPA to cut these technologies
    loose. And if DOE is qualified, and certainly they are, to
    engage with us on the testing side, they are more than
    qualified to engage with EPA, their counterparts, in getting
    these fuels out the door. Thank you very much. We appreciate
    the opportunity to be here today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Coleman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Dr. Daniel?

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. CLAUS DANIEL,

             DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM,

                     OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Dr. Daniel. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
    Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today. I'm Claus Daniel, Sustainable Transportation
    Program Director for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Today I
    will address the important role that the scientific
    capabilities and expertise of DOE's National Laboratories play
    in accelerating innovations for an efficient, secure, and
    sustainable transportation system.
        Rapidly advancing technology and increased urbanization are
    changing mobility in fundamental ways. Growing traffic
    congestion, higher fatalities, and pollution concerns are some
    of our greatest challenges. Oak Ridge has a rich portfolio of
    materials, chemistry, computing, and biological scientists who
    work closely with DOE's Sustainable Transportation Program to
    improve energy efficiency and fuel economy for light-, medium-,
    and heavy-duty vehicles and mobility systems.
        Thanks to the Nation's investments, Oak Ridge is home to
    several facilities that help accelerate our scientific
    breakthroughs, and I want to thank Ranking Member Weber for
    recognizing some of them. DOE's largest materials R&D program,
    supporting scientific user facilities focused on understanding,
    developing, and advancing materials, such as the Spallation
    Neutron Source and the Center for Nanophase Material Science.
    The Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, as you mentioned,
    which hosts the world's most powerful supercomputer summit,
    with growing capabilities in artificial intelligence and
    machine learning. The National Transportation Research Center,
    the Nation's only transportation-focused user facility, and the
    Center for Bioenergy Innovation, one of four DOE centers
    created to lay the scientific groundwork for a bio-based
    economy. Today I'll cite two examples: One on materials and one
    on mobility, in which we've leveraged these remarkable assets
    in collaboration with industry, academia, and other National
    Laboratories to solve problems in the transportation sector.
        First, we worked with Fiat-Chrysler and Nemak to develop a
    new alloy for use in more efficient engines that operate at
    high temperatures. Using supercomputers, we accelerated the
    development of the new alloy in only 4 years, versus what
    normally takes decades. The new alloy is affordable, easy to
    cast, and can withstand temperatures nearly 100+ C higher than
    traditional aluminum alloys. Our cast engine has surpassed all
    expectations.
        Second, Chattanooga, Tennessee is one of the Nation's
    busiest traffic corridors, with highly instrumented roadways.
    Here we're working with collaborators to use our artificial
    intelligence capabilities to discover ways to ease traffic
    congestion and cut fuel consumption by at least 20 percent.
    We're building a digital twin, a real-time living simulation of
    all traffic.
        Moving into the future, we will install Frontier, an
    exascale computer, able to solve calculations up to 50 times
    faster than today's top machines, exceeding one quintillion
    calculations per second, and accommodating much more complex
    simulations. We believe we can take what we learn in
    Chattanooga and apply it to solve issues in larger regions, and
    guide solutions on a national scale, and help hubs, such as
    Chairwoman Johnson's home airport. Further, we can use
    artificial intelligence to create simulations of materials and
    fuels in real-world conditions, analyzing the behavior and
    actions of millions of atoms under realistic duty cycles. We're
    also working on a second target station at the Spallation
    Neutron Source that will offer up to 1,000-times higher
    performance, with a pulse brightness 25-times greater than
    currently available. We can probe the structure and function of
    new complex materials in devices like batteries, ultra-
    efficient engines, and aircraft turbines at a faster pace.
        Our nation has wisely invested resources in developing
    these unparalleled capabilities to support basic science
    breakthroughs that translate into real-world results. We look
    forward to continuing our scientific pursuit in support of a
    safer, more efficient, and sustainable transportation system
    for the Nation's prosperity and security. Thank you for this
    opportunity, and I welcome your questions on this important
    topic.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And Mr. Cortes?

                        TESTIMONY OF TIM CORTES,

                VICE PRESIDENT, HYDROGEN ENERGY SYSTEMS,

                            PLUG POWER, INC.

        Mr. Cortes. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson,
    Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and the entire
    Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify before you today
    regarding sustainable transportation, and the work that is
    going on in the U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell
    Technologies Office. I am excited to discuss the role that
    hydrogen fuel cell technology is playing in sustainable
    transportation, and share my perspective on how Congress and
    the Federal Government can enable even greater progress through
    this pathway.
        In our core technology platform, Plug Power replaces lead-
    acid batteries with fuel cells to power electric industrial
    vehicles, such as forklifts, that customers use in their
    distribution centers and warehouses. We have unmatched field
    experience, with over 28,000 fuel cells in the field, many in
    your congressional districts. We have installed over 80
    hydrogen fueling stations in more than 30 States across the
    United States. Our CEO, Andy Marsh, is the Chairman of the Fuel
    Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, and serves on the
    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, which
    provides technical and programmatic advice to the Energy
    Secretary on DOE's hydrogen research, development, and
    demonstration efforts.
        Plug Power also participates on the Hydrogen Council, which
    is a global initiative of 60 leading energy transport and
    industry companies with the united vision and long-term
    ambition for hydrogen to foster the energy transition. The
    council estimates that by 2050, hydrogen can help cut global
    CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent, with
    substantial reductions coming from the transportation sector.
    In September 2018, the council adopted a goal to completely
    decarbonize the production process for hydrogen transportation
    fuel by 2030. Plug Power looks forward to working with the
    industry partners, and leveraging support for public sector, to
    achieve these goals.
        The United States has a long history in leadership role in
    fuel cells. When the Apollo 11 mission put a man on the moon in
    1969, the command module's primary source of electricity and
    drinking water was from fuel cells. Since then, American
    scientific and industrial ingenuity has ensured that our
    country became the global leader in hydrogen and fuel cell
    technologies. This could not have been accomplished without the
    support and dedication of the U.S. Government, including from
    this Committee.
        Today's Federal support primarily comes from the Fuel Cell
    Technologies Office housed within the Department of Energy's
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The program
    leverages the resources of our National Laboratories and
    partnerships with private sector, including Plug Power, to
    research, develop, and demonstrate innovative, efficient
    solutions for advancing fuel cell systems and hydrogen energy.
    The results speak for themselves, with the United States
    leading the world in deployments of zero emissions hydrogen
    fuel cell forklifts and light duty cars. Additionally, the
    American hydrogen and fuel cell industry continues to push
    forward with novel applications for these technologies, such as
    heavy-duty trucking, maritime vessels, port vehicles, drones,
    military equipment, and more.
        Plug Power has been working with the DOE since the
    company's inception to advance our innovative fuel cell
    solutions. This started with basic research and development
    projects, which led to proving the feasibility and utility of
    powering material handling equipment with hydrogen fuel cells
    and stationary systems for primary backup power. Once these
    first-generation systems were ready for deployment, DOE's
    Market Transformation activities accelerated cost reductions,
    and promoted customer acceptance for this new alternative
    energy technology. Thanks to these efforts, Plug Power was able
    to establish initial relationships with customers, help the
    company significantly expand, and create an entire new market
    for hydrogen fuel cell systems.
        Today Plug Power continues to work with the DOE to further
    improve the efficiency of these systems, scale up the
    production of hydrogen fuel, bring advanced manufacturing
    processes for our technology from the laboratory to the
    factory, and introduce hydrogen fuel cells to new markets and
    applications. Plug Power is very appreciative of DOE's
    Hydrogen-at-Scale concept, and this program explores the
    potential for wide scale hydrogen production and utilization in
    the United States by leveraging resources from the Department,
    National Labs, and array of diverse domestic industries that
    can produce and utilize hydrogen fuel. Unfortunately, Plug
    Power is not currently participating in H2@Scale, but we are
    hopeful DOE will embrace our priority, since we are the leading
    user of liquid hydrogen in the United States.
        With today's urgent focus to mitigate climate change,
    industrial countries are recognizing the critical role that
    hydrogen and fuel cells can play in decarbonization policies
    across sectors. In just the past few years, other countries,
    including China, and other developed nations, have put forth
    and implemented funds and plans worth billions of dollars to
    accelerate deployment of these technologies, especially in the
    transportation sector. To ensure the United States does not
    fall behind in the global leadership in hydrogen and fuel cell
    technologies, Congress and the Executive Branch must ensure
    policies and incentives are available to American industry to
    accelerate further deployment.
        America's approach to sustainable mobility needs to
    incorporate hydrogen fuel and fuel cell systems into our energy
    strategy. In our written testimony, you can find detailed
    recommendations supporting the creation of these policies that
    will allow for scale of infrastructure necessary to facilitate
    the widespread adoption of fuel cells. Thank you for the
    opportunity to participate in this hearing, and giving Plug
    Power the opportunity to talk about sustainability,
    transportation, fuel cells, and hydrogen technologies.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cortes follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. We'll now begin with our
    questions, and I'll take the first round for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chen, I wanted to ask you a little bit about kind of
    how we got to where your company is today, and the role of
    government in all that. You know, one of the things we're
    trying to figure out here is exactly how to spend the research
    dollars that we have, in addition to how much we have to spend,
    and you quoted, I think, the figure of what China has spent
    just on electric vehicles alone, something like $60 billion. So
    it shows you the overall amount is really important, I think.
    But are there connections between some of the Federal research
    and how your company was founded? Was the founder, at MIT, ever
    supported by Federal research, or can you give us any examples
    of that?
        Mr. Chen. Yes. So R.J. Scaringe, our founder, as you
    mentioned, is a Ph.D. mechanical engineer out of MIT. He was a
    member of the Sloan Automotive Laboratories, so to the extent
    that there was any government involvement, I am not aware of
    any direct government involvement, but the investment that is
    made into DOE to look into these types of technologies
    certainly is something that raises the entire industry, and
    awareness of electric and battery technology.
        Chairman Lamb. Andit may be as simple as the fact that one
    of DOE's big investments was in Tesla, which obviously advanced
    the whole field of battery technology forward, and I'm sure was
    in some way a side benefit to you all.
        On the topic of the lithium-ion battery technology, you
    rightly raised the fact that China is leading in that area, and
    I saw some figures from Bloomberg that suggested they could
    have 3/4 of the world market by 2021, which is not what we
    want, and we're not feeling optimistic on this side about how
    we would grow our own market in that. So do you have any ideas
    or thoughts about what we would do to level that playing field,
    or create an insurance policy for ourselves against China
    dominating that area?
        Mr. Chen. Well, I think there are a number of programs that
    could certainly help in that area. I think H.R. 2170 is a good
    start. As I reviewed the provisions of that bill, it talked not
    only about research and development into lithium-ion battery
    technology, but support of creating manufacturing jobs, or
    industries that were creating manufacturing jobs in the United
    States. You mentioned earlier the Tesla loan from the DOE ATVM
    (Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing) Program. Certainly
    that was a huge catalyst for Tesla to make a leap forward.
        As you noted earlier in my bio, that I was with Tesla at
    that time, and folks will remember in 2008 the credit markets
    were completely locked up. There was no place to get money due
    to the Great Recession, so the DOE loan to Tesla really was the
    financial impetus that allowed that company to move forward
    with the Model S, which was the very first ground-up all
    electric vehicle developed and manufactured in the United
    States. That led to the Model X, and later to the Model 3, all
    while driving down the costs of the battery.
        So I think there is a number of different areas where
    government could play in. Incentivizing manufacturing, the DOE
    ATVM Loan Program, which I understand is still in existence,
    that can certainly support it, R&D, and then, of course,
    incentives such as the IRC 30(d) tax credit (Plug-In Electric
    Drive Vehicle Credit), which I understand is also being
    considered for expansion. These are all the types of programs
    that I think can help both drive R&D, manufacturing, and demand
    and acceptability of these technologies.
        Chairman Lamb. Absolutely. Thank you. And, Mr. Coleman, you
    kind of closed with a point about how it's not all about
    budget. I think it is largely about that. It's the creation of
    the market, and the creation of demand, that seems to be the
    biggest factor for a lot of these things at the end of the day.
    But could you just kind of use my remaining minute to expand on
    that point a little bit, involving the struggles with the EPA,
    and sort of what we could do outside the budget process to help
    strengthen that demand or market?
        Mr. Coleman. Yes. I appreciate the question, thank you. So
    we're at that point, in our industry, where we've been around a
    little while. We've moved through the R, and then the D, and
    we're probably on the last D, on the deployment side. And what
    happens to us often is we get to that point, and people say
    it's the Valley of Death or whatever. It's the market
    deployment side of things. And because energy markets are
    regulated, it's like driving, you've got to show up with a
    license plate, you've got to have a registration, and you've
    got to have an inspection sticker. And if you don't have one of
    those things, and you try to drive around, you're in trouble.
        And what happens to us is we often have to navigate the
    inter-agency process, and one of those things will hang us up.
    And so what's happening to us right now on this ultra low-
    carbon fuel is we have a pathway for corn fiber. And for those
    of you who don't spend all day on biofuels, corn fiber's just
    the hard, viscous part of the outside of the corn kernel.
    That's a cellulose feed stock. It's already at the grain door,
    and we can produce this stuff commercially. It's hundreds of
    millions of gallons of ultra low-carbon fuel, and we can't get
    essentially a registration from EPA to put this out and create
    a value-added integrated biorefining reality.
        DOE is remarkably trained. They look at our stuff all the
    time, and sometimes it's just a matter of DOE engaging, going
    over there and saying, hey, we're in charge of energy security,
    we can literally change this equation overnight, why is this
    taking so long? And it's a very political process over there,
    and that's really what I meant.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And, with that, I yield to the
    Ranking Member, Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you. Dr. Daniel and Ms. Schlenker, in your
    prepared testimonies, you highlight the importance of
    sophisticated materials science, enabling those tools like
    Argonne's Advanced Photon Source, APS, and Oak Ridge's
    Spallation Neutron Source, SNS, as well as the importance of
    providing updates, so sometimes the budget does count for a
    little bit, Mr. Coleman.
        So as you know, this Committee has a long, established
    history of providing strong bipartisan support for these key
    user facilities. So how critical, and we'll start with you Ms.
    Schlenker, in your opinion, are these resources to enabling
    innovative R&D in sustainable transportation?
        Ms. Schlenker. So I think that user facilities are a real
    gem of the National Laboratories, to allow access to scientists
    globally to come in to the facilities, and certainly for the
    U.S. researchers, and industry, to have access to the experts
    for those particular user facilities. In transportation, just
    as an example, for the Advanced Photon Source, we're looking at
    additive manufacturing as a new technique in transportation for
    component development.
        Mr. Weber. To make it lighter?
        Ms. Schlenker. To make it lighter----
        Mr. Weber. Stronger, lighter.
        Ms. Schlenker [continuing]. But it's really, trialing and
    putting layer after layer down in deposition, and to understand
    where the voids, and the fatigue, or the failure modes, might
    really be. So we've had a longstanding program with various
    OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to use that particular
    facility. We look at fuel spray research from injectors out of
    an engine to try and reduce the emissions, and to have
    predictability within that.
        So just an example beyond the high-performance computing
    that we use all the time, and I want to give Claus some time on
    this, but those are just two big examples that I think of user
    facilities in transportation that are used on a daily basis.
        Mr. Weber. OK. And, Claus, she's kind of throwing the ball
    over to you.
        Dr. Daniel. Yes. Thank you, Ann, for that. Thank you,
    Ranking Member Weber, for the question. I think this is very,
    very important. The scientific user facilities at the National
    Labs are really the scientific backbone of our research
    community, and of the DOE system on there. You made it very
    clear, you said the APS, and the SNS, right? There's not two of
    them----
        Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
        Dr. Daniel [continuing]. Right? These are large tools. They
    require quite some investment to make them the way they are,
    and you don't repeat those investments as easily.
        Mr. Weber. And to sustain them, to use that
    sustainability----
        Dr. Daniel. Sustain them is also very expensive, yes. So
    what we do is we have trained experts who are world-renowned
    scientists, doing nothing but operating these facilities so
    they are ready to answer the scientific questions we have, and
    advance the technology. One example, for example, is here, when
    we come with an applied problem, where an automotive supplier--
    this happened in Oak Ridge about 6 years ago, where we had a
    supplier to Ford come in with--it was a body-supplier, and
    they----
        Mr. Weber. What kind of supplier?
        Dr. Daniel. A body-supplier. It's a supplier who provides
    the body shell of the car.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Dr. Daniel. And there was a cracking problem at that body--
    and the automotive company said, we cannot accept these any
    further. We need to shut down manufacturing lines, and we
    probably need to have some layoffs if we can't resolve that.
    Facilities like the user facilities are equipped to go all the
    way down to the atomic level and understand what is the
    problem. And we were able, in just 3 days' time, to resolve the
    issue, understand where it's coming from, and the company was
    able to then find a solution, and keep their workforce in
    business.
        Mr. Weber. And that was for Ford?
        Dr. Daniel. This was for a supplier to Ford.
        Mr. Weber. A supplier to Ford? OK. Well, good, that's a
    great story. Thank you. And a short amount of time left, this
    is actually for all witnesses, here on the Energy Subcommittee
    we like to talk about next-generation science and technology
    discoveries. What are some of the recent technology
    breakthroughs that could be considered next-generation
    discoveries in vehicle technologies? And then we'll jump over
    to hydrogen fuel research after that. But let's start with you,
    Mr. Cortes. What are some of the recent technology
    breakthroughs that you would consider next-generation
    discoveries?
        Mr. Cortes. So on the fuel cell side, on a stack level
    within the fuel cell, advances are being made with regard to
    the size, and the density, and the power performance of the
    actual stack, so that's allowing us to make the stacks, and the
    fuel cells themselves, much smaller, much lighter, and be able
    to generate more power. So that technology is really going to
    be crucial in order to improve and go, you know, help with the
    transportation, in terms of getting the additional power for
    the distances that you need to travel.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, and I'm actually out of time,
    but let me jump to you real quick, Mr. Coleman. What do you
    say?
        Mr. Coleman. For the record, I am pro-budget. I'm very
    supportive----
        Mr. Weber. For the record? OK.
        Mr. Coleman. Very important, yes.
        Mr. Weber. I gave you a chance to redeem yourself.
        Mr. Coleman. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate----
        Mr. Weber. All right.
        Mr. Coleman [continuing]. That.
        Mr. Weber. I didn't want that to fuel any controversy.
        Mr. Coleman. I hear you.
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Mr. Coleman. On our side, we've been focusing on enzyme
    efficiency, so from a biorefining perspective, when you improve
    the enzymes, you're producing fuel and feed, you can squeeze
    more and more of each product out of every bushel of corn, or
    every whatever----
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Mr. Coleman [continuing]. Right? And so that's where we've
    made a heck of a lot of progress.
        Mr. Weber. Perfect. And I'm out of time, but offline I want
    to talk to you about why you all can't get--you said--the EPA
    to give you--was it a permit or designation?
        Mr. Coleman. A registration.
        Mr. Weber. Registration? Thank you.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Recognize Mr. McNerney for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses. An excellent subject, good, interesting information
    that you're providing.
        Mr. Chen, in your testimony you mentioned that Rivian has
    several battery powered train and advanced technology research
    and development centers in California. What role do you believe
    that California's regulations have played in fostering
    innovation in that State? My State.
        Mr. Chen. I think they played a large role in fostering
    that, not only from the emission standards, but programs such
    as the ZEV Mandate, which really encouraged industry to start
    looking at alternatives like battery electric vehicles. In
    addition, on a less direct method, by being able to monetize
    credits from generation and production, and introducing to
    commerce zero emission vehicles, those types of programs have
    allowed manufacturers like Tesla, and soon Rivian, to be able
    to sell those emission credits to traditional manufacturers to
    help further fund the efforts by those startup manufacturing
    companies.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. What effect, do you think, rolling back
    the clean air rules for California is going to have on
    incentives for innovation in California, and in the United
    States in general?
        Mr. Chen. Frankly speaking, I think it sends absolutely the
    wrong signal. I think it's a step backward toward our movement
    toward greater fuel efficiency. Not just alternatives such as
    battery electric vehicles, but traditional technologies,
    basically internal combustion-equipped vehicles.
        Mr. McNerney. I see it the same way. Ms. Schlenker, you
    note in your testimony that the application of hydrogen as a
    fuel choice for U.S. industrial processes could be synergistic
    with fuel cell development. Could you expand on that a little
    bit?
        Ms. Schlenker. I think that some of the very energy-
    intensive manufacturing processes that we have in the U.S.,
    that could be iron, or----
        Mr. McNerney. Is you microphone on?
        Ms. Schlenker. Thank you. That could be iron, or it could
    be steel manufacturing, as an example, very energy intensive.
    And to be able to use hydrogen as a fuel source, expanding
    beyond natural gas, or other choices in today's market, we
    think that has some viability to help create that demand for
    the hydrogen infrastructure. As an example, we have renewable
    solar and wind today feeding back into the grid. At times, it's
    actually in surplus to what the grid can take. It goes into
    secondary battery storage for the grid. It has another use,
    where it actually could be combined with CO2 and
    converted with electrolysis into hydrogen, or other fuel
    choices. So that's really what we're thinking through, is how
    to use hydrogen within industrial processes as well to help
    increase that demand, if you will, for the fuel cell vehicle
    technologies.
        Mr. McNerney. Excellent. Mr. Chen, I've read that rare
    earth materials will be a significant limitation to large-scale
    adoption of EV technology. Would you comment on that?
        Mr. Chen. Yes. Interestingly enough, and ironically, rare
    earth minerals are probably misnamed, because they aren't that
    rare. Where we really see a problem is supply constraint. Right
    now roughly 90 percent of all rare earth minerals are produced
    in a single country, China, and this has given them a near
    monopoly over the supply chain. There are certainly methods, or
    policies, that can be put into place to encourage the
    development of the extraction of these types of resources from
    places outside of China, including in the United States. To
    date, I'm aware of only a single operating facility that mines
    rare earth minerals in the United States. Certainly there is
    room for policies to encourage greater development here
    domestically.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Whoever wants to answer, how does
    fuel cell technology compare to simple burning of hydrogen for
    efficiency?
        Mr. Cortes. On the actual fuel cell side, in terms of
    utilizing hydrogen to generate electricity, the fuel cells are
    about 50 percent, roughly, efficient, so we can actually create
    quite a bit of energy from a kilogram of hydrogen. With respect
    to others, I guess I would leave to somebody else, maybe, on
    the Committee that might be able to answer that, comparatively
    speaking.
        Mr. McNerney. Burning is going to be less than 35 percent,
    I can tell you. Thank you. Mr. Daniel, what about AI,
    artificial intelligence, for easing traffic, and other
    applications? Has this been proven, or is it still speculation?
        Dr. Daniel. Amongst the National Laboratories, we're
    working on utilizing artificial intelligence to solve these
    problems. Traffic problems are inherently complex problems, in
    which decisions are made by individual players as a small part
    of a large system. And in that regard, they're very difficult
    to control, and they're inherently hard to understand. We're
    using our supercomputing capabilities across the National Labs
    system to better understand what are the consequences of
    certain decisions, and how do they play together? We're working
    on some systems where we can do what we call faster than real-
    time simulation, where we can do true predictions of a future
    traffic scenario based on knowledge of a system we have right
    now, and by doing so, then understand what control mechanisms
    are needed to really improve traffic, and reduce the chances of
    accidents happening.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Lamb. Recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of you
    panelists for being here today. Mr. Chen, when you consider
    regulations, do you consider that there are regulations that
    are disincentivizing private industry investment in sustainable
    transportation R&D?
        Mr. Chen. I'm not aware of any regulation, per se. Do you
    have a particular example of----
        Mr. Biggs. I'm asking you to see, I mean, you're going to
    be more familiar than I am. So it's pristine, is what you're
    indicating?
        Mr. Chen. Well, there certainly are programs out there that
    encourage the adoption of alternative transportation
    technologies. And as I mentioned to the other Congressman, with
    respect to things like rolling back CAFE (Corporate Average
    Fuel Economy) and the greenhouse gas regulation, those are
    exactly the wrong signals. Government has always had a role to
    lead on innovation in areas of technology improvement, whether
    it be through emissions or safety----
        Mr. Biggs. But what I'm trying to get at is--and if I'm
    understanding--I'm trying to find out if there's any kind of
    government regulations that's actually impeding private sector
    development. And you said no, I think, is what you told me.
        Mr. Chen. Not exactly. There are certain areas of
    regulation that do have us locked into existing technologies,
    versus allowing us to foster other developments.
        Mr. Biggs. And that's what I would like to know more about.
    And before we run out of time, I'd ask if maybe, if that's the
    case, if you can either get together with me and my staff, or
    shoot me a memo, or something like that, whatever, in the areas
    that you think have locked us in.
        Mr. Chen. Yes, absolutely. I can do that.
        Mr. Biggs. OK. I appreciate that. So sustainability within
    the transportation sector is a reasonable goal, but this issue
    ought to be, in my opinion, championed by private sector, not
    the Federal Government, which is why I'm concerned with the
    legislation we're exploring today.
        The Vehicle Innovation Act authorizes appropriations of
    more than $1.6 billion over 5 years for research, development,
    engineering, demonstration, and commercial application of
    vehicles, and related technologies in the United States, which,
    interestingly enough, is roughly the amount of private equity
    investment in Rivian company, as reported in Mr. Chen's written
    statement. This sounds like an exciting opportunity for the
    transportation industry, but we have to be cognizant of the
    Federal budget constraints facing our country.
        And so I just want to cover two quick points before I leave
    here today. The question that I always ask myself is it
    appropriate for the government to transfer dollars taken by
    compulsion--which is what we do. When we tax, we are taking
    dollars by compulsion. There's nobody here that volunteers to
    do it. Every time we try to have a volunteer taxation program,
    it fails miserably, so we have to compel it. Should we take
    that compulsorily gained taxation and provide it to private
    companies and entrepreneurs to conduct research and
    development, even if it might provide an overall good? Now,
    some economists would argue that such transfers from government
    to private sector researchers incentivizes inefficiencies,
    suppresses private equity investment, and creates a path-
    dependent, or increasing return regime that locks research
    development industry onto a sub-optimal path that inhibits
    movement to the most optimal paths of research and development.
        Several of you have mentioned today China, and I think we
    should always respect China has literally spent billions and
    tens of billions of dollars researching into these areas. But
    we must also understand, and make no mistake, China is a
    centralized authoritarian nation. They control the money, they
    control the economy. The leader of that nation, or if you
    decide that you think there's oligarchs running that nation,
    those leaders can seize and divest capital from market-driven
    priorities into government-sponsored priorities. We are
    competing with that. I recognize we're competing with that. But
    we have always believed, in this Nation, that a system of
    freedom of markets will produce innovation, and that will be a
    more nimble and quick approach and response, and actually be
    better in the long run.
        So, for me, I look at it, and I say, this is an interesting
    dilemma that we're always in. Do we take this money away from
    private individuals and transfer it to researchers and
    engineers who are on the cutting edge? There's no doubt you're
    on the cutting edge of technology. That is what I wonder about.
    I think about that often, and I think you can surmise where I
    come out. And, with that, my time is expired. Thank you.
        Ms. Stevens [presiding]. The Chair will now recognize Dr.
    Lipinski for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, as we play musical chairs here. I
    want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony today. I've
    long been interested, and done a lot of work on autonomous
    vehicles. I know that's not what we're here to talk about, but
    I wanted to start out in talking about autonomous vehicles a
    little bit, because they do have an impact here on
    sustainability.
        First thing, though, in the FAST Act (Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation Act) reauthorization, I worked to
    include a provision to establish an inter-agency working group
    under DOT (Department of Transportation) to promote autonomous
    and connected vehicles. Do you believe that there is a need? Is
    this something that'd be helpful, when we're talking about
    sustainability, to have a similar inter-agency working group,
    or is there anything in particular you think--the idea is to
    have more coordination. Is more coordination needed on the
    issues of sustainability, or would that be a non-worthwhile--
    just add another layer of bureaucracy? So does anyone have any
    thoughts on that? Ms. Schlenker?
        Ms. Schlenker. So I really welcome the question, thank you,
    because I think we can strengthen the relationship and the
    collaboration between the Department of Transportation and the
    Department of Energy. Typically Department of Energy will do
    early TRL (technology readiness levels) advanced research and
    development. DOT, in this space of smart mobility, smart
    communities, has been funding demonstration and deployment.
    DOE's doing a little bit of that, but DOT largely plays in that
    area. So to have a seamless integration and coordination
    between the two agencies to further the research, everything
    from data exchanges, data management, what are the ultimate
    questions we're trying to answer in a cohesive project across
    the agencies, I think would further all of us, and it would
    then allow transfer of that knowledge to other areas for best
    practice learnings. So I would certainly be all in favor of
    having some sort of formalized strengthened relationship
    between the two agencies.
        Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Cortes. Yes. So if you look at the Department of
    Energy's Hydrogen-at-Scale program, you really look at all the
    elements that are associated with that, the transportation
    portion is a key element of that entire ecosystem that's
    developed there. So having better coordination to help drive
    some of the projects and programs to be able to push that, and
    to have the scale that we're looking for, from a hydrogen
    generation standpoint, I think would really be key.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Chen?
        Mr. Chen. Yes, and I would say that there's certainly a
    need for coordination, including on the vehicle level. The
    example that I like to point to is that, under DOT NITSA
    (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) regulations,
    Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 111, you have to actually have
    rearview mirrors, outside mirrors, and the provisions in the
    regulation actually use the word mirrors, to be able to provide
    that rearward view. We have shown in the past, both at Tesla
    and now Rivian, that, by getting rid of those mirrors, and
    using streamlined cameras, we can improve the aerodynamic
    efficiency of that vehicle by as much as 3 percent. However,
    that is locked into a DOT regulation. Having coordination
    between DOE and DOT to look at the benefits of modifying that
    regulation certainly would be helpful at the vehicle level.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Coleman?
        Mr. Coleman. I want to be mindful of your 5 minutes, but
    coordination is huge for us because it's not uncommon for our
    companies to be engaged across multi-agencies, and I think that
    there's a lot of efficiency to be gained from that as part of
    the mission for the group.
        Mr. Lipinski. All right. And, in my last minute here, I
    want to ask, Ms. Schlenker, at Argonne, has anyone done mild
    impacts of autonomous vehicles on congestion and emission?
        Ms. Schlenker. So across the National Laboratories we have
    a big program on smart mobility, and Argonne co-chairs that. I
    mentioned that Oak Ridge is a part of it as well, an important
    player. As we look at automating connected vehicles, we have
    sophisticated modeling tools, and we can do transportation
    modeling work to look at potential futures, traffic flow,
    looking at these new business models like Uber and Lyft coming
    in, e-bikes, e-scooters, transit, first mile, last mile
    challenges that we have. So all of that is included into our
    sophisticated transportation models. Beyond that, we do
    physical experiments on connected and automated vehicles, and
    understand what happens with active cruise control, or
    cooperative active cruise control, what the benefits really are
    on traffic flow, and congestion, and speed, as an example. So
    that is very active research for the Vehicle Technologies
    Office at large, and across the National Labs system.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time's expired, I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Dr.
    Baird for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    witnesses, for being here. Not sure I'll get to ask each one of
    you a question, but some of my questions relate to almost every
    one of you, I think. My ag background stimulates this question.
    I guess, Dr. Daniel, you may be a part of this, and, Ms.
    Schlenker, you may also want to respond. But I think the DOE
    Office of Science funds about four bioenergy research centers,
    if I'm not mistaken, and they conduct coordinated and
    geographically diverse research in support of developing a
    viable and sustainable domestic biofuel and bioproducts
    industry from dedicated bioenergy crops.
        In the biofuels research that is conducted at your labs
    through the Bioenergy Technologies Office, how often do you
    feel like you collaborate with or leverage the expertise of the
    Office of Science, and these bioenergy research centers, and
    what do you feel that collaboration is like? So how often do
    you collaborate, and how do you feel that works?
        Dr. Daniel. Thank you for the question. Yes, the Office of
    Science investments are very, very important for the success of
    our sustainable transportation program, and our innovations in
    vehicles and mobility systems. We regularly have interactions
    with those bioenergy centers. We regularly consult with the
    scientists in there. We even have scientists who are partially
    funded through those activities, and partially funded through
    our applied research facilities. That interaction, from the
    Office of Science to the Applied Research Program, and handing
    it off to the private sector, I think is really what makes us
    so strong, and what is really important for the National Labs
    system.
        Ms. Schlenker. A similar response, relative to the Office
    of Science and our biofuels research that we do at Argonne. In
    particular we're looking at feedstocks. We're looking at the
    opportunity, with membrane separations, and agricultural land
    use, as an example, and those conversion processes, and how you
    scale that, then, over into industrial and commercial
    processes, and even into the demonstration phase. So the
    linkage back to the Office of Science is really important to
    us, and their expertise in some of these fields is transferred
    directly over into the applied program.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Coleman, would you care to
    elaborate on some of the biofuels, bioenergy crops, that you're
    looking into, and where that stands?
        Mr. Coleman. So our industry, as you know, started with
    corn, because the corn--and by that specifically it's the
    inside of the kernel, right, because that's what is already
    fermentable, so the corn does the work of making a corn mash
    that's already fermentable. What's happening now is the
    industry is self-interested in feedstock diversity. Obviously
    they want to be able to not just be tethered to corn prices,
    but other feed stocks.
        Where it's gone in phase two is waste. So 70 percent or so
    of what's in an urban landfill is wood, paper, and cardboard,
    and so you have a tremendous amount of cellulosic material
    there, and then agricultural residues is corn fiber, corn
    stover, wheat straw, things like that. So the honest answer is,
    we're working through the waste-side because of the low
    feedstock costs, and we're at essentially to demonstration
    phase on the energy crop side. And a lot of that is really
    applying efficiencies to existing agricultural commodities to
    squeeze more product out of those products, efficiencies, and
    obviously better bottom line. Novazymes, for example, is very
    interested in alternative crops. Some of the miscanthus and the
    more exciting stuff you hear about on the side.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Chen, we've got about 48 seconds
    for two more--any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Chen. No, Congressman, not on those particular
    thoughts. Rivian's focused on electric vehicles. We're agnostic
    as to where the electricity comes from.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. I didn't think so, but I thought I'd
    give you a chance. Mr. Cortes, do you have any thoughts, since
    it's in your DOE----
        Mr. Cortes. No, as far as, you know, the electricity from a
    hydrogen standpoint, that's really more the area that we're
    most interested, in terms of the generation, and green
    hydrogen, and having the supply where we need it to be to drive
    the demand.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. My time's up, and I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. And at this time the Chair would like to
    recognize Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
    witnesses. Let's see, one of the many hats I wear here is co-
    chair of the National Laboratories Caucus. I'd just like to say
    that we've been having CODELs (Congressional Delegations) to
    all of the DOE National Labs, and the reaction that we get from
    Members when they realize the tremendous amount of intellectual
    horsepower and technical horsepower there is really, I have to
    say, gratifying. And we're going to be coming soon to Argonne
    National Laboratory, and we will, I'm sure, be seeing some of
    what we're going to be talking about here.
        And one of the valuable things National Labs can do, as
    well as industry, is to look at the costs and the crossover
    points for different technologies. You know, for example, if
    you look at batteries, as they descend in cost, they become
    first viable maybe for automobiles, then later for long-haul
    trucks, later for--or maybe earlier for things like rail, that
    may be less weight sensitive, and eventually airplanes, when it
    all goes well. And so, you know, how much is known about what
    those crossover points are? You know, at what point are
    batteries cheap enough that really you sort of give up on the
    internal combustion engine? And we can try my hometown
    laboratory, Ms. Schlenker.
        Ms. Schlenker. So maybe I'll try and bail you out from
    answering on battery costs. So on electric vehicles, if we just
    reflect back maybe a decade, and for a 250-mile all-electric-
    range electric vehicle, maybe that battery pack, and these,
    again, are estimates, was about $45,000. In a decade, we're
    down to about $17,000 for that battery pack. Where do we think
    we need to get for this cost parity crossover question, right?
    We think that range is really about the $7,000, at a pack
    level, which then informs DOE's goals on their battery research
    for their targets as they establish the dollar per kilowatt
    hour targets.
        With that said, though, we have to also remember that it's
    not just simply a one-component focus. You have to pay
    attention to that entire vehicle, right? So everything from the
    cost of gasoline, as compared to electricity, to insurance and
    repair, and manufacturing costs. All of those other things that
    play into the total cost of ownership. So we----
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And Argonne and others have been doing
    cost estimates for decades on the crossover, and so what we're
    now able to actually understand is, as you've ramped up
    electric vehicle production, there have been these cost
    estimates for how the economies of scale would kick in. And
    maybe Mr. Chen would be a better person to speak on this, you
    know, have things gone pretty much as expected? Have there been
    pleasant or unpleasant surprises for not the battery, but the
    everything else associated with electric vehicles?
        Mr. Chen. Yes, actually, there has been a substantial
    amount of progress in that regard. I think if you look back 10
    years ago, 2008 is when Tesla introduced the Roadster, and that
    was a two-seat sports car that had a battery pack that could
    run roughly 250 miles on a single charge, and that vehicle cost
    about $130,000. If you go to where we are today, Rivian will be
    coming out with its R-1T pickup truck, and it starts at a cost
    of $70,000 for a 105-kilowatt battery pack, so substantially
    more energy, roughly about the same amount of range as the
    Roadster back in 2008, but now you've got a vehicle that is
    substantially larger.
        So it's not just the battery cost, as you mentioned,
    Congressman, but it's also the efficiencies in the motor, it's
    lightweighting the materials, it's looking at the aerodynamics,
    and it's the energy density of that battery pack. And, through
    the entire course of the last 10 years, there has been
    substantial progress in all of those areas.
        Mr. Foster. So no disappointments in terms of--has anyone
    taken the time to look backward at the cost projections that
    were made a decade ago or two to see if your--because, you
    know, there's a danger here looking at the proponents' cost
    estimates, particularly for scaling and quantity.
        Mr. Chen. Yes. Absolutely. I'd say the biggest
    disappointment is we're not getting there fast enough. And,
    actually, this hearing is very timely because getting there
    fast enough is about reducing cost, and is about increasing
    energy density, and looking at new technologies.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And, Mr. Cortes, how do fuel cells fit
    into this landscape of, you know, cost and performance?
        Mr. Cortes. Yes, it's really more about performance. So if
    you look at--and we think about things as not as an either/or,
    it's an and. There are very good places where--and applications
    where batteries work really well. When you talk about long
    haul, or range and distance, at some point, when you have a
    battery, in order to increase the distance, you have to add
    more batteries. When you add more batteries, you're adding more
    weight. And at some point it becomes difficult.
        And, for us, there's a crossover point from a performance
    standpoint, where fuel cells provides that additional range
    without that additional burden of the weight. It's more of can
    you add a larger tank to house the additional hydrogen needed
    to be able to do that? So there's applications that are really
    well-suited for batteries, and then there's applications that
    are really well-suited for long haul, and delivery vans and
    things like that where now the payload becomes a critical
    aspect.
        Mr. Foster. All right. Thank you, and I guess my time is up
    at this point.
        Ms. Stevens. And now, also from the great State of
    Illinois, the Chair would like to recognize Mr. Casten for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. Technically it's the greatest State,
    especially with so many folks from Illinois here. So thank you
    very much. Thank you all for coming. A couple questions, and
    the first is a question that just always puzzled me a little
    bit. My first car was an 1984 Honda Civic, super nice car. It
    had an AM/FM radio. I think it had a tape deck. I know it had a
    rear defroster, and it had headlights. I'm not sure what other
    electric loads were on that car. And, you know, to buy a new
    car today you've got, you know, GPS, you know, XM satellite
    radio, heated front and rear seats, maybe a heads up display on
    the dashboard, all the new stuff that's coming out. Drive by
    wire auto parking, you know, automatic driving. Can you just
    help me understand, Dr. Daniel, I'm curious, number one, you
    know, I know we've gone from 12-volt batteries to 24-volt
    batteries, and--alternators. What is happening to the onboard
    electric loads in the vehicle, and is there any reason to
    believe that that trend is saturating, or is that just
    continuing in perpetuity?
        Dr. Daniel. Yes, thank you for that question. I think
    that's a very timely question. When we look at the changes
    happening in the mobility segment there, I believe that current
    vehicles, vehicles that have an operator, and where a driver is
    doing most of the work, those auxiliary loads are not quite as
    critical, unless it is in an area like an electric vehicle,
    where every electron counts, right? That's something we really
    have to look for, and the Department of Energy is looking
    particularly at research--how can I reduce those loads? But
    where it really changes the game is when we look at connecting
    automated vehicles, vehicles that drive themselves,
    potentially, vehicles that need to make decisions based on
    perception around them. We believe that the auxiliary loads at
    that point will go through the roof. And that's something where
    we have no technical solutions right now for, and we need to
    dramatically reduce the energy consumed by sensors and
    processing units for those vehicles.
        Mr. Casten. So without asking you to guess on a time, is it
    reasonable to conclude that at some point just the features
    that consumers want on a car is going to make electrification
    substantially inevitable?
        Dr. Daniel. I don't know if I can draw that conclusion
    inherently, but energy efficiency of those components becomes
    very, very critical. We're seeing very high demands. Some
    people estimate that in a connected automated vehicle we're
    having, like, 3 kilowatts of usage for sensors and computing.
        Mr. Casten. Um-hum.
        Dr. Daniel. Some people put that number as high as 5 or 7
    kilowatts.
        Mr. Casten. OK. Can I at least conclude that getting to
    some level of plug-in electrification is going to be
    inevitable, just given the voltage and the efforts that we made
    on cars?
        Dr. Daniel. I believe some electrification will certainly
    be helping there, but I think there are other reasons why we
    would want to electrify, not necessarily just the----
        Mr. Casten. Sure.
        Dr. Daniel [continuing]. The autonomous----
        Mr. Casten. Yes, of course.
        Dr. Daniel [continuing]. Side of it.
        Mr. Casten. Of course.
        Dr. Daniel. Absolutely. Yes.
        Mr. Casten. So then I get the question, and this is for,
    you know, I guess for Mr. Chen in the first instance, there was
    this political article, I think last week, about the oil
    companies working very hard behind the scenes to slow--
    essentially deployment of charging infrastructure. What are you
    seeing, and what are the specific concerns you have that we
    should be watching for? Because if, in fact, for all the
    reasons, whether consumer driven or environmental driven, you
    know, the reasons you mentioned, if we know we're going to need
    that charging infrastructure, what are the barriers that you
    see that we should be thinking about, even beyond the scope of
    this Committee, to make sure that we get that charging
    infrastructure out there, given that the oil companies seem to
    be working hard to prevent it from happening?
        Mr. Chen. Yes. I did read that article, and, to be honest,
    I was a little bit annoyed by that article, because they
    continued to cite a study, I believe it may have been out of
    the UK, but that study has been long debunked. It basically was
    the conclusion that electric vehicles were less efficient than
    gasoline-powered vehicles. And, again, that study has been
    thoroughly debunked by scientists.
        In answer to your question, I think what the Committee
    should be looking out for is the accuracy of this type of
    information, and the interests of those who oppose the
    deployment of electric vehicles in fostering American
    innovation. What are the goals behind that? Why are they really
    coming at this angle? As we look toward how we invest American
    taxpayer dollars into technology, this Committee needs to make
    sure that those dollars are invested wisely, and based on solid
    information, and sound science.
        Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I'm out of time, but if you have any
    information specifically about the charging infrastructure, of
    where we should be looking, I'd very much appreciate it.
        Mr. Chen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Tonko. I get to go ahead of the sitting Chair. Thank
    you. Thank you. Wow, I like it here, you know? So thank you,
    Madam Chair, and thank you to the Subcommittee for holding this
    hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for the expert
    testimony that you provide so we can discuss sustainable
    transportation. I hope the Federal Government can play a
    positive role in moving the research and the field forward.
        As I mentioned earlier, I am so proud to represent the
    Capital Region of New York, which is home to many innovative
    companies, including Plug Power. Plug Power continues to be a
    leader in the innovation economy. Last month, indeed, I had the
    opportunity to join them in celebrating the partnership amongst
    Plug Power, the United States Department of Energy, FedEx, and
    Charlotte, and Albany Airport to power highly efficient fuel
    cell-powered ground support equipment through a DOE-funded
    program, a great feat. So, Tim, congratulations again on that
    success.
        In your written testimony, you talk about the DOE market
    transformation being a key to your success. Can you tell us a
    little more about how it was successful, and how it is leading
    to additional sustainable transportation technology
    developments with project partners?
        Mr. Cortes. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, in 2008
    we were awarded the program that allowed us to deliver several
    hundred fuel cells to customers. At the time it was really good
    timing for the program to come to us, because it was at the
    point where we were just about to introduce that product to the
    marketplace. And what it really did was--it allowed Plug to
    seed several units with customers to get them to be able to
    have an understanding of the technology, understand how to use
    it, understand the value that it brought to them, and their
    organization, and their operations, and the ability to actually
    take advantage of that in the application to make sure they
    understand all of the performance aspects, any safety concerns
    that they had, and it really was, you know, a program that
    allowed them to do trials, if you will, without having to spend
    significant amount of money for infrastructure, and to, you
    know, to make a huge commitment on theirs. So it really
    provided them the avenue to test the technology, and prove it
    in within their own operations.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you for that. And what do you think the
    DOE could do to better strengthen the partnership with the
    industry? How do we make sure that the U.S. keeps our
    leadership in hydrogen and fuel cells in the global
    marketplace?
        Mr. Cortes. That's a really good question. I think the DOE
    does a really good job when it comes to the pure R&D, and the
    funding for the labs, and the great work that they're doing. I
    think some of the areas that could really help with bringing
    some of these technologies to market, and driving the growth
    with regard to these technologies, both for fuel cells and
    hydrogen, is ensuring that there's an appropriate amount of
    funding and programs for some advanced demonstrations.
        I mean, at some point you have to take the hard work, and
    all the findings from the lab that was done, and determine how
    do you scale, how do you take it to practice to then be able to
    implement it on a commercial standpoint? So there's a chasm
    there that exists that would really be good if there was a
    certain percentage of the DOE dollars not just for the hard
    research and the R&D, but also to be able to bridge those gaps.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Can you speak to the current supply
    and demand for hydrogen, and how it affects hydrogen fuel cell
    integration into the commercial market?
        Mr. Cortes. Yes. So supply of hydrogen, as it relates to
    the hydrogen that can be used by fuel cells, has been very flat
    over several years, and the demand that we've seen, both from
    our marketplace, as well as light-duty retail vehicles, has
    really started to go up. So the concern that we have is at some
    point that demand is going to, if things aren't done
    differently, outstrip some of the supply. And what that does is
    it creates a scenario for the application and the market to be
    very concerned about, if I'm going to go and invest in these
    technologies, and I'm going to spend money, what's going to
    happen if I don't have that supply of hydrogen to be able to
    continue to use my products?
        It's like--when you and I go buy a car, we don't worry
    about, you know, where the gasoline's going to come from. It's
    ubiquitous, it's everywhere, and so it's not a care for us. But
    if you're worried about supply, and it's not readily available,
    it makes you think twice, and then the adoption rate then
    becomes a difficult factor.
        Mr. Tonko. And you state in your testimony that Plug Power
    participates on the Hydrogen Council, a global hydrogen fuel
    initiative, which estimates that hydrogen could help cute
    global CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent by
    2050. Can you just explain quickly how hydrogen fuel technology
    adaptation could help achieve this goal?
        Mr. Cortes. Yes, absolutely. So, you know, a byproduct of
    fuel cells is basically electricity, but there's also a small
    amount of heat and water. There's no emissions, so it's not
    like a combustion engine that's putting out emissions. And if
    you couple that with fuel from hydrogen that could be generated
    from hydroelectric, wind, solar, then you've got, you know, a
    clean source of hydrogen going into the unit, and you've got a
    generation of electricity powering equipment with no emissions
    and no byproducts.
        Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, you
    have been generous. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. And the Chair would now like to recognize
    herself for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Chen, in your testimony, you specifically mention rare
    earth minerals. My colleague, Mr. McNerney, also talked about
    this in his questioning to you as an area where battery
    technology developers in the United States are sort of at the
    mercy of China, and an example of how foreign dominance is an
    impediment to the development of electric vehicle technology.
    In addition to the availability of rare earth minerals, and
    potentially dovetailing from some of the line of questioning
    that my colleague, Mr. Tonko, was asking of Mr. Cortes, what
    are some of the other long-term impediments you see to electric
    vehicle adoption in the U.S. market?
        Mr. Chen. Thank you for the question. That's actually a
    pretty broad question, and I would have a long laundry list of
    things that could certainly hamper deployment of electric
    vehicles. I think I have to go back and look at the demand side
    of this, and say that there are still concerns amongst
    consumers about understanding electric vehicles. The cost, the
    charging infrastructure, the maintenance requirements. I really
    think a lot of the impediment is education to the public and
    the infrastructure.
        Ms. Stevens. So why does a company like yours exist?
        Mr. Chen. Well, without trying to sound glib, I mean, it's
    simply the right thing to do. A company like Rivian exists
    because our founder, and every member of our company, believes
    in this technology, in the fact that, you know, our mission is
    to or allow the world to continue to be adventurous. It does
    not make sense to go out into these pristine areas of the world
    and do so in a vehicle that is spewing criteria pollutants and
    creating greenhouse gas emissions. So, quite simply, we believe
    humanity should be out there and enjoying the world, and
    everything it has to offer, but minimizing that footprint as
    much as possible.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, and certainly others agree with you,
    given the continued investments being made from outside
    investors in your company. I am so delighted that you're
    located in Plymouth, in the old Boroughs plant, and it is
    certainly an exciting and vibrant atmosphere that I think is
    speaking to the demand that exists not only here in the United
    States, but around the world.
        And, I was wondering, could you shed any light in terms of
    some of the global competitiveness that you see that we have
    here in the United States, as compared to countries who maybe
    are making some more prominent and pronounced investments in
    electric vehicle technology, and where does that leave our
    consumer base, versus what we're seeing internationally?
        Mr. Chen. Sure. So, as you mentioned accurately, there is a
    high demand for our products. We've had several events where
    we've had folks come out and see the vehicles, and generate a
    lot of excitement and a lot of buzz. That all said, I think the
    United States has a long way to go still on electric vehicle
    technology investment. What was mentioned earlier in my
    testimony, and through a line of questionings, about other
    countries, China in particular was mentioned as investing $60
    billion a year into electric vehicles not just to seed the
    market, but for manufacturing and technology. So I certainly
    think there is a role for the U.S. Government to play in
    investment, and certainly looking at how to foster this
    technology.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. And, with that, I'd love for our labs to
    chime in here as well, and maybe talk a little bit more, in
    addition to what was so pronounced in your testimony, but how
    you see yourself interacting with companies like Rivian, and
    the technology demand today, and in the future, and what would
    be required of us to continue to support you and your lab
    efforts? Ms. Schlenker, if you would like to start, we'd love
    to hear from you.
        Ms. Schlenker. So as we think about electric vehicles, and
    of course, the infrastructure has to come along with it, but
    it's really a dance, where you have to have good utilization of
    that infrastructure at the same time the market is there for
    the consumer pull of the vehicle. And lots of different models
    available now in electric vehicles. It's wonderful to satisfy
    that market, but really addressing some of those infrastructure
    challenges still. Everything from faster charging, as I talked
    about, medium duty, heavy duty at a megawatt. We are seeing
    successes with mass transit buses now, when you stop to think
    about the big 40 passenger bus, and they're being electrified.
    Chicago, New York, many other cities as well. That's a real
    win, where all of a sudden that technology is cost competitive
    to what previously was a natural gas or other biofuel vehicle.
        Dr. Daniel. Yes, thank you for the question on that. I'm
    actually really excited to hear about some of the anxieties
    about the rare earth materials because I believe we can provide
    technical solutions on there, that maybe those might not be
    needed as much as they currently are in the future anymore.
        So, as an example, we have developed motor technology in
    the National Labs system at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with
    ferrite magnets in them. They don't need rare earth materials
    in them. Those are potential solutions. In order to solve some
    of the problems of rare earth supply, some of those issues in
    the United States is that waste processing is a big problem. So
    if you mine neodymium, for example, 90 percent of what comes
    out of that mine is cerium. We have developed a use for cerium
    in a new alloy which can be utilized, and, therefore, with the
    potential application of that waste product, the cost of
    providing neodymium has the opportunity to drop.
        And my last comment on that is we're working with two other
    National Laboratories together in an electric drive
    technologies consortium, where we have the goal by 2025 to
    reduce the combined size of the power electronics and electric
    machinery component for an electric vehicle, to reduce that by
    a factor of eight compared to what's currently in vehicles in
    there. All of those technology developments will have a
    dramatic positive impact.
        Ms. Stevens. And, with that, I yield back the remainder of
    my time, and would maybe like to pass this over to our--OK.
    Well, we'll say this, that this hearing is absolutely
    essential, and we thank our partners from the labs who have
    joined as members of the audience today, and we also thank our
    industry partners, as well as our consortium partners in a
    topic that is most assuredly going to continue to evolve and
    capture the imagination of our country.
        And in regions like where I represent, I think the big
    question around the moon shot for the next 50 years is couched
    within our ability to get to electric vehicles, and get to zero
    emissions, and how we do that, and why we do that, continues to
    drive us forward. So know that the history of today's hearing,
    the great leadership that we have from Chairman Lamb, and the
    incredible colleagues that I have the privilege of serving on
    this Committee with will continue to carry the ball forward,
    and develop legislation that will advance the work of our labs,
    and assist the charge to bring electric vehicles, and the
    infrastructure, to proliferate them into the marketplace as
    part of our legislative portfolio. So thank you all so much for
    being here.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from Members, or for any additional questions that
    Committee Members may have of the witnesses. At this time the
    witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]