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

                    SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: CLEANING UP
                  HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, PROTECTING COMMUNITIES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
                                 CLIMATE CRISIS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD
                                 JULY 16, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-6

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                www.govinfo.gov
       Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-682               WASHINGTON : 2019

                     SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
                         One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                          KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Ranking
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Member
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            GARY PALMER, Alabama
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
    MIKE LEVIN, California               CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado

                                  ----------

                    Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
                      Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
                             climatecrisishouse.gov

                                C O N T E N T S

                       STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                                                                       Page
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
      Opening Statement..............................................     1
      Prepared Statement.............................................     3
    Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
      Climate Crisis:
      Opening Statement..............................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Angelo Logan, Campaign Director, Moving Forward Network
      Oral Statement.................................................     6
      Prepared Statement.............................................     7
    Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All
       Oral Statement................................................    10
      Prepared Statement.............................................    12
    Ryan Popple, President, Proterra, Inc.
      Oral Statement.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18
    Tony Satterthwaite, President-Distribution Business, Cummins,
      Inc.
      Oral Statement.................................................    20
      Prepared Statement.............................................    22

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    CALSTART Policy Initiative Paper, submitted for the record by
      Hon. Garret Graves.............................................    31
    Report, Leveraging the DOE Loan Program, submitted for the record
      by Hon. Sean Casten............................................    49
    Article from E&E News, ``CO2 Emissions Reached an All-Time High
      in 2018,'' submitted for the record by Hon. Jared Huffman......    50
    Report, Final US Emissions Estimates for 2018, submitted for the
      record by Hon. Jared Huffman...................................    50
    Graph from US Energy Information Administration, ``Annual changes
      in U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (2010-2019),''
      submitted for the record by Hon. Garret Graves.................    55
    Article from E&E News, ``2019 Power-Sector Trends Point to a
      Continued Rise in U.S. Emissions,'' submitted for the record by
      Hon. Jared Huffman.............................................    55

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Angelo Logan..    59
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Angelo Logan.    60
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Michelle
      Romero.........................................................    62
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Michelle
      Romero.........................................................    65
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Ryan Popple...    67
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Ryan Popple..    69
    Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Tony
      Satterthwaite..................................................    70
    Question for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Tony
      Satterthwaite..................................................    71

    SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: CLEANING UP HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES, PROTECTING
                                  COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019

                              House of Representatives,
                        Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
    [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Castor, Lujan, Bonamici, Brownley,
    Huffman, McEachin, Levin, Casten, Neguse, Graves, Griffith,
    Palmer, Carter, Miller, and Armstrong.
        Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
        Welcome to the ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up
    Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities'' hearing of the
    Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any time.
        Before we begin, I wanted to first say that we all share in
    a sense of relief for Ranking Member Graves in the aftermath of
    Hurricane Barry. We were just talking that thank goodness it
    wasn't quite the rain event that they had predicted, and we are
    grateful for that--grateful that there wasn't more storm damage
    or flooding in New Orleans or Louisiana, because I think they
    have had their fair share of disasters.
        And as sea levels rise and as communities deal with heavier
    rainfall during storms, we are going to have to partner with
    our local communities to ensure that they can adapt. We are all
    in this together. This Congress and this committee will always
    step up to help people who are hurt by disasters. We want to
    help communities become more resilient in the face of the
    climate crisis.
        For example, I visited Rep. McEachin's district last week
    in Virginia, and we were very impressed by the work being done
    there in the Hampton Roads to Richmond area on resiliency. They
    are planning ahead for climate impacts and flooding, and they
    had many recommendations for their Federal partners as we adapt
    all across the country.
        Over the past weeks, our committee has been examining ways
    to cut carbon pollution. We focused on the electric power
    sector first. And, fortunately, there is progress in the power
    sector--so much progress that it is the transportation sector
    that is now our largest source of carbon pollution. And in
    recent years, it has been growing. More than 90 percent of the
    energy used in transportation still comes from fossil fuels.
        In the power sector, the ways to cut pollution at power
    plants and bring new clean-energy sources onto the grid are
    relatively straightforward, but vehicles and industrial
    transport are different. Cars, trains, planes, trucks, buses,
    and ships all use different technology to move people and
    goods.
        Today, we are focusing on heavy-duty trucks and buses in
    particular. There are two big reasons that we want to start
    here.
        First, low-income communities and communities of color are
    hit hard by air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. That is
    because of the ongoing repercussions of historic racial
    discriminatory practices like redlining. The neighborhoods
    surrounding polluting facilities, including ports and busy
    highways, they aren't rich. They are home to working people and
    people of color. And air pollution from these facilities causes
    asthma, lung cancer, and other ailments. And it is a big reason
    why the ZIP Code you were born in has such a powerful effect on
    your health.
        Moving heavy-duty transportation to cleaner technologies
    can help address these ongoing inequities and can improve
    people's health and help us tackle the climate crisis.
        Second, Congress can play a very important role in
    deploying cleaner trucks and buses. Congress can fund State and
    local initiatives to secure clean technology, and we can create
    new tax incentives for innovative technologies. Federal
    research and development can also bring new engine technology
    from the lab to the marketplace.
        California is currently leading the charge to reduce carbon
    pollution at its many ports and along highways. Three of our
    witnesses here today are from California, and they will be able
    to describe this policy leadership in detail.
        For instance, when ships make it to the largest ports in
    California, they have to tap into shore-side power instead of
    running their engines. I saw some of this in action when I
    visited Congresswoman Brownley's district. We went to Port
    Hueneme a couple months ago. They call themselves the greenest
    port, and we were impressed. And we have to replicate this now
    across the country. The aim is to save money on shipping as
    well as cutting dangerous air pollution.
        Ports are also the testbed for heavy-duty truck technology,
    so the State is funding demonstration projects for zero-
    emission trucks that move goods from ships, and they are
    committed to transitioning public transit buses to zero
    emissions by 2040.
        Additionally, we know that children are particularly
    susceptible to air pollution. In fact, students are exposed to
    more diesel exhaust inside a school bus than drivers in the
    cars behind those buses. So California is funding zero-emission
    school buses, which is something I think we should all be
    interested in, given the importance of protecting children's
    health.
        Finally, we are not the only country working on this
    technology. We are in a race with India, with China, with
    Europe. But with American ingenuity, we can grow our economy,
    protect our health, and fight the climate crisis. I think this
    is a very exciting topic because we know that America can lead
    the world with well-paying jobs as we transition to clean
    energy.
        At this time, I am happy to recognize Ranking Member Graves
    for an opening statement.
        [The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
                                   __________

                  Opening Statement (As Prepared for Delivery)

                        Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Chair

               U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

         Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
                             Protecting Communities

                                 July 16, 2019

        Good morning and thank you for joining us. Before we begin, I'd
    like to say that we all share the sense of relief for Ranking Member
    Graves and his Louisiana community that the tropical storm did not
    cause more flooding or serious damage. New Orleans and Louisiana have
    had more than their fair share. As sea levels rise and as communities
    deal with heavier rainfall during storms, we must partner with local
    communities to ensure they can adapt.
        We are all in this together. This Congress and this committee will
    always step up to help people who are hurt by disasters. We want to
    help communities become more resilient in the face of the climate
    crisis. For example, I visited Rep. McEachin's district last week in
    Virginia. We were impressed by the work being done at the local level
    to plan ahead for climate impacts and flooding, and they had many
    recommendations for us as they adapt.
        Over the past several weeks, our committee has been examining ways
    to cut carbon pollution from the electric power sector. Fortunately,
    there is progress in the power generation sector, so much progress that
    the transportation sector is now our largest source of carbon
    pollution. And in recent years, it has been growing. More than 90% of
    the energy used in transportation still comes from fossil fuels. In the
    power sector, the ways to cut pollution at power plants and bring new
    clean energy sources onto the grid are relatively straightforward. But
    vehicles and industrial transport are different--cars, trains, planes,
    trucks, buses and ships all use different technology to move people and
    goods.
        Today, we're focusing on heavy-duty trucks and buses in particular.
    There are two big reasons we want to start here.
        First, low-income communities and communities of color are hit hard
    by air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. That's because of the
    ongoing repercussions of the historical, racially discriminatory
    practice of redlining. The neighborhoods surrounding polluting
    facilities, including ports and busy highways, aren't rich. They're
    home to working people and people of color. Air pollution from these
    facilities causes asthma, lung cancer and other ailments. And it's a
    big reason that the zip code you were born in has such a powerful
    effect on your health.
        Moving heavy-duty transportation to cleaner technologies can help
    address these ongoing inequities, improve people's health, and tackle
    the climate crisis.
        Second, Congress can play an important role in deploying cleaner
    trucks and buses. Congress can fund state and local initiatives to
    secure clean technology and we can create new tax incentives for
    innovative technologies. Federal research and development can also
    bring new engine technology from the lab to the marketplace.
        California is currently leading the charge to reduce pollution at
    its many ports and along highways. Three of our witnesses are based in
    California and will be able to describe this policy leadership in
    detail. For instance, when ships make it to the largest ports in
    California, they have to tap into shoreside power instead of running
    their engines. I saw some of this in action at Port Hueneme in
    Congresswoman Brownley's district a couple months ago.
        The aim is to save money on shipping as well as to cut dangerous
    air pollution. Ports are also a test bed for heavy-duty truck
    technology, so the state is funding demonstration projects for zero-
    emission trucks that move goods from ships. And they're committed to
    transitioning public transit buses to zero emissions by 2040.
        Additionally, we know that children are especially susceptible to
    air pollution. In fact, students are exposed to more diesel exhaust
    inside a school bus than the drivers in the cars behind the buses. So
    California is funding zero-emission school buses, which is something I
    think we should all be interested in given the importance of protecting
    children's health.
        Finally, we're not on the only country working on this technology.
    We're in a race with India, China and Europe. But with American
    ingenuity, we can grow our economy, protect our health and fight the
    climate crisis. It's an exciting topic because you just know that
    American can lead the world with well-paying jobs as we transition to
    clean energy.

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate you
    holding this hearing.
        And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
        I am looking forward to the opportunity today to talk a bit
    about opportunities before us--opportunities to reduce energy
    costs for American citizens, opportunities to diversify energy
    opportunities for Americans, opportunities to help ensure that
    we have a clean environment to pass on to our children and
    generations to come, just better understanding of what
    opportunities are before us, understanding the state of
    technology, understanding where we are from a technological
    capacity perspective to be able to transition into some of
    these opportunities that perhaps are there for us to produce
    these cleaner-fuel vehicles, to produce vehicles that perform
    better, to produce vehicles that reduce energy costs for
    consumers.
        What are the obstacles? What are the obstacles to
    technology? The chair and I had a meeting recently where we
    discussed the fact that current conventional fuels, in some
    cases, have 30 times the energy density as other renewable
    technologies or battery storage technologies.
        So understanding how do we bridge that gap, what are the
    technological hurdles, and how can we better ensure that our
    Climate Change Technology Program that is run through the
    Department of Energy, including various Federal agencies, is
    focused on the right problems to ensure that we can address the
    solutions.
        What are the consequences to our actions as we transition?
    As I have mentioned several times, my home State of Louisiana,
    we have the lowest electricity cost in the United States,
    nearly 9 cents a kilowatt hour in Louisiana, the lowest cost.
    How do we continue to transition to this broader portfolio
    without adversely affecting those that would be impacted the
    most, the poor in our community?
        In that same meeting where we discussed the density of some
    conventional fuels, some of the experts that we met with
    indicated that we perhaps are decades away--decades away from
    having the battery storage capacity for heavy-duty and long-
    haul trucks and boats and things along those lines. So I am
    interested in hearing your perspective on where we are with
    battery storage technology.
        I know, Mr. Popple, you all have made tremendous progress
    in the range of some of the buses that you have produced in
    recent years, and it really is impressive. But how do we
    continue building upon those types of successes and wins and,
    as the chair noted, ensuring that we do this in a manner where
    America wins?
        We had hearings in the Transportation Committee, where I
    also serve, where BYD, a Chinese bus manufacturer, was coming
    in--and it appears to be a state-owned enterprise--coming in
    and knocking out domestic bus manufacturers and being
    subsidized by the Chinese Government, coming in and assembling
    buses in California, in some of our own communities, only to
    undercut price, knock out domestic production of those same
    types of vehicles, therefore giving China an advantage. And
    ensuring that American companies, that American laborers have
    an opportunity to continue to work in this space.
        Clearly, there are opportunities before us. I am looking
    forward to hearing from each of you where those opportunities
    are for win-win-wins, where we can have an opportunity to lower
    costs for Americans, where we have an opportunity to provide
    more opportunities for energy sources for Americans, and, of
    course, opportunities to ensure that we have a clean
    environment for generations to come.
        So thanks again to all of you for being here. I am looking
    forward to your testimony.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Without objection, members have 5 legislative days, 5
    business days, to enter an opening statement into the record.
        Ms. Castor. And now I would like to turn to introductions
    of our terrific panel today.
        Angelo Logan is campaign director for the Moving Forward
    Network. Mr. Logan is the co-founder of East Yard Communities
    for Environmental Justice and serves on several organizations
    working to protect community health, including the South Coast
    Air Quality Management District Environmental Justice Advisory
    Group, the I-710 Corridor Advisory Committees, and the Southern
    California Association of Governments' Goods Movement Task
    Force, among others.
        Michelle Romero is the national director of Green For All,
    which seeks to build an inclusive green economy strong enough
    to lift people out of poverty. Prior to joining Green For All,
    Ms. Romero worked with the University of California president,
    Janet Napolitano, who she advised on issues at the intersection
    of politics, policy, and communications. She also spent 5 years
    leading the Claiming Our Democracy Program at The Greenlining
    Institute.
        Ryan Popple is the president and CEO of Proterra, which
    manufactures zero-emission battery-electric buses. Prior to
    Proterra, Mr. Popple was a partner at Kleiner Perkins. He also
    served as a senior director of finance at Tesla, focusing on
    strategic planning and technology cost reduction.
        And Tony Satterthwaite is a vice president at Cummins,
    Inc., and president of Cummins Distribution Business. Prior to
    his current role, Mr. Satterthwaite led Cummins Power
    Generation from 2008 to 2015. He has worked at Cummins since
    1988.
        Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
    be made part of the record.
        With that, Mr. Logan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENTS OF ANGELO LOGAN, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, MOVING FORWARD
      NETWORK; MICHELLE ROMERO, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, GREEN FOR ALL;
    RYAN POPPLE, PRESIDENT, PROTERRA, INC.; AND TONY SATTERTHWAITE,
            PRESIDENT, DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS, CUMMINS, INC.

                       STATEMENT OF ANGELO LOGAN

        Mr. Logan. Good morning, Chair Castor, Ranking Member
    Graves, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
    here today to testify before you.
        My name is Angelo Logan, and I am with the Moving Forward
    Network, a network of 50 organizations across the country that
    coalesce to fight for environmental justice and climate justice
    in and around freight communities, such as ports, rail yards,
    logistics centers, from Seattle to Savannah, from Mobile to
    Detroit.
        The freight transportation system, otherwise known as goods
    movement, is a system which moves our products from point of
    manufacturing to point of consumption. It is the trucks, the
    trains, the ships, the cargo handling equipment that moves our
    goods from places like Southeast Asia to the Home Depots across
    the country.
        This system--again, the trucks, trains, ships, cargo
    handling equipment--predominantly is moved by diesel power.
    Diesel power or diesel-powered engines produce diesel exhaust.
    Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen and a climate pollutant.
        The freight system itself contributes approximately 3
    billion tons of CO2 worldwide annually. Also, the freight
    transportation sector accounts for roughly 9 percent of U.S.
    greenhouse gas emissions and, again, is a major climate
    pollutant.
        To top that off, the freight sector is predominantly in
    communities of color, working-class, working-poor communities
    of color. To give you an example of how that impacts folks,
    African Americans are at risk about three times their
    proportion of the U.S. population, and Latinos, about two times
    their proportion.
        As an example, the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the
    communities that I live in, are the number-one source of air
    pollution in the region that is arguably the most polluted
    region in the country.
        With that said, the communities have come together along
    with the local jurisdictions to really advance a cleaner action
    plan and actually get the mayors of Long Beach and Los Angeles
    to commit to a 100-percent zero-emission port complex by 2035.
        They have seen, with the local community and local
    jurisdictions, that resolving this issue of both the
    environmental justice and climate crisis can be a win-win both
    in manufacturing, both in moving goods, both in reducing
    climate impacts and resolving environmental injustice.
        With that said, I would like to urge you all to include in
    your report the following actions:
        First, protect the Clean Air Act and the National
    Environmental Policy Act throughout all legislative actions.
    Oppose all provisions to any infrastructure bill or surface
    transportation reauthorization bill. Weakening the Clean Air
    Act and NEPA would hinder our ability to address climate
    change.
        Second, develop and adopt policy principles for climate
    legislation that advance climate justice, environmental
    justice, community self-determination, and local solutions.
    Develop a process and policy principles for climate legislation
    in conjunction with environmental justice groups, similar to
    that of the House Committee on Natural Resources spearheaded by
    Chairman Grijalva and Representative McEachin.
        Also, provide EPA with the tools and resources needed to
    meet its mission and play a role in resolving the climate
    crisis. Appropriation funds can be made to Environmental
    Justice grants to frontline communities so that they have the
    resources to promote local solutions and address the climate
    crisis as they become more resilient. Also add in more
    resources to the DERA program, focusing predominantly on zero-
    emission technologies.
        Also with that, you should hold EPA accountable in meeting
    their mission and their legal requirements under the Clean Air
    Act by holding hearings and holding them to task, specifically
    for advancing national standards for heavy-duty trucks, ocean-
    going vessels, and national standards for locomotives.
        And with that, I wanted to just say that the Moving Forward
    Network looks forward to engaging with you all in the future,
    and we are here to serve you. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Logan follows:]
                                  ----------

                           Testimony of Angelo Logan

                             Moving Forward Network

                         Before the United States House

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

        ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
                            Protecting Communities''

                                 July 16, 2019

        Good morning Chair Castor and members of the Committee:
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Angelo Logan
    and I am with the Moving Forward Network. The Moving Forward Network is
    a national coalition of over 50 member organizations including
    community-based groups, national environmental organizations, and
    academic institutions, in over 20 major U.S. cities, representing over
    2 million members, committed to resolving the public health harms
    created by our country's freight transportation system and achieving
    environmental justice and climate justice. Importantly, Network members
    include individuals who live in and work directly with frontline
    communities.
        Freight transportation otherwise referred to as goods movement is a
    complex system that weaves seaports, freight corridors, rail yards,
    intermodal facilities, inland ports and logistic centers. Ultimately
    goods movement is a transportation system that brings materials and
    goods from the places of origin to the places of consumption, from
    factories in Southeast Asia to Home Depots across the US. It is the
    trucks, trains, ships and cargo-handling equipment that transport the
    things we buy that are produced across the globe.
        The freight system relies predominately on diesel-powered
    equipment, which produces diesel exhaust made up of toxins and climate
    pollutants. Diesel exhaust creates CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Freight
    transport worldwide contributes approximately 3 billion tons of CO2.
    Black carbon is also a result of diesel exhaust. Black carbon is a fine
    particulate matter and short-lived climate pollutant that has very high
    global warming potential--some estimate over 600 times higher than CO2.
    The freight transportation sector accounts for roughly 9% of US
    greenhouse gas emissions and in the next couple of decades, it is
    expected that ocean going vessels alone will account for about 17% of
    all man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
        I'd like to give you a sense of who is hit first and worst when we
    talk about the climate crisis and freight transport. For example, 13
    million people live near major marine ports and rail yards, these
    communities are disproportionately low-income communities of color and
    have increased health risks from climate change impacts and the toxic
    air pollution this industry is responsible for. Epidemiologic studies
    have consistently demonstrated that children and adults living in close
    proximity to freight transportation sources have poorer health
    outcomes, including but not limited to: asthma, poor lung development,
    and other respiratory diseases; cardiovascular disease; lung cancer;
    pre-term births and infants with low birth weight; and premature death.
    Affected by freight transportation, African Americans are a high-risk
    population that is 3 times their proportion of the U.S. population and
    Latinos made up two times their proportion. All this to say, freight
    transport poses a huge climate crisis for the planet and for the local
    environmental justice communities that have been dealing with the
    impacts of the air pollution that is causing the climate crisis.
        To that end I would like to urge you to take the following actions:
      protect the clean air act and the national environmental policy act
                       throughout all legislative actions
        Oppose all provisions to any Infrastructure Bill or Surface
    Transportation Reauthorization Bill that would endanger public health
    by weakening the Clean Air Act and/or the National Environmental Policy
    Act hindering the ability to address climate change. As you intend to
    invest in the public's best interest, do not allow those investments to
    fund projects that will feed the climate crisis. Invest in projects
    that will be part of the solution to the climate crisis and require the
    advancement of a true zero emission future. Specifically, providing
    exemptions of the CAA or the NEPA process to major infrastructure
    projects, including proposed federal highway projects, channel
    deepening projects, bridge raising projects, and terminal expansion
    projects will exempt the opportunities for mitigation, and transparency
    in these processes, especially where such projects will adversely
    affect communities already disproportionately impacted by freight and
    other industrial sources. When NEPA is included in all infrastructure
    and transportation projects we can ensure that air pollution and
    climate change impacts are accurately identified, and alternative
    solutions can be developed and deployed.
       develop and adopt policy principles for climate legislation that
       advance climate justice, environmental justice, communities' self-
                       determination and local solutions
        To truly address the climate crisis, we must reduce and eliminate
    air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at their source, locally in
    communities that have been disproportionally burdened with toxic
    exposure for decades and are now the most vulnerable to climate
    impacts. Frontline communities have the real expertise and true
    solutions that will solve the climate crisis. Therefore, the process
    for developing any solution or strategy is paramount. The Select
    Committee on the Climate Crisis must develop a process and policy
    principles for climate legislation similar to the House Committee on
    Natural Resources.
        On June 26th, Chairman Grijalva and Rep. McEachin hosted a
    Congressional Convening on Environmental Justice where they presented
    the committee's draft statement of policy principles for environmental
    justice legislation. These principles are a result of a several month
    process that the committee facilitated an Environmental Justice Working
    Group.
    provide epa with the tools and resources needed to meet its mission and
                   play a role in solving the climate crisis.
        Congress can enact statutes authorizing federal agencies to award
    grants and impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of federal
    assistance funds. EPA must have the resources it needs to protect
    families and communities from the threat of air pollution and the
    climate crisis. Congress must appropriate a substantial increase of
    funds to the EPA, both DERA and the Environmental Justice grants
    program.
        The Environmental Justice Grants Programs support communities
    working on solutions to environmental and public health issues. The
    programs are designed to help communities address exposure to multiple
    environmental harms and risks. When appropriating funds Congress can
    impose conditions and uses of those funds. It is without a doubt that
    frontline communities across the country, both in freight impacted
    areas and otherwise need more resources to promote local solutions to
    address the climate crisis as well as becoming more resilient in the
    face of climate change impacts that they will face first and worst.
        The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) authorizes grants to
    eligible entities for projects that reduce emissions from existing
    diesel engines. The statute authorizes up to $100 million annually and
    allows for new funding mechanisms, including rebates. This amount of
    funds is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the number of heavy-duty
    vehicles that need to transition to zero emission in the near term.
    Incentive funding strategies targeting the freight sector need to be
    developed. While EPA has granted subsidies under DERA to reduce freight
    emissions, EPA must develop a more targeted strategy for awarding these
    funds. Funds for demonstration projects should target zero-emission
    technologies. Technologies that rely on combustion of fossil fuels
    should not benefit from these funds because they are already capable of
    achieving much lower standards and will not achieve the
    transformational change that is required at our freight facilities.
    Furthermore, funding should be targeted to applicants that meet strict
    criteria, including, for example, ports with facility-specific
    emissions inventories that meet meaningful health risk and emission
    reduction goals.
        To the extent funding is meant to accelerate the deployment of
    technologies that have already been demonstrated, these funding
    programs should be coupled with regulatory requirements to incentivize
    early compliance. This combination of regulatory requirements with
    incentives for early compliance will help the commercialization of
    technology by providing clear market signals to manufacturers. Without
    the regulatory component, funding will be inadequate to spur the
    investment required to take technologies beyond the demonstration
    phase.
      hold epa accountable to meeting its mission and legal requirements
       under the clean air act. epa must adopt regulations to reduce and
                  eliminate emissions from the freight sector
        Require to the full extent of your authority that EPA take action
    to address freight pollution. The committee should require timelines,
    progress reporting and hold regular hearings on the progress of EPA in
    meeting its legal requirements under the Clean Air Act. It is critical
    that Congress do everything in their power to hold EPA accountable.
    Specifically, Congress should require EPA to adopt regulations to
    reduce and eliminate emissions from the freight sector.
        The devastating impacts of freight operations require elevation
    within EPA. In 2009, EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory
    Council (NEJAC) provided 41 recommendations for EPA action. To date,
    however, EPA has failed to adopt a targeted strategy for reducing
    emissions from the freight sector to the degree necessary to protect
    public health and climate change. As a result, the health crises in
    these communities persist and threaten to get worse with increasing
    freight activity.
        EPA must identify reducing freight-related air pollution as a top
    priority for the Agency. Tackling such pollution will further the
    Agency's air quality, climate and environmental justice goals. EPA must
    adopt new national standards for freight-related sources and provide
    more guidance to states with freight-related activities in areas that
    violate national air quality standards and/or produce localized health
    risks.
        EPA must prioritize promulgation of the next generation of national
    emission standards for freight-related sources. The following national
    rules should be prioritized within EPA:
               National Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks. EPA's
            should advance the proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards
            for heavy-duty trucks encouraging the adoption of incentives
            for advanced zero-emission technologies and addressing
            particulate emissions from auxiliary power units.
               New Standards for Ocean Going Vessels. EPA should
            pursue a next generation of NOx and particulate matter
            standards. Foreseeable technologies and more general engine
            efficiency improvements hold the potential to reduce NOx
            emissions by another 90 percent below current standards.
               National Standards for Locomotive Engines. EPA
            should also adopt Tier 5 standards for new locomotive engines.
            Technologies can achieve significantly lower NOx and PM limits.
            Moreover, technologies now exist to enable zero-emission track
            miles. The next generation of standards should reflect the
            feasibility of these technologies and incentivize development
            and deployment of advanced zero-emission technologies.
        This list of proposed actions is not absolute or complete. As
    mentioned above the community engagement process of developing
    solutions and strategies is paramount. To that end, we encourage the
    committee's continued engagement with the Moving Forward Network.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Angelo Logan,
                                                Moving Forward Network.
                         moving forward network members
        1. Air Alliance Houston
        2. Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities-SL
        3. California Cleaner Freight Coalition
        4. Charleston Community Research to Action Board (CCRAB)
        5. Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
        6. Central California Environmental Justice Network
        7. Central Valley Air Quality Coalition
        8. Citizens for a Sustainable Future, Inc.
        9. Clean Air Council
        10. Clean Water Action, Clean Water Fund
        11. Coalition for Healthy Ports (NYNJ)
        12. Coalition for a Safe Environment
        13. Coalition for Clean Air
        14. Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
        15. Diesel Health Project, Inc.
        16. Earthjustice
        17. East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
        18. End Oil, Inc.
        19. Environmental Health Coalition
        20. Environmental Integrity Project
        21. Global Community Monitor
        22. Georgia Research Environmental Economic Network (GREEN) Inc.
        23. Harambee House, Inc.
        24. Ironbound Community Corporation
        25. Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma
        26. Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of
    Public Health
        27. National Nurses United
        28. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
        29. New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance
        30. Puget Sound Sage
        31. Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP)
        32. Respiratory Health Association
        33. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
        34. Rutgers University School of Management & Labor
        35. Southwest Detroit Community Benefits Coalition/Southwest
    Detroit Environmental Vision
        36. Steps Coalition
        37. Sunflower Alliance
        38. Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS)
        39. The Center for the Urban Environment, Thomas Edison College
        40. THE NEW SCHOOL
        41. Union of Concerned Scientists
        42. University of Southern California
        43. University of Texas Medical Branch / Sealy Center for
    Environmental Health and Medicine
        44. West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project

        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Logan.
        Ms. Romero, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MICHELLE ROMERO

        Ms. Romero. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
    to present solutions today.
        My name is Michelle Romero, and I am the national director
    of Green For All, a nonprofit program that was founded by Van
    Jones more than a decade ago to build an inclusive green
    economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We are
    known for our advocacy on behalf of green jobs and policy
    solutions that put people to work building a more sustainable
    future.
        Earlier this year, Green For All, in partnership with Clean
    Energy Works, the Chispa League of Conservation Voters, and
    Mothers Out Front, launched a campaign called Fuel Change to
    tackle the transportation-sector emissions that are in our
    communities and accelerate the transition to a zero-emission
    future together. We are mobilizing people and resources around
    the country to bring clean cars, trucks, and buses to the
    communities who need it most--low-income communities and
    communities of color overburdened by pollution.
        And, this year, we are focusing our attention on school
    buses. Twenty-five million children in the U.S. ride a bus on
    their way to get an education. More than two-thirds of our
    Nation's bus fleets are actually school buses, and 90 percent
    of those are run on diesel.
        We know all of the research, right? Diesel- and gasoline-
    powered vehicles lead to asthma, cancer, decreased lung
    function, even cognitive issues like problems focusing. It is
    hard to learn if you can't breathe. Childhood asthma affects
    millions of children nationwide, predominantly kids of color,
    and is a top reason for missed school days. But when asthma
    strikes, it isn't just the children who are missing school.
    Caregivers and families spend hundreds of dollars in healthcare
    costs and have to miss work as well.
        And this is completely preventable. New technology exists
    that does not cause these problems. We ask the committee to put
    our kids on buses going forward to a clean-energy future. The
    future is electric, and we should be the leader in electric
    vehicle manufacturing. Let's give people jobs making smart
    batteries and smart buses.
        Electric buses have zero tailpipe emissions and are cheaper
    to fuel and maintain. Today's electric school buses can travel
    up to 155 miles on a single charge.
        According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, electric
    buses also have fewer carbon emissions than diesel, natural
    gas, and diesel hybrid buses no matter where in the country
    they are powered from the electrical grid. That means even the
    cleanest of these alternative buses, the diesel hybrid,
    generates more than twice as many carbon emissions as an
    electric bus, making electric buses the clear winner here.
        Electric buses can also provide additional benefits through
    grid-connected storage, and with so many positive benefits,
    several school districts are already beginning to make this
    transition. Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento,
    California, where I live, has the largest electric school bus
    fleet in the country, with 25 buses. And they are joined by
    school districts in Chicago, Massachusetts, New York, and
    Minnesota, each of which has electric school buses.
        States like Colorado, Nevada, and Maryland have also
    advanced policies this year to invest in electric school buses.
    And I am here to say, these school districts, to actually
    accelerate this for all communities across the country, are
    going to need help. Buying an electric bus is still at least
    double or can be triple the price of a comparable diesel bus.
        And that is why Green For All supports the Clean School Bus
    Act, which was introduced by U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and
    colleagues, and would encourage the U.S. House of
    Representatives to introduce similar legislation. The Clean
    School Bus Act invests $1 billion over 5 years for a Clean
    School Bus Grant Program that would provide grants of up to $2
    million to help school districts replace dirty diesel buses
    with clean, electric, zero-emission buses.
        And, most importantly, it gives priority to applications
    that serve low-income students, helping us replace the most
    polluting buses and leveraging other funding to further
    decrease pollution.
        A Federal program like this would be a huge help. And by
    prioritizing public and private investments to electrify the
    neighborhoods who need it most, we can ensure a just transition
    that gives every child a clean and safe ride to school.
        In addition to public funding, we can look at inclusive
    financing programs that are helping low-income energy customers
    afford the upfront cost of things like building energy
    efficiency upgrades and apply a similar model to transportation
    through utility-inclusive financing. With public funding and
    private financing, we can accelerate this transition.
        The only way forward for our country, our children, and our
    economy is to have a swift and just transition towards a zero-
    emission future.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Romero follows:]
                                   __________

     Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All, Oakland, California

       Testimony Before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                             Tuesday, July 16, 2019

        Good morning, and thank you Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves and
    members of the Committee for this hearing to discuss Solving the
    Climate Crisis: Cleaning up Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting
    Communities.
        My name is Michelle Romero. I am the National Director of Green For
    All, a program of the Dream Corps, where we work to build an inclusive
    green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.
        We are here today because bold leaders like you are looking for
    solutions that can accelerate our path toward a pollution-free, zero-
    emission future.
        We need to start building this future, and we need to do so
    immediately.
        In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a
    report \1\ indicating that we now have less than eleven years to
    significantly reduce our emissions to avoid catastrophic global
    consequences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We need solutions that tackle our biggest threats to climate change
    and pollution.
        Transportation is now the number one source of carbon emissions in
    the United States. Fossil-fueled passenger vehicles, heavy duty trucks,
    and buses are some of the major sources of this pollution \2\ with an
    estimated 150 million Americans living in neighborhoods that don't meet
    federal air quality standards.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/heavy-
    duty-truck-fuel-efficiency.
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics#air-
    pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I'm sure we've all, at some point in our lives, driven behind a
    truck or bus as it belches out huge clouds of black smoke. These
    vehicles represent the oldest, dirtiest, and most harmful buses still
    on our roads today. These puffs painted a vivid picture of
    transportation pollution, but whether we now see black puffs or not, we
    know that tailpipe emissions pump particulate matter, or PM2.5, into
    the air we breathe. Particulate matter is a toxic substance so small we
    can't see it, but so tiny it easily travels into our bodies as we
    breathe and gets deeply embedded into our lungs. It can never be
    removed. It simply accumulates until it's so much it affects our lung
    function and respiratory system. It is known to cause premature death,
    heart disease and lung damage,\4\ with children and the elderly being
    the most vulnerable.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-
    change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I share this to emphasize that tailpipe emissions are both a
    climate problem and a public health problem. According to the EPA,
    ``Air pollution emitted from transportation contributes to smog and
    poor air quality, which has negative impacts on the health and welfare
    of U.S. citizens.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-
    change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Growing evidence links emissions from diesel and gasoline-powered
    vehicles to low birth weight, asthma, cardiovascular illness, and even
    cognitive issues like autism and Alzheimer's. In fact, there are now
    more premature deaths from traffic-related pollution than traffic-
    related accidents.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://ktla.com/2019/04/08/air-pollution-linked-to-more-than-
    107000-premature-deaths-in-u-s-in-2011-study/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If we don't change our patterns of pollution, our world will
    continue to change in front of our eyes--from the wildlife we see to
    the air we breathe, our children will be unable to experience a
    healthy, safe, or livable environment. And frankly, many children today
    already do not have a healthy, safe environment.
        While pollution impacts all populations, low-income communities and
    people of color are at the highest risk for transportation-related
    health conditions.\7\ After decades of unfair housing, lending, highway
    planning, and facility siting practices, these communities find
    themselves living near busy highways, diesel truck and bus routes,
    ports and distribution centers--all major sources of transportation
    pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/
    2016/4/spotlight/
    poor_communities_exposed_to_elevated_air_pollution_levels.cfm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Research tells us that African-Americans in the United States are
    3-4 times likelier to be hospitalized and die from asthma compared to
    Whites.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.reimaginerpe.org/node/306.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similarly, Latinos are twice as likely to be hospitalized from
    asthma.
        One mother we met with in Las Vegas, Nevada, Ivon Meneses, shared
    with us about her sleepless nights wondering whether this will be the
    night her 14-year-old son Jacob will be taken from her, every time she
    hears him struggling to breathe. They've already been through multiple
    hospitalizations and at least one near-death experience before when
    doctors told her he might not make it after having a severe asthma
    attack.
        Earlier this year, Green For All put out a call to aspiring artists
    around the country, to submit lyrics about how transportation pollution
    is affecting them or their community. We selected four young people to
    feature in our #FuelChange song and music video.
        One of the selected artists is Nehemiah Vaughn. Nehemiah is an 18-
    year-old African American male who grew up in West Oakland, CA, where
    diesel trucks idle through neighborhoods on their way to the port and
    is surrounded on all sides by busy freeways and highways to the point
    where the neighborhood reeks of the stench of gasoline all day long. In
    school, Nehemiah was the captain of his highschool basketball team but
    he ended up having to limit his sports activity because of his asthma.
    His only other dream was to rap, something he's natural gifted in. Yet,
    even the breath control needed to rap is a constant challenge and
    something you can actually hear as he raps:

    Let me tell you about my story
    about how I used to have my dream
    but for some reason, I can't speak
    and I can't even breathe.

        Like Nehemiah, students across the United States face a similar
    struggle. Childhood asthma is a serious issue that affects millions \9\
    of children nationwide and is the top reason for missed school days. In
    2013, about 13.8 million missed school days were reported due to
    asthma.\10\ And when an asthma attack strikes, it is not just students
    who are affected; caregivers miss work \11\ and families may spend
    hundreds of dollars in health care costs.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.aafa.org/asthma-facts/.
        \10\ https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/missing_days.htm.
        \11\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453370.
        \12\ https://www.aafa.org/cost-of-asthma-on-society/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We must tackle each of these--cars, trucks, and buses--to build a
    more sustainable future. This includes major investments including in
    transit-oriented development, improving public transportation, and
    creating bikeable, walkable communities. However, today I will focus my
    remarks and recommendations primarily on school buses.
                                  school buses
        More than two-thirds of the nation's bus fleet are school buses.
    There are close to half a million school buses in operation \13\ in the
    United States, and 90% of those are run on diesel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2512/
    Transportation-School-Busing.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With over 55% of K-12 students riding school buses everyday,\14\
    children are especially vulnerable to tailpipe pollution--that's over
    25 million kids gaining exposure to known toxins and carcinogens that
    increase their risk of not only asthma, but cancer and other serious
    disease.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ https://www.atu.org/work/school.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dirty diesel school buses are basically refineries on wheels. As
    kids line up alongside the buses waiting to board, the buses spew out
    soot and particulate matter, seeping into both the air and our
    children's bodies. As soon as our children are on board, the tiny
    particles continue to invade their lungs through the windows,
    potentially harming the immediate and long-term health of our students.
        Kids should not have to grow up this way. Pollution is completely
    preventable. New technology exists that does not cause these problems.
        That's why Green For All, with its partners Clean Energy Works, the
    Chispa League of Conservation Voters, and Mothers Out Front, launched
    the #FuelChange campaign, an effort to accelerate the transition to a
    clean, zero-emission transportation future, starting in underserved and
    pollution-burdened communities.
        Let's put our kids on zero-emissions, electric buses that don't rob
    them of educational opportunities and the chance to live a healthy,
    whole life. Electric buses have zero tailpipe emissions and are cheaper
    to fuel and maintain, so school districts would save money by leaving
    their diesel buses behind. And the technology has come so far that
    today's electric buses can travel a good distance on a single charge.
    Blue Bird offers electric school buses that get up to 120 miles, and
    Lion has school buses that get up to 155 miles on a single charge.
        According to a Union of Concerned Scientists' analysis, electric
    buses have fewer carbon emissions than diesel, natural gas, and diesel
    hybrid buses no matter where in the country the bus charges from the
    electricity grid.\15\ They found that each of these alternative buses
    (diesel, natural gas and hybrid diesel) generates more than twice as
    many carbon emissions as an electric bus making an all electric zero-
    emission bus preferable for addressing both the climate crisis and the
    health impacts tailpipe emissions are having on our children and
    communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/electric-vs-diesel-vs-
    natural-gas-which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Electric school buses can also provide additional benefits through
    grid-connected storage. School buses are parked and unused most of the
    day and during peak months like Summer, when they can offer a solution
    to the problem utilities face now of generating more renewable power
    than the grid can capture and store for later use.
        With so many positive impacts, several school districts are already
    implementing this cutting-edge solution.
        Twin Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento, California was
    the first school district to buy an electric bus, and now has the
    largest electric school bus fleet in the country with 25 electric
    buses.\16\ The District's own website lists the benefits of these buses
    as being:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ http://www.twinriversusd.org/Students--Families/
    Transportation-Services/Electric-Vehicles-/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Healthier--Clean air for our children, teachers,
            parents and neighbors.
               Safe--Built and tested with high back seats and
            seat-belts.
               Cleaner--Zero engine emissions.
               Great Performance--Proven in all types of terrain
            and weather.
               Cost Savings--Electric buses can reduce fueling
            costs of a vehicle by over 40%.
               Quieter--Electric school buses are much quieter,
            allowing drivers better communication with and oversight of
            students.
        Twin Rivers USD has seen a cost savings of between $8,000 and
    $15,000 on energy and maintenance costs.\17\ In these difficult times
    for underfunded schools around the country, that is money that can be
    put toward the education of our children and retaining high quality
    teachers. According to their transportation director Tim Shannon, Twin
    Rivers USD has set a goal to transition at least 30% of their fleet in
    the next 3 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/04/electric-school-
    bus-fleet-leaving-green-footprint-on-twin-rivers-school-district.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Twin Rivers is joined by school districts in Chicago,
    Massachusetts, New York, and Minnesota all with electric buses. In
    2017, Lakeville, Minnesota became the first Midwest school district to
    have an electric bus. Community members say that the bus makes its
    rounds so quietly that it plays music when it travels under 15mph so
    that children can hear it, one of many state-of-the-art safety features
    on the new fleets.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ https://www.betterenergy.org/blog/first-electric-school-bus-
    comes-minnesota.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We need school districts across the United States to adopt this
    mission and we need your help to make that happen.
        For most school districts, the biggest challenge to implementation
    is cost. While many schools and transit agencies have the will and the
    desire to transition their fleets, the upfront cost is a major
    impediment to the transition.
        Buying electric is still at least double or triple the price of a
    comparable diesel bus, approximately $120,000 more. If we can help
    schools overcome the upfront cost, we can accelerate the transition and
    reap immediate benefits.
        An electric bus is cheaper to fuel and maintain with operating
    costs for an electric bus at approximately 19 cents per gallon compared
    to 82 cents per gallon for a diesel bus.\19\ Furthermore, as battery
    technology improves and the market grows to scale, we'll see much more
    competitive pricing in the near future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Government Technology ``Electric Buses Are Not Only Clean but
    Less Costly to Run'' https://www.govtech.com/workforce/Electric-Buses-
    Are-Not-Only-Clean-but-Less-Costly-to-Run.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     to reach the scale our planet needs, and as quickly as we need it, we
               will need a combination of funding and financing.
        That's why Green For All supports The Clean School Bus Act,
    introduced by U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, along with Senators Dianne
    Feinstein (CA), Jeff Merkley (OR); Cory Booker (NJ); Tina Smith, (MN);
    Bernie Sanders (VT); and Catherine Cortez Masto (NV).
        This legislation would help schools serving low-income
    neighborhoods make the down payment to go from dirty diesel to zero-
    emission electric buses and give kids a clean, safe ride to school.
        If passed, The Clean School Bus Act would:
         Provide grants of up to $2 million to replace diesel
    school buses with electric school buses, invest in charging
    infrastructure, and support workforce development
         Give priority to applications that serve low-income
    students, replace the most polluting buses, and leverage the funding to
    further decrease pollution and emission including through partnerships
    with local utilities
         Authorize $1 billion over five years at the Department of
    Energy to fund a Clean School Bus Grant Program to spur increased
    adoption of this clean technology.
     we encourage the house to introduce similar legislation to the clean
         school bus act and support an even larger funding commitment.
        A federal program like the one proposed by the Clean School Bus Act
    would be a huge help. And by prioritizing public and private funds to
    electrify the neighborhoods most in need, we can ensure a just
    transition that gives every child has a clean, safe ride to school.
        By Clean Energy Works estimates, it would take at least $6 billion
    to cover the upfront cost barrier to electrify just 10% of the nation's
    school bus fleet over the next 5 years. That's where additional funds
    and financing are needed.
        We have seen successful green financing programs before. In more
    than half a dozen states, inclusive financing programs help low-income
    energy customers afford the upfront cost of building energy efficiency
    upgrades. If we apply a similar model to public school transportation,
    utility investments could help school districts electrify their fleets
    more quickly.
        In Lakeville, Minnesota, for example, the cost of their electric
    bus was provided through a financing partnership between Green River
    Energy and Dakota Electric Association--a model we can replicate in
    other cities and school districts.
        It is time to prioritize the health of our communities and the
    health of our planet. School bus electrification will allow for cleaner
    air to breathe, and a cleaner world to live in.
        The only way forward for our country, and for our children, is a
    speedy transition toward a zero-emission future. Thank you.

        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Ms. Romero.
        Mr. Popple, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF RYAN POPPLE

        Mr. Popple. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished
    members of the select committee, on behalf of Proterra, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I
    applaud your leadership in focusing today on the climate crisis
    and on the role that heavy-duty vehicles can play in helping to
    solve that crisis.
        My name is Ryan Popple, and I am the CEO of Proterra, a
    leader in the design and manufacture of zero-emission, heavy-
    duty, electric transit buses. We also provide technology
    solutions to power other heavy-duty electric applications such
    as school buses and over-the-road motorcoaches.
        Our vision, one that I am passionate about, is to provide
    clean and quiet transportation for all. Our buses are deployed
    throughout the United States, heavily in California but
    throughout the rest of the 50 States as well. And just as
    importantly, those buses are designed, engineered, and
    manufactured in the United States.
        I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the
    urgency of reducing emissions caused by heavy-duty
    transportation. I would like to summarize my written testimony
    by making the following few points.
        First, transportation is a leading contributor to U.S.
    carbon emissions. According to the EPA, greenhouse gas
    emissions from transportation account for approximately 29
    percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It is therefore
    critical that we begin to reduce this dangerous level of
    transportation pollution.
        Second, communities across the United States struggle to
    address the harmful effects of air pollution. What makes this
    situation worse and troubling is that there are areas,
    particularly disadvantaged communities, that bear a
    disproportionate share of the air-pollution burden. Exposure to
    particulate matter is linked to a range of severe health
    issues, including heart, lung, asthma, and upper respiratory
    problems.
        Third, Proterra electric transit buses that are currently
    serving our communities, airports, and universities are already
    making a significant difference in addressing these and other
    issues. Every time a Proterra electric bus with zero tailpipe
    emissions replaces a diesel bus, greenhouse gas emissions are
    reduced by approximately 230,000 pounds and noise pollution is
    significantly lessened. Our buses have displaced more than 50
    million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, and we have helped
    transit customers save money on fuel and spare parts.
        I applaud this committee's focus on solving the climate
    crisis, a topic that we take seriously at Proterra. In order to
    improve public health, it is critical that we prioritize
    electrifying heavy-duty vehicles in the United States and we
    make zero-emission battery-electric technology available to all
    U.S. communities.
        Electrifying transportation, however, does more than just
    clean up the environment and improve public health; it helps
    boost the economy by creating good-paying jobs. We employ more
    than 500 employees in California and South Carolina, and we
    have also helped create jobs indirectly through our supply
    base, like our composite suppliers in Iowa who help build the
    body of our bus.
        We have come a long way in a short period of time. We can
    do more with your help. I have detailed several policy
    suggestions in my written comments, but I would like to
    specifically mention the following three.
        Number one, reauthorize the Low-No program and increase
    funding. The Federal Transit Administration's Low or No
    Emission Program has been responsible for accelerating hundreds
    of electric buses, but the funding has been limited. If we are
    serious about delivering cleaner mobility solutions to all
    communities, we should significantly increase appropriations
    for this program in particular and make this a national
    priority. We would like to see the FAST Act reauthorized and
    the Low-No program reauthorized at higher funding levels.
        Number two, we would like to see transit agencies
    incentivized to transition to the most efficient forms of bus
    technology. Under current funding levels, the Federal
    Government will pay up to 85 percent of the cost of a new bus,
    which includes buses that run on fossil fuels. We suggest that
    Congress prioritize that funding for transit technologies that
    are the cleanest and the most efficient to operate.
        And, finally, like my colleague, we would encourage you to
    implement grant programs for other heavy-duty vehicle sectors.
    Senator Kamala Harris and colleagues recently introduced the
    Clean School Bus Act to accelerate the electrification of
    school bus fleets. This bill authorizes grants of up to $2
    million to replace diesel school buses with electric school
    buses. We support it and urge Congress to pass it and
    appropriate funding.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I look forward to answering any questions that you have.
        [The statement of Mr. Popple follows:]
                                   __________

                           Ryan Popple, CEO, Proterra

           Written Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

        ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles,
                            Protecting Communities''

                                 July 16, 2019

        Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Select
    Committee, on behalf of Proterra, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify at today's hearing focused on ``Solving the Climate Crisis:
    Cleaning Up Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities.''
        I am Ryan Popple, CEO of Proterra, a leader in the design and
    manufacture of zero-emission, heavy-duty electric transit buses and
    technology solutions to power other heavy-duty, electric applications
    such as school buses and coach buses. Our vision, one that I am
    passionate about, is to provide clean, quiet transportation for all.
    Today, Proterra has received more than 700 awards of buses from
    communities in 36 states, District of Columbia, and 2 Canadian
    provinces, and we have delivered more than 300 Proterra electric buses.
    Our buses are deployed in traditional red states and blue states, urban
    areas and suburbs, big cities and small communities, and even rural
    areas. Proterra products are proudly designed, engineered and
    manufactured in the United States and we currently employ more than 500
    employees in our three offices in Silicon Valley, Greenville, South
    Carolina and Los Angeles.
        I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the urgency of
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by heavy-duty transportation.
    In order to properly address the world's climate crisis and improve
    public health it is critical that we prioritize electrifying heavy-duty
    vehicles in the United States and make zero-emission, battery-electric
    technology available to all U.S. communities. We have begun to achieve
    these goals today with American-made, zero-emission heavy-duty public
    transit buses and can make significant strides by expanding electric
    powertrains into adjacent sectors, such as school buses and over-the-
    road motor coaches.
        Transportation is widely considered the number one contributor to
    U.S. carbon emissions. According to the EPA,\1\ greenhouse gas
    emissions from transportation account for approximately 29 percent of
    total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor
    of U.S. GHG emissions. According to the same report, between 1990 and
    2017, GHG emissions in the transportation sector increased, in absolute
    terms, more than any other sector. It is critical that we begin to
    reduce this dangerous level of transportation pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' United States
    Environmental Protection Agency, last updated on 29 April 2019,
    www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-
    emissions#transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Communities across the United States struggle to address the
    harmful effects of air pollution. Exposure to particulate matter is
    linked to a range of severe health issues, including premature death
    for those suffering from heart or lung disease, heart attacks,
    irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function and
    increased respiratory symptoms (EPA \2\). According to the American
    Lung Association, more than four in 10 people in the United States live
    in counties that have unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution,
    which is around 141.1 million Americans.\3\ Children and teenagers are
    among the most vulnerable populations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter
    (PM).'' United States Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 20
    June 2018, www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-
    particulate-matter-pm.
        \3\ ``State of the Air 2019.'' American Lung Association, 2019,
    https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/
    sota-2019-full.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We know that there are areas that bear a disproportionate share of
    the air pollution burden. Some communities are often exposed to higher
    levels of air pollution because they are located near freight centers
    and heavily traveled roadways and residents often lack the resources to
    relocate. According to a recent Union of Concerned Scientists report
    that analyzed air pollution from vehicles in California, on average,
    African American, Latino, and Asian Californians are exposed to more
    particulate matter pollution from cars, trucks and buses than white
    Californians. Further, the lowest-income households in the state live
    where particulate matter pollution is 10 percent higher than the state
    average, while those with the highest incomes live where particulate
    matter pollution is 13 percent below the state average. Not
    surprisingly, households earning less than $20,000 a year and people
    who don't own cars suffer vehicle pollution levels about 20 percent
    higher than the state average.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in
    California.'' Union of concerned Scientists, February 2019, https://
    www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/CA-air-quality-equity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond air pollution, Americans are also suffering from noise
    pollution. Constant traffic noise can lead to greater stress, anxiety,
    high blood pressure, heart disease, depression and compromised sleep
    quantity and quality.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:
    Developing an Effective Public Health Response.'' Monica S. Hammer,
    Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, 2014. Environmental Health
    Perspectives 122:2 CID: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Electric transit buses serving our communities, airports and
    universities are making a significant difference in addressing all of
    these issues. Every time a Proterra electric bus with zero tailpipe
    emissions replaces a diesel bus, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced
    by approximately 230,000 pounds and noise pollution is lessened. To
    date, Proterra vehicles in revenue service have displaced more than 49
    million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, transit
    customers save money on fuel and maintenance.
        Vehicle powertrain technology is undergoing a transformational
    shift away from the internal combustion engines of the past to battery-
    electric technology. In just a few short years we have seen the growth
    of electric transit buses globally. In 2017, around 13 percent of the
    total global municipal bus fleet was electric.\6\ The United States is
    poised to be a global leader in this emerging market, bringing the next
    wave of transit innovation directly to communities across the U.S. But
    this movement is not just about protecting the environment. It is about
    creating good-paying jobs and boosting the clean energy economy.
    Electric vehicle technology is creating the manufacturing and
    engineering jobs of today and tomorrow, such as electricians, advanced
    manufacturing factory workers, EV service and maintenance workers, and
    battery technicians. Further innovation by EV companies positively
    impacts adjacent industries. For example, Proterra partners with TPI
    Composites to manufacture our pioneering composite body for Proterra
    transit buses. TPI recently opened a factory in Newton, IA and added
    headcount to support the growing demand of electric buses.
    Additionally, by investing in battery-electric technology, America will
    lessen its dependence on foreign oil and leverage its innovative spirit
    to develop clean, green technology that outperforms traditional diesel
    vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ``Electric Buses in Cities: Driving Towards Cleaner Air and
    Lower CO2.'' Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 29 March 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you can tell, I am an EV and public transit enthusiast. It is
    why I took this job more than 4 years ago. It is critical that we
    reduce harmful emissions that are intensifying the world's climate
    crisis. We have a viable, market-driven solution that can help drive
    change right now and, when deployed at scale, will positively impact
    our environment and our public health.
        But we could use additional help.
        In my opinion, the single biggest accelerant in this space has been
    the Federal Transit Administration's Low or No Emission Vehicle Program
    (LowNo), which has been responsible for funding hundreds of electric
    transit buses. But the funding has been limited. LowNo was funded at
    $55M per year in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill,
    the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. We are grateful
    that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have provided
    supplemental funding for this program over the last two fiscal years.
    If we are serious about delivering cleaner mobility solutions to all
    communities, we should significantly increase appropriations for this
    program in particular and make this a national priority. Let's ensure
    that there is increased funding to enable all Americans to ride in an
    emission-free and quiet electric vehicle.
        In addition to the above, we respectfully request that this
    Committee consider other actions to help all communities transition to
    a cleaner mobility future:

     I. Surface Transportation Bill Reauthorization. The Fixing America's
      Surface Transportation (FAST) Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year
     2020. We urge Congress to reauthorize the surface transportation bill
    and, specifically, reauthorize the LowNo Program at higher amounts due
         to increasing demand, thus ensuring that the grant awards are
      sufficient for meaningful EV deployments and distributed in diverse
     regions throughout the country. This might be the perfect vehicle to
    fold in the Green Bus Act, which would require all new buses purchased
     with FTA funds be zero-emission beginning on October 1, 2029 and give
       preference under the LowNo Program to transit agencies that have
    completed full fleet transition plans to zero emission vehicles. Thank
       you for your leadership on this initiative Congresswoman Brownley.

      II. Comprehensive Infrastructure Bill. We're pleased that both the
      Administration and Congress have indicated that infrastructure is a
          priority. We call on Congress to put forth a comprehensive
       infrastructure bill that includes funding for heavy-duty electric
             vehicle fleets and the accompanying EV infrastructure.

    III. Incentivize Transit Agencies to Transition to Zero-Emission Buses.
    Under current funding levels, the federal government will pay up to 85%
    of the cost of a new bus, which include buses that run on fossil fuels.
       We suggest that Congress keep the existing federal share for zero-
     emission transit buses, but reduce it for diesel (40%), CNG (50%) or
                           diesel-hybrid buses (60%).

    IV. Grant Programs For Other Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Senator Kamala Harris
        and colleagues recently introduced the Clean School Bus Act to
     accelerate electrification of school bus fleets. The bill authorizes
    grants of up to $2 million to replace diesel school buses with electric
     school buses, invest in charging infrastructure and support workforce
      development. The bill would also give priority to applications that
      serve lower-income students, replacing the most polluting buses. We
        support it and urge Congress to pass it and appropriate funding.

    V. Expansion of the ATVM Loan Program. The Advanced Technology Vehicles
    Manufacturing Loan Program is administered by the Department of Energy.
    One of its goals is to improve the use of advanced technologies in cars
    and components manufactured in the United States. But manufacturers of
        heavy-duty vehicles--such as electric public transit buses--are
      ineligible to apply for the low-interest loans. My understanding is
      that there is approximately $16B remaining in this Program, having
    successfully helped companies such as Tesla, Nissan and Ford. Congress
     should amend this Program to allow companies like Proterra to be able
       to apply for loans that will help them invest in R&D and product
                                  development.

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look
    forward to answering any questions that you may have.

        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. Satterthwaite, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF TONY SATTERTHWAITE

        Mr. Satterthwaite. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
    Graves, members of the select committee, thank you for inviting
    me here today and for your interest in clean technologies for
    heavy-duty vehicles. My name is Tony Satterthwaite, and I am
    the president of the distribution business at Cummins.
        Like you, we know climate change is a significant threat to
    our world and to our business, and Cummins has always been
    committed to improving technology in our industry. Today, I
    would like to tell you a bit about that journey as well as what
    we think may be possible in the future.
        First, let me tell you about Cummins. We are a 100-year-old
    company founded and headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. And in
    those 100 years, we have become the largest independent
    producer of both diesel engines and diverse power solutions in
    the world. In the United States, we have approximately 27,000
    employees, and we have manufacturing facilities in 9 States.
        Because I have the opportunity to work with our customers
    every day, I see firsthand the challenges they face. Most of
    our customers buy heavy-duty vehicles for commercial return. A
    truck owner needs to be able to purchase a vehicle that is
    capable of doing the job required, has low operating costs, and
    can be purchased for a price that allows the truck owner to
    still make a profit at whatever work he or she is doing.
        Cummins doesn't make vehicles, but our engines and
    components are in many of the trucks you see on the road in a
    wide range of applications, including trucks and buses of all
    sizes. This is also another thing that makes the commercial
    vehicle sector unique: It is not one market. It is lots of
    markets with customers who need vehicles to do a wide variety
    of jobs. What is right for one customer won't necessarily be
    right for the next customer.
        Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Cummins has
    been on a journey to reduce emissions from diesel engines. More
    than 30 years ago, we developed solutions that enable us to
    meet standards that reduce particulate emissions in the diesel
    engine by 90 percent and NOx by 95 percent while improving fuel
    efficiency. In fact, it would take 60 of today's clean diesel
    trucks to equal the emissions from a single truck sold in 1988.
        But even with that progress, we don't believe we are done.
    Cummins and other truck and engine manufacturers are currently
    working with EPA and the California Air Resources Board about
    how much farther we can go to further reduce NOx and
    particulate matter.
        With respect to climate change, in 2009 Cummins began
    working with regulators to determine the best way to establish
    fuel efficiency standards for commercial vehicles, because
    improving fuel economy is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions
    from vehicles. We have always supported those standards, and
    truck and engine manufacturers like Cummins and other
    stakeholders are hard at work to develop products that meet
    these new standards. Department of Energy programs like
    SuperTruck are critical to develop the technologies to make
    that happen.
        Which brings me to where we are today. As we look to the
    future of the heavy-duty transportation sector, we don't
    believe there will be one technological solution that will meet
    all needs. While diesel technology has captured most of the
    commercial vehicle market in the past, we see a future where
    diesel, natural gas, battery electric, and even fuel cell and
    sustainable fuels power our products. How and where they are
    applied depends on a variety of factors, including technology
    capability, cost, and infrastructure availability. And,
    frankly, we don't know which ones will win.
        We think clean diesel will remain an important technology
    for many of our customers for a long time. This is especially
    true for applications that require a lot of power and
    reliability. Of the alternatives to diesel, natural gas is the
    most mature, reliable solution available today that can reduce
    greenhouse gases, NOx, and particulate matter.
        Our latest natural gas engine is certified to California
    Air Resources Board's Optional Low NOx emissions standard,
    which is 90 percent lower than current EPA and CARB 50 State
    standards. However, limited fueling infrastructure remains an
    important barrier to increased usage in many heavy-duty
    applications for natural gas.
        Cummins is also invested heavily in our electrified power.
    We have committed to investing $500 million and have launched
    our first battery-electric powertrain this year in city and
    school bus applications.
        There are challenges to the adoption of battery
    technologies for the heavy-duty transportation sector.
    Improvements are needed in energy density, charging time and
    infrastructure, and cost. Continued investment by the
    Department of Energy can help us solve these issues faster.
        In addition to these technologies available today, Cummins
    is also investing in a variety of other fuels and technologies,
    including fuel cells powered by hydrogen and natural gas and
    engines that can run on a variety of sustainable fuels.
        Cummins is committed to investing in an energy-diverse
    future where our customers have a broad portfolio of power
    options so they can choose what works best for them.
        Thank you for the great honor and privilege to speak to you
    today.
        [The statement of Mr. Satterthwaite follows:]
                                   __________

      Written Statement of Tony Satterthwaite, Vice President, President--
                      Distribution Business, Cummins Inc.

       Hearing on Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up the Heavy-Duty
                        Vehicles, Protecting Communities

      U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

        Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Select
    Committee, thank you for inviting me here today and for your interest
    in clean technologies for heavy-duty vehicles. My name is Tony
    Satterthwaite and I am President of the Distribution Business at
    Cummins. We have been committed to improving technology in our
    industry. We embraced regulations more than 20 years ago and developed
    solutions that enabled us to meet standards that reduced particulate
    emissions in the diesel engine by 90 percent, and NO/x/ by 95 percent
    while improving fuel-efficiency. Today, I'd like to tell you a bit
    about that journey, as well as what we think may be possible in the
    future.
                                  cummins inc.
        Cummins Inc. is a 100-year-old company founded and headquartered in
    Columbus, Indiana. Since 1919, we've become the largest independent
    producer of both diesel engines and diverse power solutions in the
    world, and we've done this through constant technological innovation
    and by bringing our customers the right power solution at the right
    time for each unique application.
        We also manufacture and supply highly complex components to the
    transportation and power solutions industries such as turbochargers,
    fuel systems, filters and aftertreatment systems - all of which has
    enabled us to build high-performing and efficient products meeting
    global emission standards.
        Cummins products are in a wide range of applications including
    small passenger trucks, tractor-trailers that move goods across the
    country, pick-up and delivery trucks, as well as transit and school
    buses. You will also find our products in refuse trucks, mining
    equipment, oil-and gas operations, passenger trains and tug boats. Our
    products also generate electricity in applications from mobile power
    systems that support our military to critical backup power systems that
    keep data centers and hospitals up and running 24 hours a day, seven
    days a week. National Landmarks that many Americans see every day, like
    Wrigley Field and the Statue of Liberty, also rely on Cummins for their
    backup power needs.
        Simply put, our products need to be dependable and reliable to help
    our customers do the work they need to do, whether that is hauling
    critical goods across the country, or delivering our most precious
    cargo: our children to school. They also need to work hard, capable of
    carrying very heavy loads and performing in extreme conditions.
        We have more than 62,000 employees globally and operate in over 190
    countries throughout the world. In the United States, we have
    manufacturing facilities in Indiana, Minnesota, New York, North
    Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California and Oregon.
    In addition to our manufacturing operations in the United States, we
    also own all our distributor branches with locations in almost every
    state.
                         innovation and the environment
        The hearing today is well-timed as we are at the forefront of
    change in the heavy-duty vehicle industry. We are providing a wider
    variety of products for our customers that are cleaner, more efficient
    and cost-effective than ever before.
        Cummins has long acknowledged that our company is only as strong as
    the health of our communities. Nearly four decades ago, Cummins made
    the decision to embrace tough environmental standards and to use our
    technological expertise and innovation to drive our business and
    improve communities, in contrast to the industry approach at the time.
    In 2006, we set our first facility energy and greenhouse gas goal and
    joined the U.S. EPA Climate Leaders program--firmly stating our
    commitment to address climate change. In 2009, Cummins technical and
    policy leaders wrote a white paper for the National Academy of Sciences
    addressing the regulation of greenhouse gases in commercial vehicles
    that served as an important reference for regulators. Recently, in
    November 2018, EPA announced the Cleaner Trucks Initiative (CTI), which
    will include a future rulemaking to establish updated standards to
    address NO/x/ emissions from highway heavy-duty trucks and engines. We
    strongly support this initiative. This year we are releasing our next
    companywide sustainability plan including science-based climate goals.
    Our commitment to addressing the environmental impact of our products
    and facilities is ingrained in our mission, vision, values and culture.
                                energy diversity
        As we look to the future of the heavy-duty transportation sector,
    we see a sector that is highly complex and one in which we don't
    believe there will be one technological solution that will meet all
    needs. Our customers buy heavy duty vehicles for commercial return;
    they are part of their livelihoods and must be capable of doing the job
    required at a price that is reasonable. We think clean diesel will
    remain an important technology for many of our customers for a long
    time. We will continue to work with regulators to make diesel even
    cleaner and more efficient than it is today. At the same time, in some
    applications natural gas or electrified power will make the most sense
    based on the job to be done or the location where the vehicle is
    operating.
        While diesel technology has captured most of the market in the
    past, we see a future where diesel, natural gas, battery electric, and
    even fuel cell and sustainable fuels power our products. The three
    primary fuels and technologies for heavy-duty vehicles are diesel,
    natural gas and electric. How and where they are applied depends on a
    variety of factors. Below is a chart which demonstrates some of the
    core attributes most important to our customers including technology
    capability, cost and infrastructure availability.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Diesel--Cummins continues to be a leader in clean diesel technology
    and understands that for many markets, diesel engines will be the best
    solution for decades to come. Clean diesel is the combination of
    today's ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, advanced engines and effective
    emission controls. Together, these elements result in a highly
    efficient engine, which can achieve extremely low emissions and reduce
    greenhouse gases (GHGs). Clean diesel benefits from low upfront costs
    and an existing and mature infrastructure. Combining clean diesel and
    hybrid technology provides additional fuel efficiency; further
    improving air quality and reducing carbon footprints, and even enabling
    a zero emissions operating mode within city limits.
        This decade, the 4.9 million new-technology diesel trucks on
    America's roads have removed more than 26 million metric tons of NOx
    and 59 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air. Currently,
    across the United States, more than 36% of all Classes 3-8 registered
    commercial trucks are of the newest, near-zero generation diesels, and
    that number grows each year.
        We are not done innovating to make diesel engines cleaner and more
    efficient. Truck and engine manufacturers like Cummins and other
    stakeholders are hard at work to develop products that meet EPA and
    NHTSA's Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Standards for commercial vehicles. When
    fully implemented those standards will lower CO2 emissions by
    approximately 1.1 billion metric tons; save vehicle owners fuel costs
    of about $170 billion; and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion
    barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Our
    ability to meet these goals is supported by cooperative research
    programs like the SuperTruck program at the Department of Energy. As
    mentioned above, we are also actively working with EPA, CARB and other
    stakeholder to take near-zero emissions diesel engines closer to zero
    through a new engine standard for NOx.
        Natural Gas--Where infrastructure exists or can be expanded,
    natural gas is a mature, reliable solution available today that can
    reduce GHG, NOx, and PM. Renewable natural gas expands on these
    benefits. While the initial purchase price of a natural gas vehicle is
    higher than a diesel vehicle, its operating costs are comparable or
    less than conventional diesel technology.
        Cummins Westport has been the leader in providing low emission and
    efficient natural gas engines to some of this country's largest private
    and municipal transit and refuse fleets, and on-highway truck and
    school bus properties reaching global sales of over 60,000 natural gas
    engines in 2015. Since 2002, Cummins Westport has offered emission
    leading natural gas engines, meeting or exceeding the most stringent
    North American engine emission limits set by the US Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA).
        However, natural gas use is not a viable choice for many heavy-duty
    applications due to limited infrastructure. Vehicles that return to
    base daily, like refuse trucks, port vehicles or city buses are ideal
    applications for natural gas. Given that natural gas vehicles can cost
    and weigh more than conventional diesel vehicles, policies like the
    federal excise tax and weight limits can also reduce consumer adoption
    of these vehicles.
        Battery Electric--Electrified Power is the newest of Cummins'
    business segments bringing together all the company's electrification
    resources with a view to supporting all the segments where Cummins
    traditionally operates today. Cummins can use a range of cell
    chemistries suitable for pure electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid
    applications.
        The adoption of electric vehicle systems for heavy duty
    transportation is dependent on the availability of charging
    infrastructure capable of meeting the energy demands of heavy-duty
    applications. Emissions requirements, government incentives and cost
    also play a part. A city bus is a great example of an application where
    electrification technology works today. The duty cycle, with frequent
    stops and starts, is ideally suited for electrified powertrains and
    makes this technology viable for reducing emissions in traffic
    congested areas. Material handling applications are being electrified,
    reducing emissions in ports, distribution hubs and warehouses. And
    while the energy density of batteries continues to improve, it is not
    yet viable for all applications. Currently, the weight of batteries
    negatively impacts payload capacity, making electric trucks impractical
    for many applications. Creating hybrid technologies that combine diesel
    and electric can be part of the solution to help meet regulatory
    requirements for some applications.
        From an economic standpoint, customers will need an electric
    vehicle system that offers an acceptable return on investment; battery
    prices must progress to a reasonable level that allows for payback,
    without the use of incentives. Improvements to charging infrastructure,
    advances in cell chemistry that allow for increased energy density in
    combination with fast charging, and greater modularity of battery packs
    will all help accelerate the adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles.
    Continued investment in these areas by the Department of Energy can
    accelerate this development.
        In addition to these technologies available today, Cummins is also
    investing in a variety of other fuels and technologies:
        Hydrogen and Fuel Cell--Globally, we see increased focus on
    hydrogen- based technologies and infrastructure. Advancements in fuel
    cells have made the technology more suitable for commercial use.
    Improving proton-exchange membrane (PEM) and Solid Oxide (SOFC) fuel
    cell technology performance characteristics, life, efficiency and cold
    weather capabilities could make fuel cells a credible alternative for
    commercial and industrial applications. The application of PEM fuel
    cells to commercial vehicle applications is exciting, particularly
    those applications with productivity or longer daily range needs that
    cannot be accomplished by batteries. Joining the Hydrogen Council
    Executive Committee has provided a great platform for Cummins to
    collaborate with experts and companies with a similar vision of the
    future. Cummins is participating in the Costa Rica hydrogen ecosystem
    project by sponsoring a hydrogen fuel cell bus. Phase 1 of the project
    demonstrated technical feasibility and Phase 2 aims to demonstrate
    financial viability. Phase 2 will feature a Cummins electric powertrain
    and a fuel cell electric powertrain in two buses.
        Other Alternative Fuels--Cummins is investing in enabling its
    engines and generator sets to use fuel sources that would otherwise be
    considered waste products, delivering robust power even with fuels like
    landfill and digester gases. Capturing landfill gas or biogas for
    processing into fuel suitable for vehicles or gensets has significant
    benefits. Biomethane - obtained by purifying biogas - that is used as
    fuel in place of fossil fuels effectively produces less GHG than the
    fuel it replaced. Biogas can provide a clean, easily controlled source
    of renewable energy from organic waste materials, replacing fossil
    fuels with a sustainable carbon neutral fuel option, while can reducing
    external fossil fuel dependence and promoting energy security.
                                 policy levers
        Public policy plays an important role in facilitating this energy
    diverse future for the heavy duty sector. We think the best policies
    are ones that don't pick winners and losers but focus on desired
    outcomes. The best technology to solve for a problem today may not be
    the best in six months or two years - that's why technology neutral
    policy, free of technology-forcing mandates, is important to ensure
    communities and customers can continue to make the best choices to meet
    their performance, commercial and environmental needs and let the
    technologies compete to determine market solutions.
        Federal investment and tax policy also play an important role in
    spurring innovation. Robust and consistent investment in research and
    development and investment through grants and public-private
    partnerships is essential to provide market certainty for consumers,
    fleets, dealers, manufacturers and suppliers participating in the
    transition to cleaner technologies.
        Encouraging adoption of low-emissions technologies infrastructure
    investment is critical. Congress should invest in battery electric
    vehicle charging as well as hydrogen and natural gas fueling
    infrastructure to help accelerate adoption of these technologies.
        Finally, Congress, communities and customers should support low or
    no-carbon, sustainable fuel choices. The rise of multiple fuels means a
    poly-fuel future, but each fleet has unique needs. It is important for
    suppliers to continually produce more sustainable, low or no-carbon
    fuels, vehicle technologies, and infrastructure that measurably improve
    well-to-wheels climate impacts and address other relevant
    sustainability impacts and benefits.
                                   conclusion
        The heavy duty vehicle industry is facing significant change and
    more is needed to meet our global energy and environmental challenges.
    Cummins is committed to investing in an energy diverse future where our
    customers have a broad portfolio of power options--including clean
    diesel, natural gas, electrified power and even fuel cell technology--
    so they can choose what works best for them. Enacting policies that
    promote the power of choice for every market will help ensure that this
    country and every community within it has the proven technology
    necessary to meet air quality and climate goals and serve the economy.
        Thank you again, for the great honor and privilege to speak to you
    all today. If I can provide any information to you on behalf of Cummins
    Inc. I would be honored to discuss this issue or any other issue with
    you or your staff.
                                    appendix
    Policy Recommendations
        As the Committee prepares policy recommendations to address the
    Heavy-Duty industry, energy diversity can be addressed and encouraged
    in the following ways:
    1. Funding
        Cummins supports robust funding for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to
    ensure dedicated funds for maintaining and improving highway, bridge
    and transit infrastructure. The following recommendations will ensure
    energy diversity and parity across all vehicles with a commitment to
    reliable and consistent funding of the HTF and modernizing the truck
    fleet with the cleanest, safest available vehicles.
         Policy Recommendations
              Repeal the 100-year-old 12% federal excise tax on
            Heavy Duty trucks to incentivize new truck purchases which
            modernize truck fleets.
              Support a mechanism for equal contribution to the HTF
            by drivers of all vehicles regardless of power source such as a
            Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) tax.
              Encourage greater public-private partnerships by
            implementing investment tax credits, raising the cap on private
            activity bonds and increasing flexibility for the TIFIA program
            for surface transportation projects so public project sponsors
            and private investors have the fullest possible range of
            financing options available.
                      Congress should authorize Qualified Tax
                    Credit Bonds for surface transportation projects under
                    Section 54A of the tax code.
              Extend tax credits that promote energy efficiency and
            diversity: the fuel cell vehicle tax credit, alternative fuels
            tax credit, the alternative fuel refueling infrastructure tax
            credit, and the energy production tax credit (Secs. 6426, 30B,
            30C, 45 and 48).
              Ensure favorable treatment of R&D expenditures in the
            Internal Revenue Code (IRC), including a robust R&D Tax Credit
            and a fair and efficient system of cost recovery for R&D
            expenses.
    2. Innovation
        Leadership in innovation is one of the most important factors for
    future of US manufacturing. Innovation makes the country and its
    businesses more productive, dynamic and competitive. At Cummins,
    innovation is ingrained in our culture, mission, vision and values. Our
    commitment to innovation dates back a century, to when Clessie Cummins
    first applied inventive ideas to improvements that advanced the diesel
    engine. These recommendations seek to increase support for foundational
    R&D and position America to compete and thrive globally in the
    innovation race, and pursue innovation inclusively.
         Policy Recommendations
              Funding for ARPA-E, EERE, and specifically the DOE
            Vehicle Technology program is valuable and should be increased
            and set to grow at 4 percent per year adjusted for inflation,
            reversing nearly a decade of decline.
              Support the Fueling America's Security and
            Transportation (FAST) with Electricity Act to provide a 30%
            federal tax credit for electric transportation options beyond
            passenger cars; provide a 30% federal tax credit for recharging
            and refueling stations and provide loan guarantees to support
            capital investments in associated domestic manufacturing
            capacity.
    3. Transit and Passenger Rail
        Investing in US transportation infrastructure can greatly improve
    the efficacy and use of public transit and passenger rail. This
    investment can encourage ridership, promote ease of access and make
    regional mass transit more sustainable for communities and the
    environment. Increasing public funding for bus, commuter and passenger
    rail systems will release private investments to expand capacity,
    reduce highway congestion, link rural and suburban communities safely
    and mitigate the impacts to our environment.
         Policy Recommendations:
              Provide predictable, dedicated and sustainable
            funding for capital investment in bus, commuter and passenger
            rail systems.
                      Include a Phase II of the Alternative Fuel
                    Corridors (AFC) program which supports infrastructure
                    for alternatives to gasoline like natural gas and
                    hydrogen powered vehicles.
                      Include Diesel Exhaust Fluid as a component
                    of AFCs at rail yards to increase adoption of EPA Tier
                    4 clean locomotives.
                      Provide matching funds to states for
                    installation of clean re-fueling infrastructure along
                    10 major AFC's annually through 2030.
              Reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
            (DERA).

        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Now we are going to move to members' questions. I am going
    to hold off until probably closer towards the end, so I would
    like to recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Castor and Ranking
    Member Graves.
        And thank you to our witnesses.
        This is a good conversation we are having today. We know
    that the transportation sector is a large contributor of
    anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that the
    hazardous air pollutants, particularly from diesel engines,
    disproportionately affect our vulnerable communities.
        In my home State of Oregon, they have recognized the public
    health risks of diesel trucks. The legislature just recently
    passed a bill to phase out older diesel engines with newer
    models by 2025 in the Portland metro area. And earlier this
    year, Daimler Trucks North America announced that it is going
    to begin manufacturing electric Freightliner trucks in
    Portland. They will be on the road by 2030. And these are
    important first steps to help mitigate the pollution from
    heavy-duty vehicles.
        In northwest Oregon, the district I am honored to
    represent, our mass transit agency, TriMet, recently launched
    their first all-electric buses, powered by 100-percent wind
    energy. TriMet estimates that the bus will reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions by 100 to 140 tons per year compared to their
    diesel fleet. The renewable-powered buses ease congestion and
    reduce air pollution as they smoothly cruise through the
    Northwest. It is very exciting. The transition, of course,
    benefits the environment but also the health and well-being of
    the communities.
        And I really encourage colleagues here today--you know, we
    heard about the costs, especially with things like buses. We
    need to consider, as well, the cost savings in terms of
    healthcare, job loss from people who are suffering from health
    conditions. So let's keep that in mind as we are crafting ideas
    and policies.
        Mr. Popple, you made several suggestions in your testimony
    about policy. What would be the best thing that Congress could
    do to incentivize the rapid deployment of zero-emission trucks
    and buses? And where do we need more research and development,
    investments in research and development, as well, to support
    our transition away from diesel to clean technologies?
        Mr. Popple. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate
    the question.
        I think the most important thing that we can do is continue
    with the programs that already exist. So I would say the
    number-one priority, from my perspective, would be to make sure
    that we have a long-term transportation bill, so a renewal of
    the FAST Act and continue the Low-No program.
        The reason that is so important is because there are
    applications that are relatively easy to electrify, like city
    buses and school buses. And what we typically see in bus and
    truck is the technology starts in depot-based vehicles like
    buses, it is perfected, and then it is transferred to trucking.
    So we saw that with natural gas and with propane. I think we
    are going to see the same thing in electric.
        So if we want momentum towards zero-emission heavy-duty
    vehicles, I think it is important to keep the momentum we
    already have on the applications where it makes sense today.
        Ms. Bonamici. And do we need more research and development
    in any particular areas?
        Mr. Popple. Absolutely. I think one of the new frontiers
    that we are eager to explore is this intersection between
    transportation and the grid. And the Department of Energy and
    the Department of Transportation should be seeking ways to
    create joint programs specifically around vehicle-to-grid
    technology.
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Mr. Popple. These are big batteries, and they enable the
    grid to be more resilient. For example, after a storm or an
    earthquake or a fire, electric school buses or city buses could
    be putting power back on to a down grid. That technology still
    needs research and development.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you.
        Mr. Logan, I co-chair the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus,
    and I really appreciate your testimony mentioning that by 2050
    ocean-going vessels alone will account for about 17 percent of
    emissions worldwide without significant efforts to decarbonize.
        And the electrification of the maritime industry is
    happening gradually. We know it is happening in Europe. Norway
    is leading the way. But in the United States, we are falling
    behind our international allies.
        I represent a district that is bordered by the Columbia
    River and the Pacific Ocean. I invite you all to visit. It is
    beautiful. But I am very concerned, obviously, about the
    effects of emissions from diesel-powered engines on our
    waterways and ecosystems.
        So what are the current barriers to electrifying the global
    shipping fleet? And how can we incentivize meaningful emissions
    reductions for the maritime industry?
        Mr. Logan. So I think the biggest obstacle is the fact that
    this is a sector that is regulated internationally. And so
    really having Congress urge our representatives that sit in
    those bodies to really step up and push the international
    community to advance technologies in ocean-going vessels, that,
    along with incentives, I think can move us light-years ahead of
    where we are today.
        Ms. Bonamici. And I mentioned Norway. Are there other
    places that are really out in front in this transition?
        Mr. Logan. I would have to get back to you on that.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mrs. Miller, good morning. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Castor and Ranking Member
    Graves.
        And thank all of you all for being here today.
        The transportation industry in West Virginia is critical to
    ensure that our goods can make it across the Nation and around
    the world. West Virginia has the sixth-largest highway system
    in our country. My hometown of Huntington has one of the
    largest inland water ports in the Nation. That along with our
    trucks and our rail help ensure that West Virginia natural
    resources are able to power the world.
        Mr. Satterthwaite, can you talk about what Cummins has done
    under the EPA Phase 1 greenhouse gas rule and what you plan on
    doing under Phase 2?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the
    question.
        Cummins has worked collaboratively with the EPA over many
    years. Starting in 2009, as I said, we were engaged with the
    development of the first round of Phase 1 greenhouse gas. We
    have now come to an agreement, the industry and EPA, on Phase 2
    greenhouse gas, which will further lower greenhouse gas
    emissions of heavy-duty vehicles through 2027.
        These reductions are significant. Today's diesel engines
    are cleaner than ever. And through the latest generation of
    cleanest trucks on the road, we have reduced--59 million tons
    of CO2 has been eliminated since 2011 on the basis
    of improvements in diesel-engine greenhouse gas emissions.
        Mrs. Miller. Can you discuss how Cummins has helped
    innovate in the heavy-duty transportation sector to increase
    energy diversity and help protect the environment?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Cummins, as I mentioned in my testimony,
    has been investing in many technologies.
        We believe the best way to make short-term improvement in
    air pollution and greenhouse gas is to implement quickly
    improvements in diesel technology that have already been
    brought to market through programs like DERA and other programs
    that actually encourage customers to invest in newer vehicles
    and retire older vehicles.
        We have also made investments in battery-electric and fuel-
    cell technologies that we believe are a part of the future. And
    we continue to make those investments and believe there are
    parts of the commercial vehicle market where they are very
    appropriate and even economic at the current time.
        Mrs. Miller. So, basically, you don't rely on just one type
    of technology.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. That is correct, ma'am.
        Mrs. Miller. Okay.
        How would a technology-forcing mandate hinder innovation in
    the heavy-duty sector?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. A technology-forcing mandate would
    require customers to use a technology that might not be
    appropriate for their specific application.
        And this is what we believe--the commercial vehicle market,
    the heavy-duty transportation sector has a wide variety of
    customer needs, from long-haul, over-the-road trucking, to
    short-term pickup and delivery, to the rail system. And we
    believe each of those applications in the future may benefit
    from a different technology, all with the intention of driving
    towards a cleaner and better future, but not all from a single
    technology.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
        Does cost play a major role in businesses' decisions to
    utilize specific technology?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I believe so. I believe cost plays a
    major role. And I think all businesses consider cost, both
    OPEX, as we say, operating cost, and CAPEX, capital cost. And
    some of the tradeoffs we are talking about is the tradeoff
    between capital cost and operating cost for every business.
        Mrs. Miller. So what other major factors do businesses rely
    upon when deciding which type of power is best to utilize?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. In the customers that I work with, one
    of the first things that they worry about is reliability and
    support. Does the technology work, and when it doesn't, can I
    get it fixed quickly and easily and effectively?
        That is essentially what my part of the business at Cummins
    does. We repair products in the field. And it is a common
    conversation with customers and a concern they have. Again,
    they have business to do, they have work to do every day. And
    new technologies are interesting for them; what they really
    want to do is reliably run their business.
        Mrs. Miller. Absolutely.
        What technology do you see the industry mainly relying upon
    in 10 years from now?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. One of the things I like about the
    future is it is hard to predict. And at Cummins, we don't know.
    And so our approach has been to invest in a portfolio of
    technologies and to understand how each of those technologies--
    their relative benefits, their relatives costs, and understand
    how the industry might evolve.
        We do not believe there will be a single technology winner
    in the future. Our view of the future of the heavy-duty
    transportation sector is it will be a multi-technology, multi-
    fuel industry in the future. And so we are trying to become a
    major player across that portfolio.
        Mrs. Miller. All of the above. Thank you so much.
        I will give back my 5 whole seconds.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And before I begin, I wanted to ask unanimous consent that
    a copy of CALSTART's Federal policy which has just come out and
    their recommendations on medium and heavy-duty vehicles and
    calling for a national clean truck and corridor initiative be
    added to the record.
        Ms. Castor. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                                   __________

                           Submission for the Record

                         Representative Julia Brownley

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

                                    CALSTART

                  National Clean Truck and Corridor Initiative

    federal investment to drive clean trucks and corridors--the time is now
        While essential to the nation's goods movement industry, trucks are
    also one of the nation's largest single sources of air pollution,
    greenhouse-gas emissions, and users of diesel fuel. Given the scope of
    the trucking industry, the resulting impacts are felt in every region
    and impact every resident. Fortunately, technology can provide
    solutions that address these issues, while making the trucking sector
    even stronger. A new national effort focused on expanding clean truck
    highway corridors and incentivizing the deployment of clean trucks will
    not only contribute to compliance with clean air standards, it would
    also expand domestic vehicle and component manufacturing and highway
    corridor construction jobs while providing U.S. based vehicle
    manufacturers a competitive global advantage. Transforming the trucking
    industry will require a three-pronged approach including vehicle
    acquisition incentives, Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)
    and new (alternative fueling/charging) highway infrastructure. CALSTART
    and its 200 plus member companies are calling for a national Clean
    Truck and Corridor Initiative that would promote U.S. energy
    independence, climate security, domestic advanced manufacturing, job
    creation and healthier lives.
        The timing is right for a National Clean Truck and Corridor
    (infrastructure) Initiative. Over the past decade the costs of electric
    propulsion systems, including batteries, have come down dramatically.
    The performance of fuel cell technologies has improved significantly
    and engines using low carbon fuels have now achieved ultra-low NOx
    emission levels. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to further strengthen
    pollution standards for trucks and buses. Concurrently, global
    companies are making major investments and are beginning to deploy zero
    emission commercial vehicles around the world. China currently has the
    lead with more than 300,000 electric trucks and buses operating in
    major cities today. This industry is still nascent, and the United
    States, its manufacturers and suppliers, can be leaders, producing
    thousands of jobs while enabling the entire country to meet the federal
    air quality standards established in the late 1970's.
        For the United States to lead in this sector, the Clean Truck and
    Corridor Initiative could provide investments in three critical areas.
    First, there is a need to bring existing zero, and near-zero emission
    products to the market which can be accomplished through purchase
    incentives, using a model proven to be successful in several states.
    Second, there is a need to assist U.S. manufacturers and suppliers in
    developing the next generation of technology so that zero and near-zero
    emission trucks and buses can be available in a larger number of
    segments and applications. Third, there is a need to expand corridors
    with zero emission refueling and recharging stations. Together, these
    three program elements would transform trucking and position U.S.
    companies to grow and compete globally. Further detail on these three
    categories is provide below.
        helping fleets transition today--providing a national purchase
                                   incentive
        The zero- and near-zero emission truck market is rapidly growing,
    offering several technology options for fleets. While having a higher
    upfront purchase price, zero to near-zero emission trucks are proving
    to have a lower total cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle.
    Similar to the zero-emission passenger car market, incentives are
    needed to jump-start the zero- to near-zero emission truck market to
    encourage fleets to purchase these advanced and cleaner vehicles. A
    federal incentive program could transform this industry in the next 5-
    10 years, build a stronger domestic industry that provides high quality
    manufacturing jobs, while dramatically improving air quality along
    congested freight corridors. An investment of $20 billion over six
    years could replace more than 400,000 diesel fueled trucks with near-
    and-zero emission trucks by 2025.
        A voucher incentive program (VIP)\1\ to incentivize clean truck
    purchases has proven effective in large regional markets because of its
    streamlined `point of sale' discount approach. In Illinois, New York,
    and California voucher incentives have led to the purchase of more than
    6,000 battery-electric, fuel cell, hybrid, and ultra-low NOx natural
    gas vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\  A Voucher Incentive Program (VIP) is a streamlined process
    that applies the vehicle incentive at the point of purchase. Under a
    VIP program, the manufacturer pre-qualifies its vehicles with the
    entity managing the program and vendors are approved to submit voucher
    requests on behalf of purchasers. A voucher is redeemed to the vendor
    once all paper work is submitted and the vehicle is delivered to the
    purchaser. Fleets greatly prefer this process over the costly and
    lengthy process that includes 9-12 months of proposal development and
    review, award selection, and contract negotiations. Fleets also prefer
    the VIP process over tax credits as their true monetary value usually
    gets lost in corporate accounting and does not impact the budgets of
    most fleet directors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Zero- to near-zero emission trucks that are currently available or
    are soon to become commercially available include:
               Hybrid-Electric cargo vans, delivery trucks, and
            utility ``bucket'' trucks;
               Low NOx Natural Gas refuge, drayage, and long-haul
            trucks;
               Battery-Electric delivery, regional and yard trucks;
               Class 7-8 Battery Electric Drayage trucks; and
               Hydrogen fuel cell long haul tractor-trailers.
        Federal incentives in these targeted areas--where early market
    success is most likely--would help build volumes and lower costs over
    the next 5-7 years. Once greater economies of scale are achieved,
    Federal incentives would not be needed and could be scaled back and
    eventually eliminated.
    Recommendation: Create a grant program within the CMAQ program to
            establish a Voucher Incentive Program. Require States to
            administer the grant program using current programs as models.
     research, development & demonstration--making tomorrow's trucks better
        To transform the goods movement industry in the next 10 years,
    federal funding is required to support the research, development and
    demonstration (RD&D) of advanced technologies to make high-efficiency,
    zero-emissions, and longer-range technologies more affordable and
    viable. RD&D investments would help U.S. companies develop a diversity
    of high-quality products and be in a better position to compete in the
    global truck and bus market which exceeds $1 trillion in annual
    revenue. Based on analysis done for state agencies, CALSTART projects a
    need for federal RD&D investment of about $250 million/year from 2020
    to 2025. Approximately 30-40% of the funds should be allocated to
    technology development and demonstrations, and the remaining 60-70%
    would be allocated to major pilot deployment projects where both
    fleets, suppliers, and manufacturers can test and improve the product.
    Most of the funds should be focused on the larger trucks that consume
    the bulk of the fuel in the market.
        While we recommend that these RD&D funds be predominately spent on
    RD&D to advance the truck industry, Congress should include language so
    that some of the funds could be used for two related purposes. Zero
    emission transit buses are rapidly gaining market share in the United
    States. Additional RD&D investments in zero emission buses would help
    address key issues such as performance in cold weather and
    infrastructure resilience. In addition, the technology development of
    the Maritime Administration should be boosted to $10 million year to
    leverage the technology being deployed in near- and zero emission buses
    and apply it to the nearshore marine vessel sector.
    Recommendation: Provide $250 million in additional annual funding for
            FHWA, FTA and MARAD research, development and demonstration
            programs to support technology development for clean trucks,
            buses and nearshore marine vessels.
     expanding clean corridors--alternative fuel infrastructure to enable
                                 clean trucking
        Expanding our national alternative fuel corridors is critical to
    enabling clean vehicle adoption. Through the Federal Highway
    Administration's Alternative Fuel Corridor Designation Program, 46
    states including the District of Columbia have submitted nominations
    for corridors for 100 interstates, 76 US highways and state roads, of
    135,000 miles across all fuels (electric, hydrogen, natural gas and
    propane as selected by the local jurisdiction). While this designation
    allows for highway signage, significant gaps in charging and refueling
    infrastructure exist. Less than one percent of the truck stops in the
    country have zero-emission fueling stations.
        Trucks stop operators, utilities, and third-party providers are
    eager to build the truck power infrastructure of the future, and
    federal investment would play a vital and catalytic role. Federal
    funding would significantly leverage and encourage additional
    investments from the utility and private sectors. A key outcome of this
    investment would be a new or revamped network of truck stops providing
    100 percent domestic clean fuels and energy for our nation's trucks.
    Unlike today, the truckers taking part in this program would no longer
    need to rely on imported fuel, thereby lowering the nation's trade
    deficit and supporting domestic jobs.
        Based on initial estimates, we anticipate the total investment
    needed to convert the nation's trucking infrastructure to zero or near-
    zero emission fuels to be between $50-100 billion over the next decade.
    Federal investment of $20 billion over that time period would leverage
    non-federal investment on a 4:1 basis.
    Recommendation: Expand the current FHWA Alternative Fuel Corridor
            program to not only designate corridors but to establish a
            grant program for the installation of alternative fuel
            infrastructure. Authorize the grants in lieu of tax credit of
            the Treasury Department Section 1603 program.
                           summary--targeted outcomes
        If the U.S. Congress were to move forward with the proposed
    National Clean Truck & Corridor Initiative, there would be major
    benefits in the near- and long-term future for the country. Below are
    some of the expected outcomes from such a program:
               Nationally, NOx emissions, the primary source of air
            pollution in urban areas, would be reduced by 150,000 tons and
            due to cleaner truck product availability, the nation would be
            in a strong position to be in full compliance, for the first
            time, with the federal air quality standards that were
            established in the late 1970's;
               Diesel fuel consumption would be reduced by 19
            billion gallons by 2025, and the U.S. would be on a trajectory
            to eliminate imported diesel by the end of the decade, thus
            reducing the trade deficit and contributing to a declining
            geopolitical significance of oil producing nations that don't
            share our values;
               Total greenhouse gas emissions from the trucking
            sector would decline by 72 metric tons by 2025, placing the
            U.S. in a leadership position and supporting the commitments
            made under the global climate accord established in 2016;
               Fleets would save approximately $20 billion in fuel
            costs by 2025, with savings projected to expand exponentially
            from 2026-2035 as the market for zero- and near-zero emission
            trucks grow; and
               U.S. truck makers and suppliers would be increasing
            their market share and in a strong position to compete
            globally.
        For further information on this concept, please contact CALSTART's
    Alycia Gilde, Director, Fuels and Infrastructure at
    agilde@calstart.org.

        Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
        Mr. Popple, I wanted to thank you first for, at least in
    your written testimony, highlighting my Green Bus Act. I
    appreciate that very much. And I have a bill that says that any
    buses purchased with Federal funds be zero-emission by 2029.
    And it also increases funding for the Low and No Emission that
    you made reference to in your public testimony. So I thank you
    for that, and I hope that I can get members of the committee to
    sign on to my bill.
        In the staff report--and we have great staff. The staff
    report states that, while there are 300 electric transit buses
    in the United States, there are 2,250 electric transit buses in
    Europe and 421,000 electric buses in China.
        So I wanted to ask you, what do you think it is going to
    take in the United States to be a global leader? You made
    reference in your testimony that we have that opportunity to be
    a global leader. We seem to be terribly behind at the moment.
    But what is it going to take for us to truly be a global
    leader?
        Mr. Popple. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        I think the status of our progression towards more advanced
    technologies in the medium and the heavy-duty sector has a lot
    to do with our Nation's traditional focus on the light-duty
    sector. So a lot of our policy early on and innovation early on
    was focused on cars. I think the U.S. has the best electric
    vehicle technology. We have the best battery technology. We
    have the best engineers. And we are just starting to apply that
    to the heavy-duty sector.
        I also think that other countries that have already done
    this demonstrate that there isn't technology risk or science
    risk in taking sectors like buses and completely electrifying
    them. We just need to focus on it and set tougher standards for
    emissions for those sectors like China and Europe have.
        Ms. Brownley. And with regards to CNG buses, I am just
    curious--I know, Ms. Romero, you talked about our school buses.
    I was a school board member way back in the day, and I know
    that our fleet, at that point in the early 2000s, were
    transitioning to CNG buses from traditional diesel buses.
        Do we have any idea, when we talk about our bus fleet, you
    know, what percentage is CNG? I understand that zero emissions
    is where we need to go, but there are somewhat cleaner buses
    out there than diesel buses. And I don't have any sense of, in
    terms of school buses, you know, what percentage are CNG. I
    know that the Federal Government had offered some opportunities
    back in the early 2000s.
        Ms. Romero. Yeah. I don't have the exact statistics for
    compressed natural gas buses. But I do know that, out of the
    nearly 500 million school buses on the roads in the U.S., about
    90 percent of those are run on diesel--so it is still very
    significant--and about 60 to 65 percent of our public buses.
        Ms. Brownley. And the cost comparison between an electric
    bus and a CNG bus, does anybody have any data on that?
        Ms. Romero. It can still be about twice--go ahead.
        Mr. Popple. On the transit side, we see a basic diesel bus
    around a half a million dollars; a CNG bus can be up to
    $600,000; and hybrids and electrics are $700,000 to $800,000.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Logan, in your testimony, you talked about the
    good things that are happening in Long Beach and L.A. and
    bringing the environmental justice community together along
    with leadership in both cities.
        I also know that in the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach
    they have required that trucks utilizing the port meet certain
    clean emissions standards, and they have progressively gotten
    stricter over time. And I think they have made some, you know,
    major improvements to that.
        Can you talk about, you know, lessons learned around that
    initiative and what the Federal Government could do to
    incentivize more of that? I have 11 seconds--10 seconds left.
        Mr. Logan. Absolutely.
        So I think one is just coupling incentives with mandates
    through, for instance, at the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach,
    within their leases, requiring the shippers to go to lower-
    emission trucks and eventually to zero-emission trucks.
        I think the lesson learned is that it was done, that we
    were able to do that, that the sky did not fall, that business
    continued to move forward and there was profit to be made, and
    folks are actually being able to implement the program without
    any blips in the system.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. Armstrong, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Commodity-based economies like North Dakota, we like
    trucks, we like pipelines, we like rails, we like everything.
    The geographic distribution of agricultural products and
    natural resources and energy production necessitate the
    transportation of products to consumer States--New York, Texas,
    California, Oregon--from States that are production States. And
    as far as I know, we look at availability, reliability, and
    cost.
        We already suffer from a bigger basis differential on our
    agricultural products in North Dakota. We have a discount for
    transportation on oil and natural gas. And I think it is
    important that when we have this conversation we talk about it
    in the scenario of--we talk about all-of-the-above energy, but
    we like all-of-the-above transportation as well.
        So as we continue to do this and move forward, we also see
    repeated opposition to pipelines and rail transport, which are
    also necessary to move our products. Rail transport accounts
    for just over 2 percent of the global greenhouse gases.
    Pipelines, right around the same, just over 2 percent. But, I
    mean, last month, we passed an amendment on the floor of the
    House that essentially banned the transportation of liquefied
    natural gas by rail across this country. I mean, we constantly
    see different States across the country fighting against
    putting pipelines in the ground, which, regardless of how you
    feel about everything else, it is a cleaner, safer way to move
    a lot of this transportation.
        So, Mr. Satterthwaite, what is the timeline for bringing
    heavy-duty electric vehicle technology to the market,
    specifically, like, Class 8 or higher?
        I mean, we are talking about buses, and I am going to get
    into infrastructure if I have enough time. But, I mean, we need
    to move heavy product, whether it is cows, grain, or oil and
    natural gas.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I hope I am not disappointing you by
    saying I don't know when.
        Mr. Armstrong. No. I thought that would be the answer.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Currently, we see three major challenges
    to implementing battery-electric technology in heavy-duty
    trucks.
        The first is energy density of batteries. Essentially, in
    order to have a tractor head that would have the same range and
    the same power as today's diesel engine and fuel tank, we would
    need to increase by weight a factor of three to five in order
    to accommodate enough batteries to give that same power and
    that same range. And so that is both a cost and a weight
    penalty in the trucking industry.
        So improvements in energy density of batteries are one of
    the significant things that has to happen before battery-
    electric technology can play a significant role in heavy-duty
    trucks.
        Mr. Armstrong. And I think that is important, because we
    just talked about infrastructure and layout, but one of the
    things we have to talk about is road restrictions. And, I mean,
    we talk about infrastructure packages, but those are borne by
    local, State, and county--or, I mean, counties when we do this.
        We had an oil boom in western North Dakota. We had one of
    the largest infrastructure packages in our history. But one of
    the things that we required western counties to do was to bring
    their roadway to a higher threshold so we didn't have to go
    back and fix every road 2 years later. I mean, there is always
    maintenance, but--so, when we are talking about that, I mean,
    this essentially moves the needle all across the country on
    road load. I mean, am I right?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. If you force electric technology into
    heavy-duty, over-the-road trucks, then you will need to address
    all the other infrastructure--roads, weights, battery charging
    stations. And so there is an awful lot of impact on the
    infrastructure if you force the technology.
        I think, again, if you put a mandate out there that says we
    want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions moving the same freight
    the same distance, the question is, what other technologies are
    available and how can the market respond to that, including
    addressing infrastructure questions.
        Mr. Armstrong. And I don't disagree with that. And I think
    it also includes--I mean, competition breeds low--the problem
    with all of this is eventually it gets passed on to the
    consumer. I mean, farmers and ranchers have been doing this for
    200 years, longer than that in my State, and they have never
    seen inputs go down, they have never seen the cost of
    transportation go down.
        And as we continue to bring this up, we talk about all of
    those things, but if we push this too fast at the same time as
    we are excluding other modes of transportation, then the cost
    to the producer and the cost to the consumer is going to go up.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I agree. And, in effect, instead of a
    technology-forcing mandate, I think you are trying to warn
    against mode-of-transportation-forcing mandates. And I do
    agree, there are more efficient ways to move certain types of
    goods around the U.S. than the heavy-duty trucking industry. It
    has become very efficient, but there is no doubt, there are
    more efficient ways to move certain commodities.
        Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, depending on where you are trying to
    get them, absolutely.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Today's topic is such an important aspect of the
    conversation around fighting climate change, given, as the
    chair articulated, that the transportation sector really is the
    largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
    States.
        There were a few references to the State of Colorado in the
    testimony. I happen to represent Colorado's Second
    Congressional District. And at the State level, I am very proud
    that Colorado was the 11th State, the first landlocked State,
    to adopt the Zero Emission Vehicle, or ZEV, program, following
    California's lead, which will ensure that 9 percent of vehicles
    sold in Colorado by 2025 are plug-in, hybrid, and electric.
    This rule alone is estimated to prevent 2.2 million metric tons
    of carbon dioxide and save our State $1.1 billion.
        At the Federal level, I just want to note, I am very proud
    to support efforts happening in this chamber to drive down the
    transportation emissions as well. And, in particular, I want to
    applaud the leadership of my good friend and colleague from
    California, Mr. Levin, for introducing the Zero-Emission
    Vehicles Act, or the ZEV Act. And I am proud to be an original
    cosponsor on that bill.
        Just to give you a sense of why this matters a great deal
    to me and to the folks that I represent, in my home State of
    Colorado, some folks might be familiar with the struggles we
    have had with respect to air quality in the Denver metro area.
    Denver experiences what is known as a brown cloud, so a layer
    of smog over the city, caused by weather patterns and local
    sources of pollution, including transportation.
        And just this past March, just 3 months ago, Denver's air
    quality index, at one point, was at a level three times worse
    than Beijing. That is sobering and underscores the need for
    this committee and this Congress to take drastic and, I think,
    significant action and really show leadership on this front.
        And so, again, I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses
    today and appreciate your willingness to engage in this
    important conversation.
        Ms. Romero, I wanted to follow up on some of the points you
    made in both your written testimony and in your oral testimony.
        As reported by the IPCC in 2018, we only have 11 years to
    make drastic cuts in our emissions in order to avoid
    irreversible global consequences from climate change.
        You mention in your testimony the impact that tailpipe
    emissions and greenhouse gases have on children, negatively
    impacting their health and contributing to greater rates of
    asthma.
        With transportation as the number-one source of carbon
    emissions in the U.S. and the fact that 55 percent of K-
    through-12 students take a bus to school every day, there is a
    distinct need to eliminate the pollution our kids are exposed
    to when they ride diesel buses to school every day. You
    mentioned some of the efforts that have happened in my home
    State of Colorado on this front.
        I am curious if you could expound on what you described in
    your testimony of ways in which we could further incentivize
    the electrification of diesel buses and other steps that you
    might recommend we take as a Congress.
        Ms. Romero. Yeah. Thank you for the question.
        You know, to mobilize the resources we need to make this
    transition, it is going to take a combination of public funding
    and private finance. Our partners at Clean Energy Works
    estimates that it would take $6 billion to cover the upfront
    cost barrier to electrify just 10 percent of the Nation's
    school bus fleet over the next 5 years. So, in short, we really
    need that combination of public funding and private financing.
    But it is possible, right?
        I heard another witness talk about, you know, making sure
    that there is a fair playing field for different types of
    fuels. We have been propping up the fossil fuel industry for
    decades.
        And, Ms. Brownley, you asked, you know, what is it going to
    take to be a global competitor? It takes investing in cutting-
    edge technology. You know, when you have the iPhone 8, 9 and
    10, you don't want the iPhone 4, 5 and 6 anymore. We have the
    technologies here; we need to deploy these solutions.
        And so it is about equaling the playing field and helping
    school districts bridge the gap for that upfront cost so that
    they can benefit from the fuel and maintenance cost savings.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Romero.
        And thank you, again, to the witnesses today.
        And I would yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Satterthwaite, based on your experience with Cummins,
    do you think a single energy solution, like going all electric,
    will be able to meet the various needs of your customers?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    No, I do not.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you think consumers have some needs that are
    better served by traditional sources and some demands that are
    better served by electric? Is there some balance there?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I believe so, specifically today. As I
    have said a couple times, I think the future is uncertain, but
    today I think there are certain applications where battery-
    electric technology is capable, available, and economic. Not
    all.
        How that changes over the future, I think, is what makes my
    life interesting and my day job very interesting. Will the
    right technology for the future be cleaner diesel? Natural gas?
    Fuel cells? Battery-electric? This is what we work on every
    day. And, frankly, there isn't an answer right now.
        Mr. Palmer. We build CNG-powered trucks at Autocar in my
    district for trash trucks. And, obviously, their power demands
    for those type trucks are smaller than some of our bigger
    freight-transfer trucks. And I do have some concerns about this
    effort to go to 100-percent renewable and how that would impact
    not only the reliability of the system but also the cost for
    electric vehicles. It is not free.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. It is not free.
        And I would say that the customers that I talk to share
    those concerns. Most of the customers I speak with have an
    interest in figuring out how to get to a lower-carbon, a lower-
    polluting operation of their own, and yet they are also worried
    about is the technology ready, is it appropriate for them.
        And in the meantime, we in the industry continue to make
    improvement to the diesel engine, improvements to the natural
    gas engine, which continue to take carbon out of the air and
    reduce pollution on an annual basis through working with the
    EPA and CARB.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, it is not going to completely remove
    carbon from--even if we go to 100-percent renewables and 100-
    percent electric vehicles, it is not going to completely remove
    carbon from the atmosphere.
        I want to talk about another aspect of this, and I think
    Congressman Armstrong touched on it a little bit, and that is
    the weight aspect of this. And I am concerned about going to
    pilotless vehicles and how that is going to impact our
    infrastructure.
        Because most of us--and I know nobody in this room texts
    while they drive, but even if you are not distracted, you are
    varying your position in a lane. You change lanes, but even if
    you stay in the same lane, you don't stay in the same spot. If
    we add to the weight of freight vehicles and we go to pilotless
    vehicles, they are going to be in one spot. And it is going to
    basically rut the aggregate that we are now using.
        Do you see that as an issue, a problem, particularly in
    your industry?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Sir, I am afraid you may have gotten out
    of my area of expertise in terms of trucks and roads. I don't
    know.
        I think, to the earlier Congressman's comment, I do think
    the infrastructure of this country, the roads in particular,
    will need to be addressed, and heavier trucks definitely will
    have an impact at some point. I am not an expert and really
    able to comment on exactly how that is going to happen.
        Mr. Palmer. That is something that I have been focusing on,
    been working on. Down at Auburn University, they have a center
    where they are testing various types of aggregate. They have a
    big test track. And one of the interesting things is that--one
    of my concerns is how do we clean up the coal ash. And they are
    using coal ash now as part of the aggregate. You don't lose any
    of the heavy metals, they don't leach into the ground, but it
    hardens the asphalt, and I think that is going to be a big
    deal.
        As of today--and this will be my last question--there are
    more than 30 counties in California that are out of compliance
    with not just one but multiple Federal air quality standards in
    the Clean Air Act despite all of the regulations that
    California has in place. There are numerous other California
    counties that are in violation of one of the air quality
    standards. And many have been out of compliance for decades,
    and it is unclear when, if ever, some will come into
    compliance. For reference, Alabama does not have a single
    county out of compliance.
        So my question would be, does it make sense to apply more
    regulations to the transportation industry when that doesn't
    appear to be working in heavily regulated States like
    California?
        And this is EPA data I have here.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I think it is a responsibility of
    industry and Cummins sees it as a responsibility of industry to
    continue to improve technology to have better outcomes for all
    American citizens.
        I do think there is scope, and the EPA is appropriate to
    continue to push the industry on what it is capable of and
    asking us to deliver better for the American people across the
    country.
        Mr. Palmer. Be smarter.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This is a great conversation. I want to thank the witnesses
    and thank the chair for setting this up.
        And I am interested in the technology we are talking about.
    Those of us who think we are in a climate crisis, many of us
    believe we have to start identifying areas in which we simply
    don't need to burn fossil fuel because we have alternative
    technology that can help us move forward.
        And what I am trying to understand--and I want to start
    with you, Mr. Satterthwaite, because you are really at the
    fulcrum of these heavy vehicles that have always relied on
    internal combustion and fossil fuels--is whether we can
    reimagine that technology in a way that doesn't burn fossil
    fuel.
        And I am not talking about natural gas, because, as I take
    a look at that, I don't think we have time for fake solutions.
    And, quite honestly, yes, it has less of a carbon profile in
    the burning end of the system, but if you add in the fugitive
    methane, which we think is somewhere between 1 and 9 percent,
    at 3\1/2\-percent methane loss, it is just as bad as coal.
        So, if we are serious about this crisis, we've got to
    identify places where we don't need to use fossil fuel and move
    on to new, clean technologies.
        Can we do that with the type of heavy vehicles that you
    have been such a leader in working on, if we decide that we
    just have to go beyond fossil fuel to clean technology?
        And let me just say that I have worked with Cummins in the
    past when I was a California legislator. I know you are
    innovators. I worked with a division of yours called Cle-Air
    that did these wonderful retrofit devices for school buses that
    dramatically reduced the particulate matter. So I am impressed
    with your track record in this area. I just want to hear your
    thoughts on whether we can reimagine this technology.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you, Congressman. I will say that
    much of Cle-Air's work was funded by the DERA act. So I just
    wanted to make sure you knew that that is how that work was
    done in California.
        I would argue Cummins is reimagining the future. If you
    look across the industry, last year, the first company to show
    an electric truck was Cummins. And so we are currently trying
    to do exactly that, imagine what a future would look like in a
    very different state. And part of the challenge, of course, is
    we are trying to do this economically at both a capital cost
    and an operating cost level.
        So we are asking ourselves all those questions. We strongly
    believe the future will be multi-technology; it won't a single
    technology. And yet, in the path to get there, we will need to
    make improvements today and in the future.
        And I think what I don't want to miss is the opportunity to
    make improvements today, in light of trying to, you know, go
    for gold, if you will, with zero emissions in the future and
    ignore the opportunity to make significant emissions reductions
    today.
        Mr. Huffman. But I think I am hearing you say there is
    nothing about these heavy vehicles and heavy equipment that you
    have been powering that precludes going to fossil-free
    technology?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. At a certain point in time, at a certain
    cost, at a certain reliability. But the technology is
    developing. I would argue to say it is not fully developed, but
    it is developing. And there are many forces in the industry
    that are pushing it. And Cummins is also with those forces,
    moving it along as well.
        Mr. Huffman. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Popple, the other concern I have about this climate
    crisis is that we are way behind some other countries that seem
    to be taking it much more seriously. We have seen the numbers
    on electric buses. China is light-years ahead of us on
    deploying this technology.
        I recently took a trip to Sweden as part of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. They are
    reimagining their highway system to address some of the
    limitations of electrifying heavy trucks. And they are piloting
    some charge-as-you-drive technologies, where the actual
    transportation infrastructure of the country would help solve
    the problem of battery density and battery weight.
        What can we do in this country to reclaim the mantle of
    leadership in this crisis when we talk about heavy vehicles
    like buses and trucks?
        Mr. Popple. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
        I think we really should focus on economic productivity and
    return to that being the focus of the investments we make. I
    think there is a false tradeoff that is depicted between clean
    innovation and economic efficiency.
        On the bus side, on an apples-to-apples basis, if you power
    a bus with an electric system, you use 2,000 watt-hours per
    mile. If you use diesel, you use 10,000 watt-hours per mile. So
    those countries that have already moved past legacy
    technologies in some of their transportation systems, they have
    8,000 watt-hours per mile of free economic value to put into a
    data center or put into industry.
        The other thing I would mention is that, from a light-
    weighting perspective, some of the sectors are already getting
    there, where the electric vehicle is at the same weight or
    lighter than the combustion vehicle. So a Proterra battery-
    electric bus with a carbon-fiber body is lighter than a CNG
    bus.
        So, as long as we make sure, as my colleague pointed out,
    that the technologies are ready to go and have reached product
    market fit, there are huge economic productivity gains to be
    had.
        Mr. Huffman. Great. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank all of you for being here.
        Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of
    representing the First Congressional District of Georgia, which
    includes the whole coast of Georgia. It is over 100 miles of
    pristine coastline. And it includes two major seaports, the
    Port of Savannah, which is the second-busiest container port on
    the Eastern Seaboard, as well as the Port of Brunswick, which
    is the number-two roll-on/roll-off port in the country.
        The Port of Savannah is one of the fastest-growing ports in
    the world. In fact, for a short period of time there, they were
    the third-fastest-growing port in the world. Only two ports in
    China were growing faster.
        I mention that because obviously they are growing at a very
    high rate of speed, but they are also taking great initiatives
    in saving fuel. In fact, the Georgia Ports Authority has saved
    over 2 million gallons of fuel annually just by electrifying
    their ship-to-shore cranes. And if you take all of the
    initiatives together, they are saving nearly 7 million gallons
    of fuel annually, which is significant, particularly for these
    growing ports.
        And one of their most critical benefits is that they have
    two first-class railroads right there on the ports, in the
    container port in Savannah, which really helps tremendously.
        You know, one of the initiatives, if you will, that the
    President has spoken about and that we in Congress have been
    speaking about is the infrastructure initiative. And,
    certainly, that is very important.
        I will direct this question to you, Mr. Satterthwaite, but,
    at the same time, anyone chime in here.
        Improving our infrastructure, particularly improving our
    roads and bridges, how would that make heavy-duty vehicles more
    efficient and, in turn, cleaner?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        I think the impact of infrastructure, particularly roads
    and bridges, on the heavy-duty industry, I think is in a couple
    of areas.
        One is that the sad state of our roads leads to more
    breakdowns and more customers who face interruptions to their
    business. Because, frankly, who of us hasn't driven over a
    pothole and popped a tire someplace. And if you are driving an
    18-wheeler rig, that is not only dangerous, it also stops that
    load and interrupts that wheel of commerce from moving. So
    making improvements will, initially at least, improve the
    efficiency with which goods move across the U.S.
        I think the next step is then what it enables us to do and
    how we use those investments. There are some countries around
    the world who are investing--as the Congressman said in Sweden,
    about changing how they think about the infrastructure. If you
    are upgrading it, I believe we may as well think long-term and
    ask ourselves what other types of improvements would we put in
    the infrastructure. Rather than just replacing what is there,
    how do we build for the future?
        So I think both those activities have big opportunity to
    improve the efficiency of our industry.
        Mr. Carter. Great.
        Well, let me mention, I was also on that trip to Sweden and
    witnessed the same thing that Jared witnessed, and it is very
    innovative and certainly something we need to be looking at.
        I want to also mention about my district--obviously, I am
    very proud of the district, but it also has a large rural area.
    South Georgia, rural south Georgia, is a large geographic area.
    And I believe some of my colleagues up here mentioned also
    about the effect that this might have on rural areas. And I
    want to make sure the rural areas aren't left behind. I want to
    make sure that they are included, because, you know, they
    have--make sure they have a seat at the table, because they
    have a big need for these heavy-duty vehicles.
        And how can we help them? What kind of challenges do you
    see? And, again, I will direct this to anyone who wants to jump
    in. But what kind of challenges do you see the rural
    communities having when compared to the urban cities in
    reducing emissions?
        Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, I will just jump in here. Thank
    you for the question.
        Based on my experience in working with some of the rural
    communities in California, you know, a lot of these communities
    don't have access, really, to local hospitals or even just to
    government services to do their regular business, you know,
    update and renew their driver's license and all of that sort of
    thing--right?--because the metropolitan areas are so far away.
        And so, in Huron, California, where my friend Rey Leon is
    the mayor, there is a 7,000-person town that takes 4 hours for
    them just to get to the nearest public hospital, because they
    have to take three buses. That is 4 hours one way; it takes 4
    hours back, with an hour to schedule your doctor appointment,
    right?
        So we do need to invest in public transportation in these
    areas and bringing buses to these areas. I am sure that there
    are some rural communities where the range will be more of a
    challenge, right?
        But, in Huron, what they are doing now is electric ride-
    share programs that the community has led to help connect
    people to services with clean-vehicle technology that doesn't
    pollute these areas.
        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you very much for your answer. And
    I do hope that we will remember the rural communities. This is
    extremely important for them as well.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
    holding this hearing today.
        And I am grateful for all the witnesses for coming today.
        As we have discussed, the transportation sector is now the
    largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and auto emissions
    powerfully affect air quality and public health. Air pollution
    and climate change, both direct effects of tailpipe emissions,
    affect all Americans, but they disproportionately impact low-
    income communities, communities of color, and other vulnerable
    populations.
        Protecting these communities from dangerous air pollution
    and from the worst impacts of climate change is a moral
    imperative. I want to use my time to explore how we can best
    meet that responsibility.
        And, Mr. Logan, sir, if you don't mind, I will start off
    with you.
        Mr. Logan, environmental injustices in general and
    disparities in air pollution exposure in particular are a
    direct result of poor policymaking, and they cry out for a
    policy solution.
        For instance, I have the honor of sponsoring legislation to
    ensure the Federal Government considers the true impact of
    greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-benefit analysis. I believe
    that when we talk about the cost of fighting climate change, we
    also need to consider the public health costs of doing nothing.
        What might the full and fair accounting look like in
    practice? How can Congress promote it? And how can we ensure
    that we are mindful not just of how much good we do but also
    whom we help?
        Mr. Logan. Great. Thank you.
        So, first, I want to say that action needs to be taken, and
    action needs to be taken now. We know that we are in a climate
    crisis, and so actions definitely need to be taken.
        There is cost to transitioning to zero emissions, for sure.
    But there are costs of the impacts of the climate crisis,
    whether that is in agriculture or whether that is in public
    health in our communities. It is paramount that we look at
    resourcing communities that are disproportionately impacted.
        One of the reasons that we have the impacts in these
    communities is because that is where the activities are, this
    is where the operation is, in port and freight communities
    specifically.
        So, when we look at environmental justice, climate justice,
    through that lens and through the lens of equity, we need to
    make that we are investing in these communities to uplift them
    so that we can transition in a smart and just way.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
        Ms. Romero, in your testimony, you mentioned that vehicle
    pollution is linked with asthma. Childhood asthma, of course,
    is the top reason for missed schooldays nationwide. It can
    significantly affect children's quality of life and, in rare
    cases, can prove fatal.
        What is the best way for Congress to protect children from
    this harmful pollution? And how do we ensure that the benefits
    are concentrated in the communities that suffer the most?
        Ms. Romero. Yeah. Look, African Americans are three to four
    times more likely to be hospitalized and die from asthma.
        And I think, you know, what it is going to take--I heard
    Mr. Carter and other members really speak about the progress
    that we have made on cleaner fuels and, you know, making steps
    forward, with a sense of pride, and I could feel that.
        I think, though, if anyone has watched a game of
    basketball, when you have made the shot and you are sitting
    there holding your hands up after you have made the shot, being
    proud, and you stand there just a little too long, the rest of
    the team has already taken the ball and scored on you, right?
        So I think that I just want us to remember that we should
    be proud for the progress that we have made but we have a whole
    heck of a lot further to go, especially on the timeline that
    the IPCC report is telling us. And so we really need to
    accelerate and invest significant resources.
        Mr. McEachin. I like that analogy. Thank you.
        Mr. Popple, I heard people say that electric vehicles are
    only for wealthy individuals. Can you explain why people who do
    not own cars should be interested in the electrification of
    transportation and how even they would benefit from this trend?
        Mr. Popple. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
        One of the reasons why I first got involved with Proterra
    after starting my career in electric vehicles at Tesla Motors
    was that I saw the opportunity in the fleet-vehicle sector for
    us to deploy clean, electric vehicle technology into the most
    accessible form of transportation.
        So there are vehicle categories, specifically public
    transit buses and city buses, that are predominantly utilized
    by lower-income families. But we should also not forget about
    the fact that, whether you own a vehicle or not, you are paying
    the health cost of the truck or bus or car that drives past
    you.
        So I actually think that some of the best applications for
    EV go into the most utilitarian types of vehicles.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you for your answer.
        And, Madam Chair, I am now giving you 10 seconds back. I
    yield back.
        Ms. Castor. The chair thanks you.
        The ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Logan, let me ask you a question. You are in charge of
    climate for the whole country. We give you a billion dollars.
    What do you do?
        Ms. Romero. It is going to take a lot more than a billion
    dollars, right? It----
        Mr. Graves. I know, but----
        Ms. Romero. Is going to take all of that.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Logan, what do you do?
        Mr. Logan. So I would say the same point. A billion dollars
    is a significant amount of money, but we definitely need to go
    beyond that globally and in the United States.
        But couple that, you know, really feeding that into
    incentive programs, couple it with regulatory measures, I think
    that that gets----
        Mr. Graves. Incentive programs to do what?
        Mr. Logan. To deploy zero-emission vehicles, especially in
    the heavy-duty sector.
        I think, to the point that, you know, not one particular
    technology is going to get us to where we need to be, zero-
    emissions is definitely needed. We definitely need to move
    toward zero-emissions, whether that is fuel cell or other types
    of technology. But there is a cost to doing nothing, right?
        And electric vehicles is an over-100-year-old technology.
    Over 10 years ago, we put a robot on Mars. We can do this. We
    have the technology, we have the know-how, and we have the
    innovation.
        Again, with regulatory measures, backed up with incentive
    programs, we can get there.
        Ms. Romero. And if I can add, as important as the ``what''
    is the ``where'' and the ``who.'' And so I would take that
    billion dollars and I would prioritize underserved and
    pollution-burdened communities, whether urban, rural, et
    cetera, so that we can help these clean-technology companies
    actually break through the market barriers.
        It is easy for the early adopters. It is easy for the rich
    guys on the coasts--right?--to afford the Tesla as a toy car.
    That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a
    green economy that benefits every American all across the
    country, starting with those who need it most.
        Mr. Graves. You know, the thing that just--it is
    fascinating to me. I heard, Mr. Popple, you said that we need
    to look at economic productivity. And the way that I view that
    is, we have to do economic analysis: What is the best bang for
    the buck? What is the best return on investment for the tax
    incentives we are providing, for the R&D dollars, for all of
    the capital investments and incentives that we are providing?
        And I hear people sitting here just saying zero-emissions
    heavy trucks is what we need to do, when I am not sure that--
    look, we have a finite amount of cash, we have a finite amount
    of incentives that we can do. And I want to make sure that we
    are investing our dollars and our limited resources in the
    incentives and in the products that are actually going to
    generate the best solutions.
        And I heard my friend Mr. Huffman--Mr. Huffman, you still
    here? Good. You said--and I wrote it down, so it is going to
    come back up at Resources Committee, I promise--we don't have
    time for fake solutions. You might count on it; it is coming
    back up.
        And you also talked about China, and you said China is
    beating us. Look, I think it is important for us to talk about
    the fact that, look, the United States, we have reduced
    emissions by nearly a billion tons. China has increased, during
    that same period of time, 4 billion tons. So I am not sure what
    they are beating us on. They are not.
        We had a hearing in the T&I Committee on BYD. They are
    beating us on stealing our technology. That is what they are
    beating us on. They are beating us and they are undercutting
    domestic companies, like Mr. Popple right here, that are trying
    to employ American jobs and not have state-owned enterprises
    that are coming in and distorting the economics.
        Mr. Satterthwaite, let me ask you a question. You laid out
    a chart, and it is interesting. You have clean diesel, natural
    gas, electric. You talk about how you have these extraordinary
    reductions. And to throw out one of the figures that is in your
    testimony, you talk about the Phase II greenhouse gas standards
    for commercial vehicles. When fully implemented, those
    standards will lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion
    metric tons.
        The United States, I said that we have reduced our
    emissions by a billion tons. That is greater than the next--I
    used to say 11; now it is 12--12 countries combined--combined.
        Why is it, Mr. Satterthwaite, that you don't see all these
    companies just coming to you and just saying, hey, I want
    electric trucks? Why is that not happening?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        I think that customers are concerned. Most of our customers
    are conservative in their business approach. They want to
    invest in products and particularly in products that they are
    confident are going to work for them and help their business be
    successful.
        And I think the two biggest concerns about electric heavy-
    duty trucks right now are weight, which is a function of
    battery density; range, which is also a function of energy
    density and batteries; and then reliability and charging
    infrastructure.
        Imagine you are a truck company. You buy an electric truck
    to do business in L.A., and that truck needs to go to Reno,
    Nevada. And there is no charging station in Reno, or there is a
    charging station that takes 8 hours to charge that truck. So
    what does the driver do for those 8 hours?
        So these are practical concerns that our customers have
    about infrastructure, about technology readiness, and also
    about cost.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I want to say that, look, when we move
    forward--I agree with what all of our objectives here are; I
    agree--we need to be careful.
        Russia and Massachusetts have to import gas--excuse me. Let
    me try that again. New York and Massachusetts have to import
    gas from Russia. California has had to increase their oil
    imports from Saudi Arabia and others. And as we talked about
    the other day, the electrical grid is going to require two to
    three times the electricity to move to EV vehicles in this new
    economy.
        We need to make sure that we are planning in a way that
    actually allows us to achieve these goals with current
    technology.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you very much, Chair Castor, and to all
    our panelists. Really appreciate you all coming here today.
        You know, I think I won't belabor the point. A lot of
    people have mentioned how the transportation sector is now the
    largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. My view is that
    that is in no small part because it really requires a different
    set of policies from other sectors.
        The electric sector, the industrial sector are dominated by
    capital-intensive assets that run most of the time. The
    operative question on those sectors is, what is the variable
    cost of energy? The transportation sector is dominated by
    capital-intensive assets that are parked most of the time. And
    the operative question is, what is the cost of capital in that
    space? And I think sometimes we assume that we can do the same
    tools everywhere, but they are not the same tools.
        However, I would submit to you that the principles that
    have to guide good climate policy are the same everywhere.
        And I really liked your comments, Mr. Satterthwaite, when
    you called for technology-neutral and goal-dependent
    decarbonization strategies in the transportation sector. I
    would suggest that that is true everywhere. To Mr. Graves'
    point, we do have finite capital. Markets will allocate capital
    accurately and efficiently if we define the goal. We get in our
    way all the time when we start recommending paths.
        And there is also the reality that lowering carbon dioxide
    emissions is awesome, fun, and addictive once you start,
    because--and this is complicated, so I am going to say this
    real slow so everybody gets it--people don't give away fuel for
    free. So if you burn less fuel, you save money. That requires
    an investment, but you make money on investments. And in places
    that have done this, we have seen them adopt this and move
    along and go from there.
        And that is essential, to make sure that our climate
    policies focus on accelerating capital investment, and then
    recognize that, once you own an efficient vehicle, once you own
    an efficient power plant, once you own a solar panel on your
    roof, you tend to operate it all the time because it is
    cheaper, it is more efficient, and if you are fortunate enough
    to own an electric car, it is super-fun to drive, way more fun
    than the other car you have.
        So, you know, that is in part why I introduced H.R. 2025 to
    permanently extend the alternative refueling property tax
    credit for investments in EV charging and other alternative
    fuel. This is a real hard investment for the private sector to
    make, but once you get that infrastructure out there, it is a
    catalyst to move other investments forward.
        I want to thank Chairman Neal and Chairman Thompson for
    including an extension of that tax credit in the Taxpayer
    Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2019.
        Mr. Popple, as we consider a potential infrastructure
    package, can you help understand why it is important that the
    Federal Government make investments in EV charging
    infrastructure?
        Mr. Popple. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
        I think certain types of EV charging infrastructure require
    Federal investment because you have a period of
    underutilization for infrastructure, and so you end up with a
    market failure. It is difficult for a private business to have
    patient enough capital, and you also have to be able to take a
    little bit of risk for some of those charging stations in terms
    of knowing where to put them.
        However, on the fleet vehicle side, what I think is quite
    interesting is that there is no risk in terms of where that
    infrastructure should go and whether or not it will be
    economically utilized. That is one of the reasons why we have
    never had a charging infrastructure problem with our markets.
    We don't have a chicken-and-egg problem because our customers
    buy the same number of chickens and the same number of eggs as
    they need to do that fleet vehicle job.
        I agree also with your point on the fact that once you get
    started with this technology you embrace it and you want to go
    further with it. We have had dozens of cities throughout the
    U.S. voluntarily, on their own, from the bottoms up, after they
    have implemented some electric buses, they have passed an
    action plan to go to 100-percent electric buses.
        So for some sectors where the category is ready, once you
    get it started, it takes a momentum on its own, and the
    customer will take it from there.
        Mr. Casten. Thanks.
        So I want to shift. Since its inception in 2007, the
    Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program has helped
    drive a whole lot of investment through direct loans to
    automotive or component manufacturers for re-equipping,
    expanding, or establishing facilities for the domestic
    production of fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles. I
    think the numbers to date are: It has supported over 4 million
    advanced-technology vehicles and upwards of $17.7 billion in
    remaining loan authority.
        However, a 2018 report from Energy Futures Initiative
    entitled ``Leveraging the DOE Loan Program'' notes that current
    statutes prevent the program funds from being used to invest in
    medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, even though they account for
    almost 25 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the
    transportation sector.
        Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter
    this report into the record.
        Ms. Castor. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                                  ----------

                           Submission for the Record

                           Representative Sean Casten

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

        ATTACHMENT: Leveraging the DOE Loan Program. Energy Futures
    Initiative, 2018.
        The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
              https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20190430/109329/HHRG-
            116-CN00-Wstate-FosterD-20190430-SD003.pdf.

        Mr. Casten. And, Mr. Popple, I was pleased to hear you call
    to amend the program to allow companies like Proterra to be
    able to apply for loans.
        We would welcome from you and/or Mr. Satterthwaite, as you
    think about low-carbon solutions in the transportation sector,
    how important is it that the Federal Government provide access
    to lower-cost financing options?
        Mr. Popple. Well, I think it can be extremely important in
    terms of starting a market, but what we have seen on the
    battery-electric bus side is, once it is proven out, private
    capital steps in.
        So we had recent example where Mitsui has announced a $200
    million program to finance batteries for our sector, but you
    often need the Federal Government to at least initiate it.
        Mr. Casten. Mr. Satterthwaite.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I would support Mr. Popple. I think
    starting and getting some of these early starts and early wins
    in the infrastructure, charging infrastructure, and alternate
    fuel, refueling infrastructure, is an area where the Federal
    Government can play a very big part.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, would you entertain a unanimous
    consent request, please? A report from the Rhodium Group and
    also a recent E&E News report.
        This is, unfortunately, in response to my friend Ranking
    Member Graves' victory lap on our recent emissions reductions.
    The victory lap is over, and these reports show that in 2018
    our emissions began rising again. They are projected to
    continue rising.
        So, sadly, we don't have a lot of laurels to rest on. And I
    think these reports, if you will enter them into the record,
    will help correct that impression.
        Ms. Castor. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                                  ----------

                           Submissions for the Record

                          Representative Jared Huffman

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

        ATTACHMENT: Harvey, Chelsea. ``CO2 Emissions Reached an All-Time
    High in 2018.'' E&E News, 6 December 2018.
        The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-
            reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/
        ATTACHMENT: Houser, Trevor; Pitt, Hannah; Hess, Hannah. Final US
    Emissions Estimates for 2018. Rhodium Group, 31 May 2019.
        The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
              https://rhg.com/research/final-us-emissions-estimates-for-
            2018/.

        Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Lujan, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Popple, you said that the next wave of transportation
    technology isn't just about driving down emissions but also, I
    quote, ``creating good-paying jobs and boosting the clean-
    energy economy.''
        Proterra could be a model for growing the manufacturing of
    heavy-duty vehicles in the country, with an eye toward reducing
    emissions and protecting working men and women. Are you working
    with communities and unions to hire family-supporting jobs that
    reduce emissions?
        Mr. Popple. Absolutely, Congressman. I appreciate the
    question.
        We work very closely on the infrastructure side with labor
    groups like the IBEW. They tend to be one of the best sources
    of high-voltage, trained, skilled labor.
        We are a young manufacturer. We have about 500 employees.
    So we are still evolving through what our long-term structure
    will be in terms of our relationship with labor. But we are
    supportive 100 percent of whatever decision our employees make
    in terms of their right to organize.
        We have a plant in Greenville, South Carolina; we have a
    plant in L.A. County; and we also have a plant in the Bay Area.
    And we are supportive of whatever our employees choose.
        In terms of good jobs and clean-energy economy, our company
    provides salary, healthcare benefits, stock equity in the
    company for 100 percent of our employees. And we think that the
    types of jobs that we are creating for this company can be a
    model for this new industry as it grows and helps us improve
    our energy productivity.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that response, Mr. Popple. My
    father was a union ironworker. He learned how to weld in the
    shipyards of San Pedro as a young man before he found his way
    back to New Mexico. My brother is IBEW. My grandfather was a
    union carpenter as well.
        The other question that I have, connected to that--and you
    alluded to this--but what are you doing also within the company
    to promote safe working conditions and to make sure that, while
    we are moving forward with what will be strong, new
    technological advances, that people are smart about the
    environments that they are creating for the teams that you are
    assembling to build the future?
        Mr. Popple. That is a great question. Thank you, sir.
        The reality is, working on electric vehicles and
    maintaining electric vehicles and operating electric vehicles
    is healthier for the worker than the fossil-fuel alternative. A
    lot of our service techs, one of the things they really like
    about this job is, at the end of the day, they are not covered
    in grease and oil. They don't feel like they are going back
    home to their families possibly with something on them that is
    a contaminant.
        In terms of work environment, Proterra as a company exceeds
    our industry averages for safety. We start every meeting, every
    session, with a focus on safety, including with our board of
    directors. And we take very seriously the need to train workers
    on this new digital and electric technology, not just on the
    vehicle side but also on the infrastructure side.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
        And you anticipated my next question, which was: How can we
    work with you to promote the skill and labor force needed,
    specifically in the electric vehicle service and maintenance
    workers and battery technicians? So I appreciate that very
    much.
        Ms. Romero, I represent a rural district in New Mexico.
    What more can we be doing to promote electric vehicles and
    clean transportation infrastructure in districts like mine?
        Ms. Romero. Yeah. You know, electric vehicle infrastructure
    charging stations are going to be put in neighborhoods where
    they think there is going to be a lot of electric vehicle
    ownership. And whether it comes to bringing these technologies
    to rural communities or bringing them to urban communities of
    color, the problem is the same. We need to make sure that we
    are investing in accessible clean technology for all Americans.
        And sometimes that means a utility or a company isn't going
    to put it there, it doesn't make business sense for them. But
    for us, as a government that serves all Americans across the
    United States, we need to make sure that we are filling that
    gap and providing fair access.
        Mr. Lujan. So, in States like New Mexico, where, you know,
    a lot of trucks are moving through there, there is a lot of
    long-haul. So our interstate systems are probably the first
    area that could benefit from that infrastructure investment.
        As it then builds out away from those interstate systems
    into maybe vehicles that aren't going to be on such long hauls,
    what are you doing in that space?
        Ms. Romero. Yeah. So I mentioned this a little bit earlier.
    There is a small town, a farm worker town in central
    California, Huron. It is a 7,000-person town. This is a
    community that takes 4 hours on three different public buses
    just to get to the nearest children's hospital. That is one
    way. It is an 8-hour roundtrip. And, of course, the buses don't
    run at night. As you know, in rural communities, the
    infrastructure is lacking.
        And so what they are doing is they have this Green Raiteros
    program, where there is electric rideshare, community-owned--if
    you think of Zipcar, led by communities--where people can come
    in and use an electric vehicle to get to their appointments or
    use an electric vehicle to provide service for other members of
    the community. A lot of retired community members come in and
    do that; they work or they volunteer as a driver. And they are
    able to bring that technology in and help solve some of those
    gaps.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
        Madam Chair, I appreciate the emphasis in that community,
    as well, with the challenges they have for transportation. If
    they don't have a rural healthcare clinic, I think that is
    something else that we could look at, making sure those folks
    have access to.
        But when you talk about a town of that size, you are
    talking about communities where I come from, so I get it. And I
    appreciate your work in that space, Ms. Romero.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Mr. Levin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Castor. I am very grateful that
    you are holding this hearing. This is a personal issue for me,
    having grown up near a major port, the Port of Long Beach, for
    the first 8 years of my life before we moved down to south
    Orange County.
        And I have three big ports in southern California, in Long
    Beach, L.A., and San Diego, and I am friends with a lot of
    folks there. I have had a chance to tour the Middle Harbor
    Initiative at the Port of Long Beach and see all the zero-
    emission things that are going on.
        And I commend all of you, all four of you. And that
    includes anybody trying to do zero-emission, as you are at
    Proterra. I am also encouraged by the work being done at
    Cummins with the Cummins Westport engine.
        The reality is that we need to get to zero. When I say
    zero, I don't just mean criteria pollutants. I think that is
    great. I think those advances are really critical on NOx, SOx,
    particulate matter. But the reality is we have to get to zero,
    period. That means zero CO2 as well. We have to get there as
    quickly as we can.
        I think it is important also to note a lot of the work that
    we are doing on the light-duty side, as we work to build out an
    EV charging infrastructure throughout the State of California
    in particular, which I am most familiar with. We are going to
    go from 14,000 EV chargers to 250,000 EV chargers by 2025.
        I have a bill that would increase the sales of new
    passenger cars to be 50 percent of all new passenger cars in
    California by 2035. And it ramps up--in the Nation--ramps up
    from there.
        We are already doing this stuff in California. I am always
    mindful of, where are you going to get that electricity from?
    Because I hear the naysayers say, well, if the electricity is
    dirty, then the electric vehicles are going to be dirty. Right
    now, we are getting--and this is our handy ISO app in
    California--52 percent of all of our electricity in California
    is coming from renewable sources. That is right now, today.
        I am also mindful that fuel cells could play a big role in
    this, as well, in the heavy-duty space. I worked in clean
    energy for about 15 years, representing a variety, everybody
    from electric trucks to fuel cells. And there are strengths and
    weaknesses to each of those technologies. There are
    infrastructure hurdles to each of those technologies as well.
        And I wanted to just highlight the work we are doing in
    California, again, with regard to heavy-duty. Specifically,
    Port of Long Beach just got an $8 million grant from the CEC to
    construct hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Port of L.A. got
    $41 million last year from the California Air Resources Board
    for the similar hydrogen fueling infrastructure, use of zero-
    emissions forklifts and the like.
        So we have made it a priority in California. And the
    question for each of you is, what can we do at the Federal
    level? I have seen a variety of suggestions, but what one thing
    would you like to see us do at the Federal level to really
    advance zero-emissions heavy-duty infrastructure?
        Mr. Logan. If I may, Congressmember, so if I was just to
    pick one today, I think investing in the DERA programs,
    specifically within a program looking at the freight sector,
    advancing zero-emissions. Using the example of the school bus
    rebate program and alter that to look like a rebate system for
    zero-emission technology in the freight sector.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you.
        Anybody else? Because we get to write laws up here.
        Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, the sure thing I mentioned was
    the Clean School Bus Act for school bus electrification.
        The other thing that I think is a big topic of discussion,
    potentially in a bipartisan way, is carbon pricing. And I
    think, so far, there is no carbon pricing legislation at the
    Federal level that is looking at how we leverage the revenue to
    accelerate the transition. And I would say any revenue-neutral
    option is not an option. So thinking about how do we leverage
    those dollars to deploy into solutions that are going to get us
    to zero-emission.
        Mr. Levin. Okay.
        Mr. Popple. So I would have two quick ones, Congressman.
        One would be to open the ATVM program, which has funding to
    medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The fact that ATVM excludes
    anything but a car shows how car-centric and -focused we have
    been, to our misfortune.
        And the second one would be, I would aggressively invest in
    modernizing the power grid. Because we don't know exactly when
    all these different sectors are going to go electric, but we do
    know the low-carbon, common-currency fuel of the future is
    electricity. And the more we invest in the grid, the more we
    can get clean energy out of Texas or Iowa or northern
    California or southern California into other sectors, from
    Oregon--so any investment in the grid I think is a future-proof
    investment.
        Mr. Levin. It is almost like we need to pass an
    infrastructure bill.
        Mr. Popple. Absolutely.
        Mr. Levin. Yes, sir.
        Ms. Satterthwaite. I will just add, funding DERA,
    continuing to fund DERA, and let customers choose which way to
    reduce emissions, and do it with short- and long-term benefits.
        Mr. Levin. I wanted to ask a related question, and perhaps
    each of you could just briefly weigh in.
        We have an opportunity with the USMCA, you know, the new
    NAFTA. And when I think about air quality and emissions in my
    region, the greater San Diego region, it seems to me heavy-duty
    transit, you know, a lot of trucks coming to and from Mexico,
    certainly contribute.
        What, if anything, should we be doing in the new NAFTA
    about heavy-duty emissions?
        Mr. Logan. I would say, without a doubt, including in any
    type of agreement a clean-truck and clean-freight mandate.
        The communities in and around those ports of entry are
    dramatically impacted. And, you know, I think this is one of
    the ways in which we can look at the cost of doing business, to
    help to be solution-oriented, addressing both the environmental
    justice and climate justice.
        Mr. Levin. Appreciate it.
        I am out of time, and I appreciate the chair.
        Maybe if one more wants to answer this, and--I am really
    out of time.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. If I could, just quickly?
        Ms. Castor. Go ahead. Quickly.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Canada has essentially followed U.S. EPA
    regulations for heavy-duty trucks. So there was already
    harmonization between the U.S. and Canada.
        Mexico has followed European standards, not U.S. standards.
    They are not that different, but there could be an argument
    that harmonization would be better, I think, as part of MCA. If
    we could harmonize heavy-duty emissions regulations across the
    historic NAFTA/USMCA, I think that could make a difference.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you all very much.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you.
        Before we go to Mr. Griffith, I will recognize the ranking
    member for a U.C. request.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Chair, I can't tell you how much it pains me to
    submit anything that may refute what Mr. Huffman said. But I
    just want to ask unanimous consent to submit a report, a July
    2019 report by EIA that demonstrates in 2019 that they are
    expecting emissions to have a net reduction of 2.2 percent,
    which I believe would be lower than the majority of years
    during the Obama administration.
        Ms. Castor. Just a question. Is this in the electricity
    generation sector, or does it include the transportation
    sector?
        Mr. Graves. Yeah. That is energy-related CO2 emissions.
        Ms. Graves. So it is coal, natural gas, petroleum. So this
    is likely in the electric power sector, not the transportation
    sector? Or is it all sectors?
        Mr. Graves. This is energy-related. It is my understanding
    that it is tied back to all sectors that use those fuels.
        Mr. Huffman. You beat me to it, Madam Chair. I think, if
    allowed enough time, I could track down another unanimous
    consent to show 2019 emissions are rising.
        Mr. Graves. Bring it. Bring it.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you all very much.
        Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                           Submission for the Record

                          Representative Garret Graves

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Submission for the Record

                          Representative Jared Huffman

                     Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                                 July 16, 2019

        ATTACHMENT: Storrow, Benjamin. ``2019 Power-Sector Trends Point to
    a Continued Rise in U.S. Emissions.'' E&E News, 3 June 2019.
        The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2019-power-sector-
            trends-point-to-a-continued-rise-in-u-s-emissions/

        Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me apologize to
    you and the other members of the committee and to our
    witnesses. I have been off in a hearing where we are working on
    fentanyl and trying to keep it from coming into the U.S.
        So I apologize, but it is not that I have been out doing
    fun things. I have been working hard for the people of the
    United States.
        Mr. Satterthwaite, Cummins is a leader in the ultra-low-
    emission natural gas engines. How do these natural gas engines
    help reduce carbon emissions in the heavy-duty transportation
    world?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Thank you for the question, Mr.
    Congressman.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, our latest low-emissions
    natural gas engine is actually achieving emissions levels which
    are 90 percent below the EPA and CARB heavy-duty diesel
    standards.
        Natural gas usage is primarily limited to return-to-base
    fleets--city buses, refuse trucks, other fleets that are on a
    regular return to home bases--because of the challenges with
    natural gas infrastructure. There is just not enough fueling
    infrastructure to allow natural gas to extend into the long-
    haul, over-the-road trucks.
        What we have been able to reduce in the natural gas engines
    is significant. On a horsepower-for-horsepower basis, natural
    gas is somewhere between 30-percent lower greenhouse gas
    generation than diesel for the same amount of work done. And so
    those engines have made a significant difference in the
    communities they have been in. Most of them are in urban areas
    and with municipal fleets. And so that has made a significant
    difference, we believe, in those communities.
        Mr. Griffith. I support an all-of-the-above approach, but I
    have expressed concerns in the past about electric vehicles and
    that I think maybe government policy has tipped the scales and
    we haven't researched enough on other fuels, which is why I ask
    about natural gas, because I am very interested in that.
        So then the question becomes, on electric trucks--and I
    know a lot of companies, including Volvo, which its North
    American headquarters is in my district, is working on an
    electric truck. Don't we currently have the same problem with
    over-the-road trucking--that we would have with electric trucks
    as we would with natural gas?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. I think if you say the same problem, you
    mean the lack of infrastructure?
        Mr. Griffith. I mean the lack of infrastructure, and where
    are you going to refuel?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. Without a doubt. That is a significant
    impediment to the adoption of battery-electric technology in
    the over-the-road, long-haul, heavy-duty trucking. Definitely.
        We also believe there are weight or energy-density
    challenges and also price and cost challenges which have yet to
    be overcome.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Tell me what those are.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. So, currently, if you want to engineer a
    truck with the same power and the same range as today's diesel
    or natural gas technology, it will weigh approximately three
    times as much as today's cab because of the weight of batteries
    needed for the power and the energy.
        Mr. Griffith. Wow.
        Mr. Satterthwaite. So that is one challenge.
        Mr. Griffith. And so that challenge then creates a
    challenge for the various States and localities that are trying
    to keep their roads repaired, because that extra weight adds to
    road wear, does it not?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. That would be a consequence of that.
        Mr. Griffith. And since most of our taxes currently are
    based on taxing the diesel to get road money, wouldn't that
    also then create a problem for the local governments and the
    State governments for having enough funds to repair the roads
    as a result of that extra weight?
        Mr. Satterthwaite. That could definitely happen as well,
    yes.
        Mr. Griffith. All right.
        Well, I do think that we need to increase our
    infrastructure both for natural gas and to make sure that we
    have refueling for electric as we move into this direction. As
    I said, I am all of the above, I am open to it, but we have to
    solve these problems on both road maintenance and on refueling.
        Because for a lot of the truckers in my area, driving up
    and down Interstate 81, just in the State of Virginia, you have
    328 miles. If you can't drive that far on a tank and there is
    no place to refuel when you get to the end of the line, you are
    not going to use that technology, no matter how efficient it
    might be and how much it might do for the environment.
        I appreciate it very much and appreciate you all being here
    today.
        And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        So I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        I am so glad that we got to this topic, because I think
    there are exciting opportunities ahead. We have the climate
    solutions. We know how to do this. We know how to unleash
    American ingenuity. We must find cleaner and carbon-free
    solutions for how we move people and goods across America and
    across the globe.
        And families and consumers will benefit greatly. Lower
    costs--let's talk about a few of them. And by the way, this
    isn't decades away. This is now. For families and communities,
    when we talk about reducing carbon pollution, we talk about
    better health. Communities and families will be healthier, and
    that will help save money. Transportation-related businesses
    have a whole lot to gain when fuel costs come down
    dramatically.
        This is going to be a revolution that we live through over
    the coming years, if the Congress has the courage to act and
    put the incentives where they need to be put.
        Just look at what fuel economy has done on the passenger-
    car side. For decades, every time the Congress has pushed
    automobile manufacturers to do better, they have met the
    challenge. But we are at risk right now of ceding that
    leadership to other countries, like China.
        Plus, we can create good, family-sustaining jobs as we
    build this clean-energy economy--yes, in rural areas. And we
    need to talk about the areas across the country that need those
    investments.
        Ms. Romero, talk to us about what the costs would be if we
    just stuck with the status quo.
        Ms. Romero. Yeah, I mean, we are talking about the
    decimation of communities across the country.
        And, honestly, even looking at having less than 11 years or
    less than 10 years until the next level of global catastrophe
    isn't enough. We are looking at low-income communities and
    communities of color today surrounded by busy freeways and
    highways, surrounded by pollution, where asthma and other
    pollution-related illness is impacting their ability to do
    anything.
        And so the consequences are grave, they are human, and----
        Ms. Castor. And you say: Gosh, start with school buses.
        Ms. Romero. And start with school buses. Why not? I mean,
    we need a lot more than that, obviously, in a comprehensive
    approach, a massive mobilization of resources, but why not----
        Ms. Castor. But that is an area where we could get co-
    benefits there by reducing the costs for school districts.
    Maybe they can plow some of those fuel costs back into the
    classroom. And, plus, kids will be having a healthier ride to
    school.
        Ms. Romero. And we will raise the whole next generation to
    understand the new technology and be the leaders for the next
    future decades.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Logan, what do you see are the costs of the
    status quo?
        Mr. Logan. In the same way, with children across the
    country. There are communities in and around ports that are
    bearing the brunt of the health consequences in the multiple
    billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
        And so there is both the health cost, but there is also the
    lost days of work, and there is also the low productivity of
    many different sectors. I mentioned earlier agriculture but
    also within the manufacturing as well.
        And, you know, if we don't, you know, resolve this issue,
    we are not going to have goods to move. We won't be having this
    conversation because we won't need to move things. We won't
    have things to move.
        Ms. Castor. Mr. Popple, I think Proterra really tells an
    important story.
        You are currently building these electric buses in South
    Carolina and in California. What other parts of the country do
    you think can support these manufacturing jobs as we move
    forward?
        And I just know, we are going to invest a whole lot more.
    It just makes too much sense for local communities back home.
        So what do you see? What does the future hold? Can we go
    into rural areas and areas that need a little bit of economic
    development for these clean-energy jobs?
        Mr. Popple. Absolutely. Especially, Congresswoman, if we
    focus on early-adopter categories like transit and school bus.
    Transit, in particular, has a Buy America requirement, which
    means 70 percent or more of the supply chain has to come from
    domestic sources.
        So, if you look at our product, it is not a product that
    just benefits California and South Carolina. Charging stations,
    for us, are built in Michigan. Electric motors are built in
    Colorado. Our composite bodies are built in Iowa and Rhode
    Island.
        So there is a national supply chain that can be set up on
    the vehicle side and on installing the infrastructure. And all
    of that infrastructure, that is local, so that is a local job
    to that community.
        Ms. Castor. And you said we are at risk right now to ceding
    leadership in the world to China and other countries. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Popple. Absolutely, Congresswoman. And I think what is
    at risk is, if we become less productive at moving goods and
    people than other global countries or other global economies,
    they will have a profound economic advantage, just like if we
    were stuck with propeller planes and the rest of the world
    moved to jets.
        Ms. Castor. Well, I want to thank you all very much.
        I want to thank the minority and Mr. Graves and my
    colleagues for a terrific discussion.
        We are going to continue the focus on the transportation
    sector moving forward. To use Ms. Romero's analogy, we should
    celebrate the U.S.'s ability to reduce carbon and air
    pollution, but the game is still on. We need to keep our hustle
    to achieve the type of reduction science shows we need to
    achieve to avoid it being ``game over'' for our children and
    future generations. That is what this committee's work is all
    about.
        As we heard in our second hearing from Dr. Liverman, every
    ton of CO2 we keep from going up in the atmosphere is
    important, because every increase in temperature counts to the
    health of people and the planet.
        So thank you again for being here today. Thank you again,
    colleagues.
        The committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
                                  ----------

    United States House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Climate
                                     Crisis

      Hearing on July 16, 2019, ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaning Up
                 Heavy Duty Vehicles, Protecting Communities''

                            Questions for the Record

            Angelo Logan, Campaign Director, Moving Forward Network

                           the honorable kathy castor
        1. Deploying zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles will require capital
    investment. These costs are easy to identify, while the costs of the
    status quo are less well-understood. How would you describe the costs
    of the status quo in terms of the public health impacts of pollution
    from legacy vehicles and the impacts of climate change to frontline
    communities?
        Although the economic impacts associated with heavy duty freight
    transportation on public health is less available at the National
    level, the State of California has conducted several studies on this
    very topic. I draw from California's studies as examples of the cost of
    the status quo in terms of the public health impacts of pollution from
    legacy heavy-duty freight vehicles and the impacts to public health and
    climate change to frontline communities.
        In 2005 California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that
    freight transportation is responsible for 360,000 missed workdays and
    1,100,000 missed days of school with 2,830 hospital admissions and
    2,400 premature deaths. Between 2005-2020 it is estimated that heavy-
    duty freight transportation cost California residents $200 billion in
    health costs.
        The freight system relies predominately on diesel-powered
    equipment, which produces diesel exhaust made up of toxins and climate
    pollutants. Diesel exhaust creates CO2, a major greenhouse gas. Freight
    transport worldwide contributes approximately 3 billion tons of CO2.
    Black carbon is also a result of diesel exhaust. Black carbon is a fine
    particulate matter and short-lived climate pollutant that has very high
    global warming potential--some estimate over 600 times higher than CO2.
    The freight transportation sector accounts for roughly 9% of U.S.
    greenhouse gas emissions and in the next couple of decades, it is
    expected that ocean going vessels alone will account for about 17% of
    all man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
        The people hit first and worst from the climate crisis and freight
    transport are the over 13 million people that live near major marine
    ports, rail yards, and freight facilities. These communities are
    disproportionately low-income communities of color and have increased
    health risks from climate change impacts and the toxic diesel pollution
    that is concentrated at high levels around freight hubs. The sources of
    this diesel pollution are heavy-duty trucks, trains, ships, and cargo
    handling equipment. Diesel exhaust is estimated to contain over 450
    chemicals; many are known toxins linked to early death, respiratory
    problems, heart attacks, and reduced birth weight and premature birth.
    Children have higher rates of exposure to air pollution and are at
    higher risk of health impacts.
        Affected by freight transportation, African Americans are a high-
    risk population that is 3 times their proportion of the U.S. population
    and Latinos made up two times their proportion. All this to say,
    freight transport poses a huge climate crisis for the planet and for
    the local environmental justice communities that have been dealing with
    the impacts of the air pollution that is causing the climate crisis.
        2. We understand that the Moving Forward Network has dozens of
    members around the country. Could you please highlight some of their
    priorities for cleaning up goods movement?
        The Moving Forward Network (MFN) is a national coalition of over 50
    member organizations including community-based environmental justice
    organizations, national environmental organizations, and academic
    institutions, in over 20 major U.S. cities, representing over 2 million
    members, committed to reducing the public health harms created by our
    country's freight transportation system. Importantly, MFN members
    include individuals who work and live in freight-impacted communities.
        The MFN priorities are as follows:
               Protect the Clean Air Act and the National
            Environmental Policy Act throughout all legislative actions.
            Congress must oppose all provisions to any Infrastructure Bill
            or Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill that would
            endanger public health by weakening the Clean Air Act and/or
            the National Environmental Policy Act.
               Congress must develop and adopt policy principles
            for climate legislation that advance climate justice,
            environmental justice, communities' self-determination and
            local solutions. Frontline communities have the real expertise
            and true solutions that will solve the climate crisis.
            Therefore, the process for developing any solution or strategy
            is paramount.
               Congress must provide EPA with the tools and
            resources needed to meet its mission and play a role in solving
            the climate crisis. Congress must appropriate a substantial
            increase of funds to the EPA, both DERA and the Environmental
            Justice grants program. The Environmental Justice Grants
            programs support communities working on solutions to
            environmental and public health issues. The Diesel Emissions
            Reduction Act (DERA) authorizes grants to eligible entities for
            projects that reduce emissions from existing diesel engines.
            EPA must develop a more targeted strategy for awarding these
            funds. Funds for demonstration projects should target zero-
            emission technologies.
               Congress should hold EPA accountable to meeting its
            mission and legal requirements under the Clean Air Act. EPA
            must adopt regulations to reduce and eliminate emissions from
            the freight sector. EPA must identify reducing freight-related
            air pollution as a top priority for the Agency. Tackling such
            pollution will further the Agency's air quality, climate and
            environmental justice goals. EPA must adopt new national
            standards for freight-related sources and provide more guidance
            to states with freight-related activities in areas that violate
            national air quality standards and/or produce localized health
            risks with the goal of deploying zero-emission technologies.
        3. California's Gross State Product is more than $3 trillion. If it
    were a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the
    world. For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
    economic growth, how would you respond?
        In response to suggestions that decarbonization of the freight
    sector requires sacrificing economic growth, I only respond with the
    mayor of Los Angeles' quote related to the joint ports of LA and Long
    Beach, the country's largest port complex; ``The Ports of Los Angeles
    and Long Beach are driving forces of our region's economy--they should
    also be models for how we move toward a more sustainable future by
    balancing growth and environmental stewardship,'' said Los Angeles
    Mayor Eric Garcetti. ``The draft Clean Air Action Plan is an important
    step in our work to reduce air pollution in our communities, and take
    action on climate change.'' ``We have already proven that it's possible
    to increase jobs and trade with cleaner air and healthier communities
    and I want to thank all of our partners who helped make this
    possible.'' The Mayor of Los Angeles is referring to jobs, trade and
    growth as economic growth and prosperity. To answer the question, the
    nations largest complex is decarbonizing by way of the ``Clean Air
    Action Plan'' without sacrificing economic growth.
                          the honorable garret graves
        1. In your testimony you talk about the Clean Air Act and holding
    EPA accountable to meets its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act.
    Do you agree that the federal government should hold those with
    compliance obligations under the Clean Air Act accountable as well?
    Should there be severe penalties for states that has areas habitually
    out of compliance?
        As of today, there are more than 30 counties in California that are
    out of compliance with not just one, but MULTIPLE federal air quality
    standards in the Clean Air Act. Reducing criteria pollutants (National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards) would almost certainly translate into
    greenhouse gas reductions as a co-benefit. Do any of you know what the
    reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be if all of California
    simply complied with the Clean Air Act? Do you know how many fewer
    California deaths there would be if California were in full compliance?
        The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law that should be
    upheld by the federal government in the same regard as any other
    federal law that is intended to protect the public's health and safety.
    Under the Clean Air Act the EPA is charged with compliance and
    enforcement of the law. As part of my testimony, I recommended to the
    committee that Congress do everything in your power to hold EPA
    accountable to this charge--requiring, to the full extent of its
    authority, that EPA take action to address pollution. Also, Congress
    should hold regular hearings on the progress of EPA in meeting its
    legal requirements under the Clean Air Act, which includes requiring
    states to comply with federal air quality standards.
        I agree that reducing criteria pollutants and meeting the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards would translate into greenhouse gas
    reductions as a co-benefit. The fact that 30 counties in California are
    out of compliance with multiple federal air quality standards means
    significant greenhouse gas emissions and associated negative health
    impacts such as premature deaths, and demonstrates the need to hold EPA
    accountable to meeting its mission and legal requirements under the
    Clean Air Act. Specifically, EPA should be adopting mobile source and
    other regulations that reduce and eliminate criteria and climate
    pollutants. In addition EPA should grant California the ability to
    adopt standards beyond EPA's, not limit California's ability to adopt
    standards that would allow them to meet the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards. In other words, EPA should require California to
    achieve compliance with air quality standards, not hinder the State.
                                   references
    Castor Q1
         Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, and
    California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).
         Goods Movement Action Plan Phase 1: Foundations. September
    2005.
         Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, and
    California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). Goods Movement
    Action Plan Phase 1: Foundations. September 2005.
         http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm.
         Haveman JD, EM Jennings, and H Shatz. California and the
    Global Economy: Recent Facts and Figures
         National Port Strategy Assessment: Reducing Air Pollution
    and Greenhouse Gases at U.S. Ports, Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Transportation Air Quality, September 2016, https://
    www.epa.gov/sites/production/les/2016-09/documents/420r16011.pdf.
         Fast Facts, U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions 1990-2014, Environmental Protection Agency Office of
    Transportation and Air Quality, June 2016, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
    ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ONBL.pdf.
         Lydia DePillis, ``Ports are the new power plants-at least
    in terms of pollution,'' Wonkblog (blog), The Washington Post, November
    24, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/24/ports-
    are-the-new-power-plants-at-least-in-terms-of-pollution.
    Castor Q3
         http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/2016/11/18/port-of-los-
    angeles-and-long-beach-unveil-bold-strategies-to-reduce-greenhouse-
    gases-and-clean-the-air/
    Graves Q1
         42 U.S.C. section 7401(a)(4)
         42 U.S.C. section 7410(k)(5)

                            Questions for the Record

               Michelle Romero, National Director, Green for All

                           the honorable kathy castor
        1. In your testimony, you referenced examples of inclusive
    financing programs that helped low-income customers have access to
    energy efficiency upgrades to buildings. Could you please provide
    additional detail about these programs and explain how a similar model
    could be applied to public school transportation? What policies should
    Congress adopt to promote broader use of inclusive financing?
        There are a number of inclusive financing programs that have been
    deployed to help address the upfront cost barriers for building energy
    efficiency upgrades.
        In 2009, Green For All was proud to be a part of a program with the
    city of Portland, Oregon. Like many communities across the country,
    residents in Portland were experiencing the effects of the Great
    Recession, and needed a way to preserve jobs, create jobs, and spur
    economic growth. The city found a way by launching an inclusive
    financing pilot project to provide deep home energy efficiency
    retrofits for residents. The project was developed with Clean Energy
    Works Oregon, a nonprofit now known as Enhabit.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://enhabit.org/programs/clean-energy-works/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Leveraging public dollars to attract outside investment, Portland
    established a self-sustaining revolving loan fund to offer low-interest
    financing for residents to overcome the upfront cost barriers for deep
    home energy efficiency retrofits. The program provided residents with
    an Energy Advocate to asses their homes needs, along with the low-
    interest financing that would allow residents to pay back the loan from
    their bill savings through a charge on their utility bill, known as on-
    bill financing. In addition, Green For All worked with Portland to
    facilitate a community worker agreement for the program to achieve
    triple-bottom line results by requiring the jobs to be prevailing-wage
    jobs, setting goals for local and targeted hiring, and contracting with
    women and minority-owned businesses. The initial pilot was so
    successful, Portland was able to attract $20 million from the federal
    government to expand the program.
        Learn more about Portland's financing program design in our report:
    https://www.greenforall.org/clean_Kenergy_works_portland_report (2009).
        Find a summary of Portland's high-road jobs outcomes from the
    project here: https://www.greenforall.org/
    high_road_outcomes_in_portland_s_energy_efficiency_ upgrade_pilot
    (2011)
        Green For All collaborated with the National Housing Trust to
    create a guide to On-Bill Programs that Advance Multi-family Energy
    Efficiency, which is available here: https://www.greenforall.org/
    on_bill_programs_that_advance_multifamily_ energy_efficiency (2013)
          This report highlights four case studies on multi-family energy
    efficiency programs: PSE&G New Jersey Multifamily Program, MPower
    Oregon, Windsor Efficiency PAYS, and MidWest Energy
    HowSmart' Kansas.
        Green For All offers a Best Practices Guide for High Road
    Agreements here: https://www.greenforall.org/
    high_road_agreements_a_best_practice_brief_by_green_ for_all (2012).
        Pay As You Save (PAYS) is another program model to help address
    barriers that can prevent low-income populations from accessing clean
    energy solutions. The PAYS model utilizes a tariff-based method;
    customers select their improvements through their utilities, and pay
    for their improvements over time. Until the investment is recovered,
    the tariff for the PAYS charge applies automatically to any future
    customers at that site. The PAYS model supports widespread adoption
    even in market segments that are hard to reach, such as renters, low
    and moderate-income households, multifamily buildings and municipal
    customers. For instance, this model eliminates debt-based
    disqualification. The debt-free PAYS model has yielded average energy
    savings of 25% and has been adopted by utilities in Kansas, Kentucky,
    North Carolina, New Hampshire, Hawaii, California and Arkansas. Learn
    more about the PAYS program by Roanoke Electric in North Carolina
    here.\2\ (page 14-16).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/greenforall/pages/7020/
    attachments/original/1464933284/TOOLKIT_1_-
    _Fair_and_Just_Investments.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If applied to public school transportation, similar models of local
    lending and tariff-based payments could enable districts to invest in
    making the switch from diesel to electric buses. Like energy efficiency
    upgrades for buildings or solar panel installation, electric buses have
    a higher upfront cost, which can be a barrier for many schools. But
    because electric buses are so much cheaper to fuel and maintain, an
    inclusive financing approach to remove the upfront cost barrier and
    allow the school to pay back a loan out of their savings would make it
    much more feasible for more schools to adopt electric buses. Other
    federal policies that would assist in broadening the scope of electric
    buses include matching programs, and interest-free government-funded
    loans that prioritize low-income and minority-serving schools and
    districts.
        2. California's Gross State Product is over $3 trillion. If it were
    a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world.
    For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
    economic growth, how would you respond?
        Civil rights leader Van Jones said in a 2018 statement,
    ``Everything that's good for the planet is a job. It's a contract. It's
    a business opportunity. Solar panels don't put themselves up. Wind
    turbines don't manufacture themselves. Organic gardens don't make
    themselves. Every single thing that we need to make the Earth whole is
    also work that can make our society whole.''
        Protecting our environment and building our economy are not at
    odds. Decarbonization involves engaging people across sectors of
    society, from architects to farmers to truck-drivers. Within these
    fields, decarbonization allows opportunities for educational,
    professional, and economic progress, and these jobs can provide steady
    income, job security, and significant benefits for workers. For
    example, the transition to clean and renewable energy has created so
    many jobs that solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians are
    now at the top of the United States' list of fastest-growing jobs, and
    continue to grow in popularity, need, and compensation.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\tps://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/26/solar-pv-installer-wind-
    turbine-tech-are-fastest-growing-occupations-in-us/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Republican and former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger
    said on The Van Jones Show last year, ``The fact of the matter is in
    California we have a 4.3% economic growth and the nationwide growth is
    only 1.3%[...] How is that possible when we have the strictest
    environmental laws in the United States? So we have already proven you
    can do both--you can protect the environment and protect the economy at
    the same time. It's that simple.'' Watch the segment here: https://
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3xpPyai8zo It is worth noting California has
    dedicated a significant portion of its climate investment dollars to
    programs and projects that benefit the state's most disadvantaged
    communities. A minimum of 35% of the state's cap and trade dollars, for
    instance, are required to be spent in disadvantaged communities or to
    benefit disadvantaged communities. In practice, the state regularly
    invests more than half of its climate dollars to benefit disadvantaged
    communities. This matters not only from a moral perspective, but from
    an economic perspective too.
        When new technologies and businesses come to market, their products
    and services are generally more limited in quantity during the early
    stages. This can keep prices high, making them affordable only to
    ``early adopters'' or people with the means and readiness to adopt
    them.
        As green businesses pick up market share and have more capital to
    invest in improving technology, purchasing materials in larger
    quantities, and so forth, prices can drop and put them within reach of
    lower and moderate income consumers. The green economy is not immune to
    these realities. Electric vehicles and solar panels were more expensive
    at first, and are gradually becoming more affordable. Government
    incentives and subsidies in the right places can help spur the kind of
    growth needed to put the green economy within reach of more Americans.
    Targeted investments in bringing clean technology to harder to reach
    markets, and making them affordable for lower-income consumers has not
    only been a way to ensure the green economy does not leave anyone
    behind in California, it has been a way to bolster green business
    growth and clean technology advancement, which I would argue, has
    helped California's economy continue to prosper.
        It is also important to recognize that California is not the only
    state proving you can have strong environmental policies and a strong
    economy. In Lancaster, Pennsylvania--a city that developed its first
    clean energy goals in 2011--the city's clean energy infrastructure
    provided a cost-effective approach to stormwater management that saved
    the city about $2.8 million in energy, air-quality, and climate-related
    benefits.\4\ There are multiple benefits to protecting our environment
    and transitioning to a clean economy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/
    cnt-lancaster-report-508_1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In California and across the country at large, smart
    decarbonization policy can and should move us towards a more
    sustainable and prosperous future for all Americans.
        3. California is a national leader in the deployment of electric
    vehicles as well as electric buses. How do low-income communities and
    communities of color benefit from these policies?
        Where should Congress focus its resources to provide the greatest
    benefit to these communities?
        Low-income communities and communities of color are hit first and
    worst by pollution. In the transportation context, decades of
    discriminatory land use and urban planning decisions have created a
    situation where communities of color are more likely to live near busy
    roads, freeways and highways, ports, and other major sources of
    tailpipe emissions. And the cumulative impacts of these conditions put
    them at greater risk of asthma, cancer, and pollution-related disease.
    These communities have much to gain from investments in low-carbon
    transportation and mobility options, and the transition to zero-
    emission vehicles; It directly impacts their health and lives.
        California has made big commitments like putting 5 million electric
    vehicles on the road by 2030 \5\ and transitioning to 100% zero-
    emission bus fleets by 2040,\6\ which have made the state a national
    leader in the deployment of electric vehicles. One might think that
    because communities of color are disproportionately affected by
    tailpipe pollution it would mean they are natural beneficiaries of
    these policies but the issue requires much more attention and intention
    than that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/30/california-wants-5-
    million-zero-emissions-cars-roads-2030/
        \6\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-transitioning-all-
    electric-public-bus-fleet-2040
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The fact is, higher income consumers can more readily afford and
    access EVs on their own. To expand access to EVs, California offers
    rebate programs to low-moderate income consumers on a sliding scale.
    Individuals making less than or equal to 300% of the federal poverty
    level are offered higher rebates. In total, a qualifying low-income
    individual in California could receive up to $13,500 to scrap an old
    emitting vehicle and replace it with the purchase of a new EV.
        California also recognizes that vehicle ownership is not the right
    solution for everyone. In some cases, consumers can opt to receive a
    bus or transit voucher to scrap their old emitting vehicle if they
    would rather not replace it. To see a sampling of California's various
    incentive programs for both rural and urban areas, visit the Resource
    Finder at http://upliftca.org/resource-finder/.
        In terms of federal policy, the federal government should conduct
    an analysis of existing clean vehicle tax, rebate, voucher, and
    incentive programs, and evaluate their impacts. How is each one
    structured? Who do they benefit? How can they be strengthened to direct
    investments to the people who actually need help accessing EVs? For
    wealthier individuals, EV ownership is a matter of marketing. They have
    the means to make the choice to buy the EV. That is not true for many
    Americans, and the federal government should be focusing its resources
    on creating the conditions that would enable them to make those
    choices, too. Moreover, policies and incentive programs should be
    structured in such a way as to meet the needs of lower and moderate-
    income consumers. For instance, a tax credit that gives a taxpayer a
    $2,500 credit or rebate only after they file their taxes, does nothing
    to help people who cannot afford the sticker price of an EV. We also
    know that lower-income Americans do not typically purchase new
    vehicles, and while there has not been much of a used EV market to-
    date, that is changing, and incentives should support the purchase of
    both new and used EVs.
        Another issue to consider is how to prioritize zero-emission
    technology investments compared to other types of ``cleaner'' but still
    dirty fuels. While we recognize EV technology may not be ready for mass
    deployment in all transportation scenarios, wherever zero-emission
    options are available, they should be given priority over alternative
    fuel vehicles. For instance, electric school buses and transit buses
    are viable and available today. Therefore, the federal government
    should no longer be investing in diesel, natural gas, or other forms of
    ``cleaner'' but still dirty buses. The purpose of the public's limited
    dollars should be to spur new economic growth and provide investments
    in cutting-edge technology that will keep the United States competitive
    while solving our greatest societal challenges. In the bus scenario in
    particular, the cost of buses is so great that agencies expect to get
    the full life-cycle use out of them. That means, these buses will be in
    existence for many years to come, and as they come to the end of their
    life and are retired, they should be replaced with the absolute best
    available technology on the market today, which is a zero-emission bus.
        Finally, we have seen public transportation infrastructure
    deprioritized all across the country, in favor of freeway widening
    projects that only keep more cars on the road. As a result, there are
    low-income communities locked out of economic opportunities, education,
    and healthcare because they lack reliable bus service and
    transportation options where they live. In some neighborhoods,
    including in Oakland, CA, there is not adequate bus service to meet the
    demand. This results in a situation where it is commonplace that a bus
    becomes full by the time it reaches your stop, and needs to skip your
    stop. You are then left at the bus stop stranded and unable to get to
    work on time. You may even lose your job if it occurs too regularly,
    and these are circumstances beyond your control. There are rural
    communities where it can take 8 hours round trip on multiple buses just
    to get a child to the nearest hospital. These are not conditions that
    can be remedied by continuing to favor individual vehicle ownership and
    the idea that American households should have 2 and 3 cars each in our
    policymaking. We need to look at transportation systems comprehensively
    and design systems where people--not only goods--can get to where they
    need to go with ease, efficiency, and affordability.
                          the honorable garret graves
        1. You noted in your testimony the support for the Clean School Bus
    Act of 2019. Do you believe this legislation better addresses this
    issue when compared to the EPA's Clean School Bus program?
        The Clean School Bus Act of 2019 and the EPA's existing Clean
    School Bus Rebate Program should not be viewed as ``either-or.'' By
    Clean Energy Works' estimate, it would take at least $6 billion to
    transition just 10 percent of the nation's school bus fleet. There is
    no way for cash-strapped schools to be able to make this transition
    without funding and financing to overcome the upfront cost barriers of
    buying electric. More funding--not less--is needed. And our children
    deserve it. Children are an especially vulnerable population when it
    comes to exposure to toxic tailpipe emissions. The Clean School Bus Act
    of 2009 is meant to augment and complement other programs and available
    funds to help schools in making the transition to zero-emission
    electric buses that give kids a cleaner, safer ride to school.
        The Clean School Bus Act of 2019 would provide grants of up to $2
    million to local governments to invest exclusively in electric buses
    and charging infrastructure, and to train their workers to operate and
    maintain the electric buses. Importantly, it gives funding priority to
    schools that serve low-income populations, and would authorize a total
    of $1 billion dollars over 5 years for a Clean School-bus Grant Program
    run by the U.S. Department of Energy.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://scipol.org/track/clean-school-bus-act
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The EPA's program commits $9.3 million in rebates to replace older
    diesel-powered school buses with newer, cleaner buses--not necessarily
    electric or zero-emission buses. It also funds retrofits for existing
    buses in accordance with the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) of
    2010. The program's focus is on reducing children's exposure to toxic
    emissions from school buses, and was designed with 2010 conditions in
    mind. There has been significant technological advancement since the
    DERA of 2010. Today, technology has moved beyond lower-emission buses
    to now having fully zero-emission buses on the market that can travel
    more than 150 miles on a single charge. Given this, the federal
    government should consider amending EPA's existing program to refocus
    bus replacement dollars on replacing older buses with electric. Why
    expose kids to dangerous levels of emissions if we don't have to?
        School buses are expensive, and schools expect to get the full
    life-cycle value out of the bus, which can be 10-12 years. That means,
    buying ``cleaner'' diesel buses today locks children into having to
    breathe toxic emissions for a full decade. Today, better technology
    exists. Zero-emission electric buses are ready for deployment and are
    serving schools in many different parts of the country now. Federal
    dollars and grant programs to replace older, retiring buses should go
    toward zero-emission electric bus technology.
        The EPA's current program goes beyond bus replacement, and provides
    funding for retrofits, as well. Until all dirty buses reach their
    retirement age and can be replaced with clean zero-emission buses, a
    process that could take a decade or more to complete, the EPA should
    continue to fund school bus retrofits that will reduce children's
    exposure to emissions.
        Children's health must be a top-priority. Both the Clean School Bus
    Act of 2019 and the EPA's Clean School Bus Rebate Program are critical
    programs for reducing harmful exposure to tailpipe emissions and
    curbing climate risk.
        2. In your testimony, you say there are an estimated 150 million
    Americans living in neighborhoods that don't meet federal air quality
    standards. Do you know how many of them are in California?
        According to the American Lung Association's State of the Air
    report, California is home to seven of the top 10 ``Smoggiest Cities''
    in the United States.\8\ It is estimated that 90% of Californians live
    in counties with unhealthy air.\9\ With an estimated population of
    39.56 million (2018), that would mean California is home to about 35.6
    million Americans living in low-quality air conditions or approximately
    23.5% of all Americans who are experiencing similar conditions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/24/air-
    pollution-smog-soot-worst-california/3551734002/
        \9\ https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/news/Pages/California-
    Named-State-with-the-Worst-Air-Quality-Again.aspx
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        California has a population of over 39 million, a warm climate that
    helps form pollutants, and a topography that traps pollution, which
    creates unique challenges for the state in tackling air pollution.
    These challenges have been recognized by the federal government and are
    a key reason why California is given a special waiver to set higher
    vehicle emissions standards that the federal standards. Other factors
    contribute to the problem, such as rising housing prices which push
    people to live further and further away from where they work, and
    result in an increase in the overall vehicle miles travelled. While the
    state has enacted numerous policies to reduce emissions, it still has
    more work to do.
        Approximately 76.5% of Americans living in poor air quality areas
    live outside of California. Cities that made the top 10 ``Sootiest
    Cities''' list include: Fair Banks, AK; Pittsburgh, PA; four cities in
    Ohio; and Weirton, West Virginia.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/24/air-
    pollution-smog-soot-worst-california/3551734002/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3. Your program exists to lift people out of poverty, according to
    your testimony. How will changes in the heavy-duty transportation
    industry affect the low-income neighborhoods from an economic
    standpoint?
        First, we aim to reduce transportation costs for low-income
    households and expand mobility access. Lower-income earners spend a
    higher percentage of their incomes on basic necessities like energy and
    transportation, while low-income communities can oftentimes be locked
    out of economic opportunities due to inadequate transportation and
    mobility access. By investing not only in clean transportation
    solutions like electric vehicles, but also improved and expanded public
    transit service, transit-oriented affordable housing development,
    electric vanpools and rideshare programs for rural communities, and
    other solutions that help people reach jobs, education, and healthcare
    more efficiently and affordably, we can reduce the cost of living and
    improve quality of life.
        Second, we aim to leverage job creation to put the people who most
    need work, to work doing the job that most needs done: building a more
    sustainable future.
        Shifting the transportation industry from dirty diesel to electric
    vehicles shifts the job market, as well. It is estimated the industry
    will require 40 million installed chargers across the United States,
    Europe, and China.\11\ As electric vehicles become more widespread,
    technicians will be needed across the country to install and support
    these technologies. If we look to the spike in solar panel installers
    and wind turbine technicians as an example, we can see how clean
    technology can energize our economy and provide new, well-paying, and
    cutting-edge jobs to the people who need them most. The federal
    government can help ensure this by tying federal funds to fair labor
    and workforce standards such as paying a prevailing wage, local and
    targeted hiring, contracting with women, minority, and veteran-owned
    businesses, requiring entities receiving public dollars to be union
    neutral, and more. Senator Gillibrand's Build Local Hire Local Act of
    2019 is an excellent example of how this could be done.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/
    our-insights/charging-ahead-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-demand
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the automobile industry will face some disruptions in its
    traditional forms of production, the electric car industry doesn't
    eliminate the industry and the need for automobile technicians.\12\
    Rather, it opens up the market for potentially higher-paying jobs, like
    engineering autonomous technology, and hardware and software engineers.
    This will require a shift in our job training and workforce development
    programs to include creating job training pathways and pipelines for
    low-opportunity youth, women, minorities, veterans, and other
    vulnerable populations to access these new jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://evadoption.com/15-shifts-how-the-transition-to-
    electric-vehicles-will-transform-industries-jobs-and-the-environment/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4. Are you aware of the attached ``The 200'' lawsuit in
    California?\13\ Without the need to comment directly on the lawsuit,
    what are you doing to ensure that energy, environment and climate
    policies in California are not creating an undue burden on those who
    are already struggling economically?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://centerforjobs.org/ca/news/behind-the-green-curtain
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        California utilizes a variety of tools and policies to identify its
    most vulnerable and disproportionately impacted populations, dedicate
    and direct resources to benefit those communities, routinely evaluate
    and measure program success, and maintain a transparent process by
    which the public can view results.
        For example, CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool the state uses which
    looks at cumulative impacts to identify the most ``disadvantaged''
    populations. The tool includes environmental indicators like air
    quality and toxic exposure, health indicators such as asthma and cancer
    rates, vulnerable population factors such as children and senior
    populations, income and poverty indicators, and other risk factors that
    would illustrate where there are disproportionate pollution burdens and
    people who lack the means to address the issues on their own.\14\ The
    tool both identifies where heavy sources of pollution are found, as
    well as where the people who are most susceptible to the effects live.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Policymakers use the tool to make informed climate and clean energy
    investment decisions. Senate Bill 535 (2012) required a portion of
    California's cap and trade dollars go to benefit the most disadvantaged
    communities, and today the state spends more than 50% of the funds on
    programs that benefit these communities.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-funding-
    guidelines-administering-agencies
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is worth noting that equity has become such a key priority for
    the state that it uses a variety of metrics for evaluating the success
    of its climate programs;\16\ Whereas most programs would measure
    greenhouse gas reduction levels as the sole measure of success,
    California considers co-benefits and impacts such as preventing
    displacement, engaging the community, and workforce development and job
    creation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-methodologies
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the federal government were to adopt a national carbon pricing
    program, which could provide significant funding for many clean energy
    solutions, it should adopt many of the criteria described above that
    would ensure dollars are deployed to create fair and inclusive access
    to and participation in the clean economy. You will find Green For
    All's two-pager on the key principles of effective and equitable carbon
    pricing policy here.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rebuildthedream/pages/
    7689/attachments/original/1487686952/
    GreenForAll_CarbonPricingPolicy_2Pager_(3).pdf?1487686952
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Congress should consider developing a system for
    evaluating all policies, especially climate and energy policy, through
    an equity screen. Bills would be evaluated in terms of how well they
    propose to address existing disparities and whether it would be likely
    to widen or narrow the gap between the eco-haves and eco-have nots. A
    scoring rubric could be developed to assign value to different equity
    measures, assigning the bill an ``equity score.'' In many ways, this
    would be similar to how bills are evaluated and marked up for their
    financial or budgetary impact.

                            Questions for the Record

                  Ryan Popple, President and CEO, Proterra Inc

                           the honorable kathy castor
        1. In your testimony, you referenced the Advanced Technology
    Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program administered by the U.S. Department
    of Energy. How could this loan program be amended to facilitate greater
    deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles?
        One of the goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
    2007, which established the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
    Loan Program (ATVM), is to increase the efficiency of vehicles and
    improve US energy security. The loan program, however, was limited to
    the improvement of the use of advanced technologies in light-duty cars
    and components manufactured in the United States. Manufacturers of
    heavy-duty vehicles--such as electric public transit buses--are
    ineligible to apply for the low-interest loans. My understanding is
    that there is approximately $16B remaining in this loan program, having
    successfully helped companies such as Tesla, Nissan and Ford. The loans
    are currently limited by statute to manufacturers and suppliers of
    light duty vehicles, the class of vehicles that weigh 8500 pounds or
    less. Congress should amend this program to allow U.S. heavy duty
    vehicle manufacturers, like Proterra, to apply for loans that will help
    them invest in R&D and accelerate product development. The amendment
    should expand the eligibility to include manufacturers of zero-emission
    heavy duty vehicles--which weigh more than 8500 pounds--for public
    transportation that meet certain criteria. I suggest expanding the
    ultra-efficient vehicle category by adding a new vehicle class. The new
    class of vehicles must be able to operate as a fully electric vehicle
    that can carry 28 passengers and pass standard energy economy tests
    established by the FTA's Model Bus Testing Program.
        2. California's Gross State Product is over $3 trillion. If it were
    a sovereign nation, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world.
    For those that suggest that decarbonization requires sacrificing
    economic growth, how would you respond?
        Investing in decarbonization promotes economic growth and American
    leadership in the global economy. Advancement and growth in the clean
    energy sector is critical to America's economic competitiveness and is
    creating good paying jobs across the country. Decarbonization in its
    various forms has contributed to California's significant economic
    growth in the form of investment, venture capital and job creation.
    California has demonstrated decades of job growth in the clean tech
    economy--experiencing more job and wage growth than the United States
    as whole.\1\ Today, more than 500,000 Californians are working in clean
    energy.\2\ Further, by targeting efficiency technologies like LED and
    electric vehicles, the US economy could create more value with less
    energy, providing a competitive advantage.
        The reality is that encouraging innovation attracts entrepreneurs,
    which in turn attracts private venture capital funding, which in turn
    leads to job creation and generates economic growth. In 2017,
    California attracted $1.42B of clean technology venture capital
    funding.\3\ And the state attracted over $22B in clean technology
    venture capital funding from 2007 to 2017 due to the strong ecosystem
    of innovation that was developed in response to semiconductor,
    software, energy and healthcare opportunities.\4\ California's share of
    the clean technology global venture capital funding during this same
    period has ranged from 48% to 18%.\5\ Proterra alone has raised over
    $500M in capital and created more than 575 U.S. jobs while establishing
    its Corporate HQ and two manufacturing facilities in CA.
        Lastly, California's emissions fell 1% in 2017, to 424 million
    metric tons. But the state's economy grew at 3.6%, higher than the
    national average, demonstrating that reducing emissions does not hamper
    economic growth.\6\ According to the California Green Innovation Index,
    California had greater emissions reductions (-11.1%) than the United
    States as a whole (-10.2%) between 2006-2016, while also achieving
    greater economic output.\7\
        3. Deploying more electric vehicles, buses, and trucks will add
    significant demand to the electricity grid. What can Congress do to
    prepare the grid for large-scale electrification?
        It is worth noting that Tesla reports deploying approximately
    14,000 ``super chargers'' in North America of power levels ranging from
    75 kW to 150 kW and, as I understand, without any stress on the overall
    grid. https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. Tesla has made local
    investments to distribution hardware (transformers and switch gear) to
    facilitate super charger locations in many areas, but they haven't
    required more power plants. The Tesla example is relevant because those
    ``super chargers'' are the approximate power level of a bus charger,
    meaning we have a proof point that approximately 14,000 electric buses
    worth of plug-in chargers has already been installed without impact to
    the grid. To put this into perspective, the load of the entire US
    public transit fleet (approximately 70,000 buses) charging at 100 kW
    simultaneously would be 7 gigawatts, or less than the average annual
    capacity increase from 2007-2017.\8\
        I believe that planning for and managing demand on the grid is the
    primary responsibility of utility companies. Recent studies have shown
    that, overall, there's not a near capacity scarcity and EVs have the
    potential to help balance loads and improve the resiliency of our
    nation's electricity infrastructure.\9\ That being said, it is
    imperative we take a collaborative approach to proactively managing
    grid demand as we move towards large-scale electrification. Congress
    can help in the following ways:
               Expand the Alternative Fuel Tax Credit (26 U.S.C.
            Sec. 6426(d)) to make fuel neutral by including electricity as
            an alternative fuel. By including electricity as an alternative
            fuel, Congress will level the playing field by making the
            credit fuel neutral, promote competition on the merits for
            alternative technologies and further promote conversion to
            alternative fuels, thereby reducing U.S. dependence on foreign
            oil and encouraging creativity and innovation in the
            marketplace.
               Expand federal funding for energy research and
            development, and in particular for the Department of Energy's
            Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Vehicle
            Technologies Office) and Advanced Research Projects Agency-
            Energy.
               Provide additional federal funding support for
            infrastructure projects that will support medium- and heavy-
            duty vehicle fleet deployments at the state and local levels
            including school bus and transit bus projects.
               Increase federal agency research on electrification,
            automation, and connectivity technologies and deployment
            strategies.
               Fund vehicle-to-grid integration and stationary
            battery storage demonstration projects to promote grid
            resiliency and smart cities demonstration projects.
               Fund research and development of battery-electric
            technologies and create incentives to further investment in
            primary battery cell development and manufacturing in the
            United States to support a domestic supply chain for stationary
            storage and vehicle applications.
               Encourage more collaboration between the Federal
            Energy Regulatory Commission and the state regulators
            (including state Public Utility Commissions and state energy
            offices) on electric vehicles, electric vehicle infrastructure
            and other emerging grid technologies to ensure better planning
            and coordination.
               Help cities and utilities plan so that they can
            identify the structural needs to support the integration of
            vehicles and infrastructure into city and utility operations.
               Encourage North American electric vehicle charging
            connection standardization by working with private standard
            setting organizations, such as the Society of Automotive
            Engineers (SAE).
               Encourage the adoption of a new Transportation
            Infrastructure bill that includes funding for heavy-duty
            electric vehicle fleets and the accompanying electric vehicle
            infrastructure.
               Support investment in infrastructure, storage and
            smart technologies that enable demand management and promote
            grid resiliency.
               Support or create incentives for power companies to
            accelerate transition of the grid from point-to-point to
            electric distribution as a network.
                          the honorable garret graves
        1. I assume you are competing against Chinese bus manufacturers.
    How well do you compete against them and what is your biggest concern
    about having to compete with them in the U.S. market? What can Congress
    do to help?
        One of our competitors is the Chinese-manufacturer Build Your
    Dreams (BYD) and we compete throughout the United States for electric
    bus deployments for public transit agencies. Published reports show
    that BYD benefits from aggressive Chinese subsidy programs to lower
    prices in order to win business. We believe this reflects a strategy to
    price below market costs to eliminate competition and dominate the
    market in the United States and around the globe--which is the goal of
    Made in China 2025. To address this practice, Rep. Harley Rouda
    recently introduced a bill (HR 2739) that would prevent federal transit
    funds from being used by transit agencies to purchase rail cars or
    buses manufactured by Chinese owned, controlled, or subsidized
    companies. The same bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators
    Cornyn and Baldwin (S 846). Both bills were made part of the National
    Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020. Section 6015 of
    the Senate NDAA retained Rouda bill language that would preclude
    funding for Chinese-supported rail and bus rolling stock.
    Unfortunately, section 896 of the House NDAA did not and limited the
    restriction solely to rail rolling stock. Congress should pass the
    Senate version in the NDAA conference report so that buses are
    included. A final NDAA bill that includes buses will ensure that U.S.
    manufacturers like Proterra and its domestic suppliers do not face
    unfair competition from companies that receive support from the Chinese
    government. Prohibiting federal transit funds from being expended on
    Chinese rolling stock would have the added benefit of protecting our
    national security and transportation and electric grid infrastructure
    from the threat that China poses and improving cybersecurity in public
    transportation.
        2. What are some of the challenges of electrification for long-haul
    agriculture and food supply vehicles? Do you see potential concerns for
    farmers, the food supply chain, and to food safety, animal welfare?
        The challenge for long-haul agriculture and food supply vehicles,
    as I see it, revolves around vehicle range and charging infrastructure
    deployment. Range is impacted by the use of auxiliary items like
    refrigeration and HVAC systems to provide humane conditions for animals
    being transported. Electrification in the food sector would have to
    accommodate refrigeration in many applications, which will impact the
    range of those vehicles. Short distance food supply vehicles would
    require careful route analysis and planning to ensure that they were
    able to meet their daily routes while accommodating the energy needs
    for refrigeration. High power and high-speed charging could solve that
    problem if vehicles were able to charge mid-day. Mid-day charging could
    top off the batteries on longer routes. However, this raises a second
    challenge involving the right placement of high power, high-speed
    chargers for long-haul agriculture and food supply vehicles.
        That being said, we see opportunities for EV technology to improve
    economic productivity in the agriculture sector, and to reduce
    emissions exposure and health care costs for workers in the
    agricultural economy. The bus & truck sector share many components and
    supply chains with the off-road commercial vehicle sector, which
    includes mining, construction and agricultural vehicles like tractors
    and harvesting equipment. In the near-term, the first opportunities for
    EV technology to provide benefits to the agricultural sector will be in
    fleet-based farm and ranch vehicles. These EVs will enable farmers to
    reduce their dependency on a single fuel type, and in many cases allow
    farming operations to self-generate much of their energy, as we
    increasingly see farms deploying solar and wind energy to diversify
    their revenue and gain more self-sufficiency. In terms of food safety
    and animal welfare, zero emission electric vehicles used in the
    agriculture sector will reduce the level of diesel pollution in crops
    and livestock, enabling a healthier food supply for America. In the
    long-term, zero emission freight trucks and trains could enable low-
    cost, zero emission freight shipments between major agriculture
    markets. Long-haul electric trucks are already being introduced by
    major manufacturers including Freightliner, Tesla and Volvo. Long-haul
    will require more infrastructure investment that may include on-road
    charging similar to what has been demonstrated in Northern Europe. But
    the near-term opportunities for farm, construction and mining electric
    vehicle technology offer the most immediate economic, health and
    environmental improvements for the agricultural sector.
                                   references
        1. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
    https://www.next10.org/2018-giiE; see also Energy Efficiency,
    Innovation and Job Creation in California, David Roland-Holst, UC
    Berkeley. https://are.berkeley.edu/dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/
    UCB%20Energy%20Innovation%20and%20Job%20Creation %2010-20-08.pdf
        2. Clean Jobs California 2019. https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-
    jobs-california-2019/; see also Many Shades of Green: Diversity and
    Distribution of California's Green Jobs, Next 10, U.S. Metro Economies:
    Current and Potential Green Jobs in the U.S. Economy, U.S. Conference
    of Mayors. http://actrees.org/files/Research/
    Many_Shades_of_Green_1209.pdf;
        3. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
    https://www.next10.org/2018-gii
        4. Id.
        5. Id.
        6. Clean Energy Powers California Climate Emissions Drop, J.D.
    Morris, Bix & Tech (Aug. 14, 2019). https://www.sfchronicle.com/
    business/article/California-cuts-greenhouse-gases-but-14299117.php
        7. 2018 California Green Innovation Index, Next 10 (10th Ed.);
    https://www.next10.org/2018-gii
        8. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_02_a.html
        9. Connecting Electric Vehicles to the Grid for Greater
    Infrastructure Resilience, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. April
    20, 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/connecting-electric-
    vehicles-to-the-grid-for-greater-infrastructure-resilience.html

                            Questions for the Record

        Tony Satterthwaite President--Distribution Business Cummins Inc.

                           the honorable kathy castor
        1. In your testimony, you referenced the SuperTruck program
    administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. How could this program
    be expanded or modified to accelerate development and deployment of
    zero-emission heavy-duty truck technology?
        The SuperTruck program administered by the U.S. Department of
    Energy could be expanded and modified to accelerate the development and
    deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty truck technology by setting more
    aggressive emissions goals and expanding the resources available to
    meet those targets. For example, the current running SuperTruck II
    program sets a target of 55% improvement of Brake Thermal Efficiency
    (BTE) over the 2009 baseline class 8 truck. The next iteration of the
    program could supplement a BTE goal, which measures the efficiency of
    an internal combustion engine, for an emissions goal. Awarding
    competitive grants for truck and engine manufacturers to create teams
    to meet aggressive class 8 targets can help spur development and remove
    barriers like cost and infrastructure that exist for commercial
    customers. Use of the national labs, universities and commercial fleet
    partners can ensure access to resources and an understanding of how a
    customer wants to use a vehicle. By setting an emissions goal and not a
    technology mandate teams can try different approaches to meet these
    aggressive targets, like high efficiency diesel, natural gas, fuel cell
    and battery-electric power.
        2. In your testimony, you referenced opportunities to capture
    landfill gas or biogas for processing into fuels for vehicles. What
    should Congress do to expand deployment of these technologies?
        Congress can and should continue to invest in a variety of emerging
    technologies to help reduce the impacts of climate change. The
    Department of Energy and National Labs should continue to conduct
    research on net-zero carbon sustainable fuel choices including landfill
    gas or biogas as fuel. Creating consistency in the tax code around
    these technologies can also help industry develop long-term strategy.
    By supporting American innovation on a number of promising
    technologies, Congress can ensure US leadership on whichever option
    markets and customers choose to do their job.
                          the honorable garret graves
        1. What are some of the challenges of electrification for long-haul
    agriculture and food supply vehicles? Do you see potential concerns for
    farmers, the food supply chain, and to food safety, animal welfare?
        The challenges for vehicle electrification for long-haul
    agriculture and food supply vehicles are the same faced in many heavy-
    duty applications: cost, weight and infrastructure. Currently, the cost
    of an electrified powertrain for a commercial vehicle is significantly
    more than a comparable diesel or natural gas truck. In fact, for dollar
    per unit of NOx reduced, just transitioning a food supply fleet to the
    latest diesel technology will be far more effective in reducing NOx in
    the air. With existing technology, battery weight on such a truck will
    also negatively impact the amount of freight carried, so more trucks
    will be needed to carry the same amount of product. Finally, there is
    not currently consistent and reliable charging infrastructure on long-
    haul routes for many customers to switch to battery electric power.
        The food supply chain has additional challenges of refrigeration
    during transportation, currently supplied by diesel reefer units. The
    same challenges facing heavy-duty applications: cost weight and
    infrastructure, will also impact mobile refrigeration in an electrified
    scenario. Currently, there are no commercially-available electrified
    mobile refrigeration units. Heavy duty vehicles can recover some energy
    from braking, but refrigeration units do not have this option, making
    the range or time of operation of the electrified reefer a concern.
        These are some of the barriers that may concern agriculture
    customers. We are, however, encouraged by government efforts to address
    the problems of cost, weight and infrastructure, and of additional low
    and no-emissions technology options for these markets like natural gas
    and fuel cell to power long-haul vehicles.