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


                BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: 
                SOLUTIONS FOR PLANES, TRAINS, AND EVERY-
                THING BEYOND AUTOMOBILES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 23, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-72
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
43-663 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          
                      
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Emily Wimberger, Ph.D., Climate Economist, Rhodium Group.........    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Jeremy Baines, President, Neste US, Inc..........................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
J.P. Fjeld-Hansen, Vice President and Managing Director, Musket 
  and Trillium Corporations, on behalf of the National 
  Association of Truckstop Operators.............................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   145
Fred Felleman, Commissioner, Port of Seattle and the Northwest 
  Seaport Alliance...............................................    48
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   147
Timothy A. Blubaugh, Executive Vice President, Truck and 
  Engineering Manufacturers Association..........................    59
    Prepared statement...........................................    61
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   150
Wayne Eckerle, Ph.D., Vice President, Global Research and 
  Technology, Cummins, Inc.......................................    63
    Prepared statement...........................................    65
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   153
Adrian Martinez, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice....................    73
    Prepared statement...........................................    75

                           Submitted Material

Letter of October 23, 2019, from Ian Jefferies, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads, to 
  Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..............   109
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Robbie Diamond, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Securing America's Future Energy, to 
  Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko....................   113
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Bert Kalisch, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, American Public Gas Association, to 
  Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..............   117
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive 
  Director, Diesel Technology Forum, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. 
  Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................   130
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Christopher Miller, Executive 
  Director, Advanced Engine Systems Institute, to Mr. Pallone, 
  with Report, ``Technology Feasibility for Model Year 2024 
  Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in Meeting Lower NOx Standards,'' 
  Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, June 2019, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   126
Letter of October 22, 2019, from Allison Cunningham, Director, 
  Federal Government Affairs, NGVAmerica, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. 
  Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................   133
Fact sheet, ``Vehicle Comparison-Diesel, CNG, EV, and Hydrogen,'' 
  Love's, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................   139
Letter of October 23, 2019, from Capt. Joseph G. DePete, 
  President, Air Line Pilots Association International, to Mr. 
  Tonko and Mr. Shimkus submitted by Mr. Tonko...................   140

 
BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: SOLUTIONS FOR PLANES, TRAINS, AND 
                     EVERYTHING BEYOND AUTOMOBILES

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in 
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Barragan, Blunt 
Rochester, Soto, Schakowsky, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone 
(ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, 
McKinley, Johnson, Long, Flores, Carter, and Walden (ex 
officio).
    Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, 
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, 
Professional Staff Member; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; 
Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Peter Kielty, 
Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief 
Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; and 
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, 
Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes 
for the purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Today's hearing is another benchmark in our series 
examining decarbonization of our economy by midcentury.
    Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in America. While debate is often focused on light-
duty automobiles, more than 40 percent of the sector's 
emissions come from other sources, including buses, trucks, 
ships, trains, and planes.
    Much like at our September hearing on the industrial 
sector, it will quickly become apparent that nonlight-duty 
segments of transportation have numerous challenges to overcome 
in order to achieve necessary, ambitious decarbonization 
targets.
    For one, in recent decades there has been growth in 
Vehicles Miles Traveled, and in many cases this growth is 
expected to continue.
    Second, these vehicles are capital-intensive investments 
with slow turnover. Investment decisions being made today will 
impact the emissions profile of the sector and, in turn, our 
ability to decarbonize it, for decades to come.
    Other significant barriers--cost, technology development, 
and infrastructure needs--will not be news to anyone. We know 
that we need investments, in research especially, in advanced 
batteries and fuel cells. We need new infrastructure to enable 
the transition, including a national network of alternative 
fueling and charging stations. And we need greater market 
demand for cleaner fuels.
    Transportation emissions are a diverse set of challenges. 
Transforming the sector will be no easy task. But many of the 
principles that we have been discussing as part of our broader, 
economywide approach apply here. We need to ensure that 
pollution reduction, both climate and traditional air 
pollutants, occurs in front line communities near ports, near 
airports, near highways.
    We must be open to many different technologies and pathways 
to decarbonization. And we need a comprehensive, portfolio 
approach.
    Establishing a price signal can be a critical component of 
our response and can speed up adoption and innovation in low-
emissions alternatives. But carbon pricing is not a silver 
bullet, and that is especially true for our transportation 
sector. We must look to performance standards and other 
complementary investments such as in research and 
infrastructure.
    Today we will hear recommendations from across that sector 
that should push us towards this portfolio approach. And while 
the challenges seen daunting, there are great solutions already 
being developed and deployed as we speak. Some are commercially 
available right now. More are expected to become viable in the 
near future.
    Efficiency remains a top solution across all modes. For 
medium and heavy-duty vehicles, the National Academies recently 
found strengthening fuel economy standards can reduce fuel 
consumption by as much as 30 percent by 2030.
    Electrification is also a powerful solution for certain 
parts of the sector. We have seen the potential of EVs with 
light-duty vehicles, and today adoption of electric buses is 
occurring at an even faster rate than passenger vehicles. 
Public- and private-sector leaders have quickly come to realize 
that there are opportunities from electrifying transit, and 
school buses, and delivery trucks--vehicles that take shorter, 
often predetermined, routes and can take advantage of 
predictable periods of nonuse for charging.
    But electrification is not the only option. In applications 
facing weight or distance concerns, hydrogen energy is a very 
promising solution, especially given the speed of refueling. 
This has enabled fuel cells to find a role in warehouses. They 
are beginning to be deployed in ports and on tarmacs, and there 
are great opportunities for long-haul freight trucking powered 
by hydrogen.
    Despite these exciting options, which are rapidly becoming 
more affordable, there will likely still be a need for lower-
emissions liquid fuels for years to come. This is especially 
true for maritime and aviation, where sustainable fuels are 
just beginning to be commercialized. Development of cost-
competitive, drop-in fuels, largely compatible with existing 
systems, is critical for these very difficult-to-decarbonize 
applications.
    I hope today's hearing will help us better understand what 
we will need to do to help develop demand for new and cleaner 
fuels. But in all these cases, major innovation in 
transportation will not happen without our leadership, without 
our partnership, and without our vision for building the 
enabling infrastructure.
    I thank each and every witness here today for attending 
this hearing, and look forward to the words of advice that you 
will share. Your testimony is especially meaningful to our 
efforts for decarbonization. Thank you all for attending.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Today's hearing is another benchmark in our series 
examining decarbonization of our economy by mid-century.
    Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in America. While debate is often focused on light-
duty automobiles, more than 40% of the sector's emissions come 
from other sources--buses, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.
    Much like at our September hearing on the industrial 
sector, it will quickly become apparent that nonlight-duty 
segments of transportation have numerous challenges to overcome 
in order to achieve necessary, ambitious decarbonization 
targets.
    For one, in recent decades there has been growth in vehicle 
miles traveled, and in many cases, this growth is expected to 
continue.
    Second, these vehicles are capital-intensive investments 
with slow turnover. Investment decisions being made today will 
impact the emissions profile of the sector--and in turn our 
ability to decarbonize it--for decades to come.
    Other significant barriers--cost, technology development, 
and infrastructure needs--will not be news to anyone.
    We know that we need investments in research, especially in 
advanced batteries and fuel cells.
    We need new infrastructure to enable the transition, 
including a national network of alternative fueling and 
charging stations.
    And we need greater market demand for cleaner fuels.
    Transportation emissions are a diverse set of challenges. 
Transforming the sector will be no easy task. But many of the 
principles we have been discussing as part of our broader, 
economy-wide approach apply here.
    We need to ensure that pollution reduction--both climate 
and traditional air pollutants--occurs in frontline communities 
near ports, airports, and highways.
    We must be open to many different technologies and pathways 
to decarbonization.
    And we need a comprehensive, portfolio approach.
    Establishing a price signal can be a critical component of 
our response and can speed up adoption and innovation in low-
emissions alternatives, but carbon pricing is not a silver 
bullet, and that is especially true for transportation.
    We must look to performance standards and other 
complementary investments, such as in research and 
infrastructure.
    Today, we will hear recommendations from across the sector 
that should push us towards this portfolio approach.
    And while the challenges seem daunting, there are great 
solutions already being developed and deployed today.
    Some are commercially available right now. More are 
expected to become viable in the near future.
    Efficiency remains a top solution across all modes.
    For medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, the National Academies 
recently found strengthening fuel economy standards can reduce 
fuel consumption by as much as 30% by 2030.
    Electrification is also a powerful solution for certain 
parts of the sector.
    We have seen the potential of EVs with light-duty vehicles, 
and today, adoption of electric buses is occurring at an even 
faster rate than passenger vehicles.
    Public and private sector leaders have quickly come to 
realize the opportunities from electrifying transit and school 
buses and delivery trucks--vehicles that take shorter, often 
predetermined, routes and can take advantage of predictable 
periods of non-use for charging.
    But electrification is not the only option. In applications 
facing weight or distance concerns, hydrogen energy is a very 
promising solution, especially given the speed of refueling.
    This has enabled fuel cells to find a role in warehouses. 
They are beginning to be deployed in ports and on tarmacs, and 
there are great opportunities for long-haul freight trucking 
powered by hydrogen.
    Despite these exciting options, which are rapidly becoming 
more affordable, there will likely still be a need for lower-
emissions liquid fuels for years to come.
    This is especially true for maritime and aviation where 
sustainable fuels are just beginning to be commercialized.
    Development of cost-competitive, drop-in fuels, largely 
compatible with existing systems, is critical for these very 
difficult to decarbonize applications.
    I hope today's hearing will help us better understand what 
we will need to do to help develop demand for new, cleaner 
fuels.
    But in all these cases, major innovation in transportation 
will not happen without our leadership, partnership, and vision 
for building the enabling infrastructure.
    I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to 
your testimony.

    Mr. Tonko. With that, I will now recognize the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, 
Representative Shimkus, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement. Welcome, Representative.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today, the subcommittee turns to what is possible for 
decarbonizing transportation beyond automobiles and light 
trucks. This means aviation, shipping and ports, rail, et 
cetera. It means that medium and heavy vehicles used in 
agriculture, industry, transit to move loads of all types on 
the highways and throughout every size community across the 
United States.
    The transportation sector produces 29 percent of the 
Nation's carbon dioxide emissions according to the EPA. Medium 
and heavy vehicles account for just under a quarter of these 
emissions, which provides a large target for further emission 
reductions. These vehicles, which are powered mostly by diesel 
engines, also provide a large role in the economy of the United 
States.
    According to the Diesel Technology Forum, heavy-duty diesel 
engines were responsible for doing $4 trillion in economic 
activity in the first quarter of 2019. This includes 
agriculture, mining, construction, and transportation, and 
represents 12 percent of all private sector industry activity.
    Last year, more than 1 million new heavy diesel engines 
were produced on American assembly lines, and provide new, more 
efficient products for use in future economic activity. In the 
transportation sector alone, diesel is the most visible in 
medium and heavy trucking. Of the 14 million commercial trucks 
on the road, 75 percent are powered by diesel engines. Ninety-
seven percent of the Class A tractor trailer fleets runs on 
diesel. And the Forum and some of our witnesses this morning 
will testify that the quality of the new engines is providing 
large environmental benefit.
    Between 2010 and 2030, more efficient diesel trucks are 
expected to save some 130 billion gallons of fuel and 1.3 
billion tons of CO2, more than the emissions from 
all light-duty vehicles in a given year. This is particularly 
impressive when you consider that vehicle miles traveled in 
medium and heavy trucking is projected to increase. The Energy 
Information Administration projects that vehicle miles traveled 
just for medium and heavy commercial and freight trucking to 
increase nearly 60 percent by 2050.
    I raise these facts to underscore the point that getting to 
zero emissions in transportation will not be possible anytime 
soon, and it will not mean the elimination of the diesel engine 
anytime soon.
    There are a host of reasons for this: the availability and 
performance of fuels and engines; the technological limits of 
efficiency improvements; the complex infrastructure for 
transportation of goods; the affordability of new technology; 
capital costs; and fleet turnover; the performance of 
logistical realities of each subsector; and the fundamental 
need for affordable, reliable engine power in every aspect of 
our economy and our daily lives.
    Congress has to be practical and realistic when it 
confronts environmental policies concerning the transportation 
sector. Setting unrealistic goals because it checks political 
boxes is not how you develop and ultimately enact successful 
bipartisan policies. A ``100 by '50,'' net-zero emissions, 
clean-energy economy, decarbonization--these are taglines, 
descriptions. Some may be workable, some may not be workable. 
But what is not workable or productive is legislation by a 
tagline.
    Instead of taglines, let's legislate by looking at whether 
policies will raise costs, lock in policies that constrict 
innovation opportunities, inhibit transportation, and 
negatively impact not only commerce but what people rely upon 
every day.
    The good news is trends for improving transportation 
emissions are positive, as we will hear from industry witnesses 
this morning. We will also hear several witnesses talk about 
the ongoing innovation and prospects for cleaner fuels and 
engines in transportation.
    I would like to welcome in particular our witness from the 
National Association of Truckstop Operators, J.P. Fjeld-Hansen. 
He can speak about benefits of policies that focus on our 
existing energy infrastructure, on our renewable fuels policy, 
and on the innovation that is driven by focusing on needs of 
consumers, in this case the trucking industry and the driving 
public.
    Tim Blubaugh from the Truck and Engine Manufacturers 
Association will provide an overview about the success in 
reducing criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions, and 
the investments and challenges to developing zero-emission 
truck technologies.
    The testimony from Mr. Eckerle at Cummins and Mr. Baines 
from Neste also highlight what is possible in other 
transportation models.
    This promises to be an informative hearing. And I look 
forward to the testimony and to identifying what may be 
possible to do while preserving the essential roles of heavy-
duty engines in our economy and our way of life. And at the 
conclusion of this, Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to make 
sure they take a look at this chart we placed at their desk 
from Love's. It is in response to questions I had for them 
yesterday. I think it is highly instructive about the 
challenges we have on cost, fuel capacity, range. And there 
also is a line for carbon intensity score that I think is just 
highly educational.
    And I know we have noticed a hearing for next week on the 
renewable fuel standard. That does play a big role into this 
debate that we are having today. I am glad you called it. And 
we can use current public policy and reform some issues around 
the RFS that could be very helpful, especially in the debate we 
are having today. So thank you for noticing that hearing, and I 
look forward to working with you on both of them.
    And I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Today the subcommittee turns to what is possible for 
decarbonizing transportation beyond automobiles and light 
trucks. This means aviation, shipping and ports, rail. It means 
the medium and heavy vehicles used in agriculture, industry, 
transit, and to move loads of all types on the highways and 
throughout every size community across the United States.
    The transportation sector produces 29% of the Nation's 
carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA. Medium and heavy 
vehicles account for just under a quarter of these emissions, 
which provides a large target for further emissions reductions.
    These vehicles, which are powered mostly by diesel engines, 
also provide a large role in the economy of the United States.
    According to the Diesel Technology Forum, heavy duty diesel 
engines were responsible for delivering $4 trillion in economic 
activity in the first quarter of 2019. This includes 
agriculture, mining, construction, and transportation, and 
represents 12 percent of all private sector industrial 
activity.
    Last year, more than one million new heavy-diesel engines 
were produced on American assembly lines and provide new, more 
efficient products for use in future economic activity.
    In the transportation sector alone, diesel is most visible 
in medium and heavy trucking. Of the 14 million commercial 
trucks on the road, 75% are powered by diesel engines, 97% of 
the Class 8 tractor-trailer fleet runs on diesel. And, as the 
Forum and some of our witnesses this morning will testify, the 
quality of the new engines is providing large environmental 
benefits. Between 2010 and 2030, more efficient diesel trucks 
are expected to save some 130 billion gallons of fuel and 1.3 
billion tons of CO2--more than the emissions from 
all light duty vehicles in any given year.
    This is particularly impressive when you consider that 
vehicle miles traveled in medium and heavy trucking is 
projected to increase. The Energy Information Administration 
projects that vehicle miles traveled just for medium and heavy 
commercial and freight trucking to increase by nearly 60% by 
2050.
    I raise these facts to underscore the point that getting to 
zero emissions in transportation will not be possible any time 
soon, and it will not mean the elimination of the diesel engine 
anytime soon.
    There are a host of reasons for this: the availability, and 
performance of fuels and engines, the technological limits of 
efficiency improvements, the complex infrastructure for 
transporting goods, the affordability of new technology, 
capital costs and fleet turnover, the performance and 
logistical realities of each subsector, and the fundamental 
need for affordable, reliable engine power in every aspect of 
our economy and daily lives.
    Congress has to be practical and realistic when it 
confronts environmental policies concerning the transportation 
sector. Setting unrealistic goals because it checks political 
boxes is not how you develop and ultimately enact successful 
bipartisan policies. 100 by 50, net zero emissions, clean 
energy economy, deep decarbonization--these are all tag lines, 
descriptions. Some may be workable, some may not be. But what's 
not workable or productive is legislating by tagline.
    Instead of taglines, let's legislate by looking at whether 
policies will raise costs, lock in policies that constrict 
innovative opportunities, inhibit transportation and negatively 
impact not only commerce, but what people rely upon every day.
    The good news is trends for improving transportation 
emissions are positive, as we will hear from industry witnesses 
this morning. We will also hear several witnesses talk about 
the ongoing innovation and prospects for cleaner fuels and 
engines in transportation.
    I would like to welcome in particular, our witness from the 
National Association of Truck Stop Operators, J.P. Fjeld-
Hansen. He can speak about the benefits of policies that focus 
on our existing energy infrastructure, on our renewable fuels 
policy, and on the innovation that is driven by focusing on the 
needs of consumers, in this case the trucking industry and the 
driving public.
    Tim Blubaugh for the Truck and Engine Manufacturers 
Association will provide an overview about the success in 
reducing criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions, and 
the investments and challenges to developing zero-emissions 
truck technologies. The testimony from Mr. Eckerle at Cummins, 
and Mr. Baines at Neste also highlight what is possible in 
other transportation modes.
    This promises to be an informative hearing. I look forward 
to the testimony and to identifying what may be possible to do 
while preserving the essential roles of heavy-duty engine power 
in our economy and way of life.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And we thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Pallone, chair of 
the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
    Mr. Pallone.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    This morning we are holding the fourth hearing in our 
series on building a 100 percent clean economy. And each of 
these hearings has focused on a separate sector of our economy. 
And today we will be discussing key elements of the 
transportation sector, which is the largest source of climate 
pollution in our economy. Specifically, we will hear from our 
witnesses about the challenges and opportunities of 
decarbonizing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, aviation, rail, 
and maritime shipping.
    And this hearing and the overall series of hearings are 
critical as we work to develop legislation to decarbonize the 
American economy and build a cleaner, more prosperous future 
for all Americans. It will be one of the most ambitious, 
challenging, and necessary transformations our country has ever 
attempted. And our target of net-zero climate pollution by 2050 
is founded on science, which tell us we must act with urgency 
if we are to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.
    To conquer this challenge, we need the best ideas from all 
stakeholders and sectors.
    And last month, this subcommittee held a hearing focused on 
decarbonizing the industrial sector. We heard from experts 
about the challenges to reducing emissions from some of the 
most difficult-to-decarbonize industrial processes. But more 
importantly, we learned about the opportunities to overcome 
those challenges. Today's hearing will shift gears and focus on 
how we transport the industrial products covered in last 
month's hearing, as well as people, cargo, and the products we 
use in our everyday lives.
    Transportation is obviously vital to our economy. The fast, 
efficient movement of people and goods helps businesses grow 
and communities thrive. Yet, given the size and complexity of 
this sector, decarbonization presents significant challenges, 
especially for nonlight-duty vehicles like planes, trains, 
trucks, buses, and ships. And I look forward to hearing about 
the different policy solutions for this sector from our 
witnesses today.
    We often hear about the role innovation will play in 
addressing climate change and transitioning to a 100 percent 
clean economy. In fact, we can already see how innovation is 
changing the transportation sector. Manufacturers like today's 
witness Cummins are developing new products and systems for 
low- or zero-carbon transportation. And this innovation is 
critical, but as we have heard at every hearing in our climate 
series, innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is driven by 
policy. And I would imagine we are going to hear that same 
message today.
    Any suggestion that policy plays no role in spurring 
American industry to innovate new technologies willfully 
ignores the last half-century of American progress. For 
decades, under laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Federal 
Government and State leaders have set ambitious standards that 
spur industry to develop solutions that protect public health 
and the environment while growing our economy.
    And that same formula will work for many aspects of 
addressing the climate crisis, including in the transportation 
sector. In fact, it is already working. For example, today's 
efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are 
reducing emissions from those vehicles. According to the 
National Academy of Sciences, even greater efficiency gains are 
well within our reach, but they do require policy support.
    Efficiency standards will similarly play an important role 
in subsectors that cannot be readily electrified, such as 
aviation, maritime shipping, and rail. Cutting pollution will 
also require a continued shift to clean fuels, including low- 
and zero-carbon electricity and liquid fuels. And this 
transition toward climate-safe fuels is key to decarbonizing 
the transportation sector, but it comes with its challenges, 
particularly the need to develop recharging and refueling 
infrastructure across the country.
    Cities and companies are helping to lead the way, deploying 
electric buses and delivery vehicles throughout their fleets. 
These vehicles have the dual benefits of improving local air 
quality while reducing carbon pollution, but the rate at which 
these clean vehicles are being deployed is woefully 
insufficient, and we have to act to accelerate that transition.
    So I just look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we 
continue our work to determine the best ways to reach our 
climate goals and develop the 100 percent clean economy of the 
future.
    I don't know if anybody wants my time. But if not, I will 
yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    This morning, we are holding the fourth hearing in our 
series on building a 100 percent clean economy. Each of these 
hearings has focused on a separate sector of our economy, and 
today we will be discussing key elements of the transportation 
sector, which is the largest source of climate pollution in our 
economy. Specifically, we will hear from our witnesses about 
the challenges and opportunities of decarbonizing medium and 
heavy-duty vehicles, aviation, rail, and maritime shipping.
    This hearing and the overall series of hearings are 
critical as we work to develop legislation to decarbonize the 
American economy and build a cleaner, more prosperous future 
for all Americans. It will be one of the most ambitious, 
challenging, and necessary transformations our country has ever 
attempted. Our target of net zero climate pollution by 2050 is 
founded on science, which tells us we must act with urgency if 
we are to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.
    To conquer this challenge, we need the best ideas from all 
stakeholders and sectors.
    Last month, this subcommittee held a hearing focused on 
decarbonizing the industrial sector. We heard from experts 
about the challenges to reducing emissions from some of the 
most difficult-to-decarbonize industrial processes. But more 
importantly, we learned about the opportunities to overcome 
those challenges. Today's hearing will shift gears and focus on 
how we transport the industrial products covered in last 
month's hearing, as well as people, cargo, and the products we 
use in our everyday lives.
    Transportation is vital to our economy. The fast, efficient 
movement of people and goods helps businesses grow and 
communities thrive. Yet, given the size and complexity of this 
sector, decarbonization presents significant challenges, 
especially for nonlight-duty vehicles like planes, trains, 
trucks, buses, and ships. I look forward to hearing about the 
different policy solutions for this sector from our witnesses 
today.
    We often hear about the role innovation will play in 
addressing climate change and transitioning to a 100 percent 
clean economy. In fact, we can already see how innovation is 
changing the transportation sector. Manufacturers like today's 
witness Cummins are developing new products and systems for 
low- or zero-carbon transportation. This innovation is 
critical, but, as we have heard at every hearing of our climate 
series, innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is driven by 
policy. I would imagine we will hear that same message today.
    Any suggestion that policy plays no role in spurring 
American industry to innovate new technologies willfully 
ignores the last half century of American progress. For 
decades, under laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Federal 
Government and State leaders have set ambitious standards that 
spur industry to develop solutions that protect public health 
and the environment while growing our economy. That same 
formula will work for many aspects of addressing the climate 
crisis, including in the transportation sector. In fact, it is 
already working. For example, today's efficiency standards for 
medium and heavy-duty trucks are reducing emissions from those 
vehicles. According to the National Academy of Sciences, even 
greater efficiency gains are well within our reach--but they 
require policy support.
    Efficiency standards will similarly play an important role 
in subsectors that cannot be readily electrified, such as 
aviation, maritime shipping, and rail. Cutting pollution will 
also require a continued shift to cleaner fuels, including low- 
and zero-carbon electricity and liquid fuels. This transition 
toward climate-safe fuels is key to decarbonizing the 
transportation sector, but it comes with its own challenges--
particularly the need to develop recharging and refueling 
infrastructure across the country.
    Cities and companies are helping to lead the way, deploying 
electric buses and delivery vehicles throughout their fleets. 
These vehicles have the dual benefits of improving local air 
quality while reducing carbon pollution, but the rate at which 
these clean vehicles are being deployed is woefully 
insufficient. We must act to accelerate this transition.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we continue 
our work to determine the best ways to reach our climate goals 
and develop the 100 percent clean economy of the future.

    Mr. Tonko. The Chairman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, ranking 
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement. Welcome.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
welcome all of panelists. And in advance, a couple of us are on 
a couple of subcommittees--well, I am actually on all of them, 
like Chairman Pallone is--so we have another hearing going on 
downstairs, so we will be bouncing back and forth. But thank 
you for being here, thanks for your testimony.
    I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing as 
well, as we review the challenges and opportunities associated 
with decarbonizing the U.S. transportation sector, and focus on 
the light-duty portions of that sector today. I very much look 
forward to the witnesses' testimony, particularly from several 
panelists who can speak to innovation in engines and fuel, and 
energy infrastructure this morning. I will have a question for 
you about some of that. We have Red Rocks Biofuels in my 
district, and so we will have some discussion about that when I 
get back.
    There is a lot of underappreciated work toward cleaner 
engines. And today provides us with an opportunity to take a 
look at some of those innovation initiatives.
    A couple years ago, Daimler Trucks North America opened its 
High Desert Research Facility and Proving Grounds in my 
district, Madras, Oregon, which I visited during construction. 
And that track provides durability and performance tests. And 
it will be critical for proving new, innovative, and more 
efficient technologies, and represents a constant effort by the 
industry to innovate to make cleaner, more efficient engines, 
as well as to make design changes in the vehicle bodies to 
improve energy conservation.
    Reducing transportation emissions is a large, difficult, 
and complex topic, one that impacts all Americans, especially 
those whose livelihoods depend upon the affordable and reliable 
delivery of products across the Nation's transportation 
systems, which probably is just about all of us. Last Congress, 
Republicans worked closely with Democrats on this committee to 
pass bipartisan legislation setting national standards for the 
development of autonomous vehicles. We agreed then that 
national standards would encourage investment in innovation in 
the United States in this important sector of the economy.
    And it is important, I think, we all acknowledge that this 
innovation would reduce highway accidents, save lives, and 
increase fuel economy while reducing emissions. In fact, 
according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050 you 
could see as much as a 44 percent reduction in fuel consumption 
among connected autonomous vehicles, and up to 18 percent 
reduction among trucks.
    The report says, and I quote, ``In one representative 
platooning test, two semi-trucks were platooned at a constant 
speed of 64 miles an hour at a 36 foot distance. The 
configuration resulted in an average fuel consumption savings 
of 4.5 percent to the lead truck, and 10 percent to the 
following truck.`` That was their report.
    Unfortunately, that bipartisan work went up on the rocks in 
the Senate. Although it has taken a little longer than we would 
like, I remain confident that the bicameral, bipartisan staff 
discussions that have been ongoing for months, this Congress 
will shortly produce substantial results. So, we can't miss the 
opportunity for the United States to lead on developing this 
technology and delivering safety and mobility benefits for 
Americans, particularly our senior citizens and people with 
disabilities.
    Meanwhile, the administration has outlined a national 
policy that seeks to ensure people have the cars they want at 
prices they can afford. That will actually enable a more rapid 
turnover, I believe, to a cleaner, more efficient fleet. And at 
the same time, we have seen California seeking an aggressive 
and expensive standard-setting scheme that would drive up the 
price of cars and trucks nationwide, which I think would slow 
the cleaner-emitting vehicles coming to market and being with 
the uptake.
    Republicans believe in putting the consumer first, and 
encouraging American innovators to do what they do best, which 
is innovate. In the runup to these series of hearings, we have 
urged our majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting 
economically harmful top-down regulatory policies that punish 
consumers with higher prices and fewer choices.
    You know, California frequently chooses this path as a 
result of their cap-and-trade scheme, unique refining 
requirements, and gas taxes. California consumers pay about 77 
cents a gallon more than the national average. Seventy-seven 
cents a gallon. They are not really happy about paying $4.13 
per gallon to get to work and take the kids to soccer practice.
    Republicans support innovation, conservation, adaptation, 
and preparation. We believe these policies have caused America 
to lead the world in carbon emissions reductions. We believe 
over regulation and high taxation hurts consumers, especially 
low-income consumers, and that can lead to economic stagnation.
    So, in line with this principle, there are bipartisan bills 
Congress could pass today that would ensure the United States 
remains the global leader in emissions reduction and economic 
productivity and clean energy production, bills that focus on 
what works for Americans and their economic interests and well-
being. Earlier this month I expressed in a letter to Chairman 
Pallone that we are encouraged by his expressed willingness to 
develop climate policies through a collaborative approach that 
would ensure every affected community, industry, and 
stakeholder has a seat at the table. Again, we are eagerly 
awaiting the opportunity to work together on these important 
policies to encourage innovation, conservation, and adaptation. 
There is a lot we can do together in this space to help 
consumers and reduce emissions.
    Today's hearing gives us an overview on the transportation 
system, some of the initiatives there that would be good for 
consumers, the economy, and the environment.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the hearing. I look forward 
to the testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding today's hearing which 
seeks to review the challenges and opportunities associated 
with decarbonizing the U.S. transportation sector and focuses 
on the nonlight-duty portions of this sector.
    And I very much look forward to the witness testimony, 
particularly from the several panelists who can speak to 
innovation in engines, fuel, and energy infrastructure this 
morning. There is a lot of underappreciated work towards 
cleaner engines and today provides a look at some of that work.
    A couple of years ago, Daimler Trucks North America opened 
its high desert research facility and proving ground in Madras, 
Oregon, which I visited during construction. This track 
provides durability and performance testing that will be 
critical for proving new, innovative and more efficient 
technologies, and represents the constant effort by the 
industry to innovate, to make cleaner, more efficient engines, 
as well as to make design changes in the vehicle bodies to 
improve energy conservation.
    Reducing transportation emissions is a large, difficult, 
and complex topic--and one that impacts all Americans, 
especially those whose livelihoods depend upon the affordable 
and reliable delivery of products across the Nation's 
transportation systems.
    Last Congress, Republicans worked closely with Democrats on 
this committee to pass bipartisan legislation setting national 
standards for the development of autonomous vehicles. We agreed 
then that national standards would encourage investment in 
innovation in the U.S. in this important sector of the economy.
    As important, I think we all acknowledged that this 
innovation would reduce highway accidents, save lives and 
increase fuel economy while reducing emissions. In fact, 
according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050 you 
could see a 44 percent reduction in fuel consumption among 
connected autonomous vehicles and up to 18 percent reduction 
among trucks.
    The report says, and I quote, ``In one representative 
platooning test two semi-trucks were platooned at a constant 
speed of 64 miles per hour at a 36-foot distance. The 
configuration resulted in an average fuel consumption savings 
of 4.5% for the lead truck and 10% for the following truck.''
    Unfortunately, that bipartisan work went up on the rocks in 
the Senate. Although it has taken longer than we like, I remain 
confident that the bicameral bipartisan staff discussions that 
have been ongoing for months will shortly produce substantial 
results. We can't miss this opportunity for the United States 
to lead on developing this technology and delivering safety and 
mobility benefits to all Americans, particularly our senior 
citizens and people with disabilities.
    Meanwhile, the administration has outlined a national 
policy that seeks to ensure people have the cars they want at 
prices they can afford, which will also enable a more rapid 
turnover to a cleaner, more efficient fleet. And at the same 
time, we had California seeking an aggressive and expensive, 
standard-setting scheme that would drive up the price of cars 
and trucks nationwide, slowing the turnover to cleaner emitting 
vehicles.
    Republicans believe in putting the consumer first and 
encouraging American innovators to do what they do best: 
innovate.
    In the runup to this series of hearings, we have urged our 
majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting economically harmful, 
top-down regulatory policies that punish consumers with higher 
prices and fewer choices.
    California frequently chooses this path and as a result of 
their cap and trade scheme, unique refining requirement and gas 
taxes, California consumers pay about 77 cents a gallon more 
per gallon than the national average. And they're not happy 
about paying an average of $4.13 per gallon to get to work or 
take the kids to soccer practice.
    Republicans support innovation, conservation, adaptation 
and preparation. We believe these policies have caused America 
to lead the world in carbon emissions reductions. We believe 
over-regulation and high taxation hurts consumers--especially 
low-income consumers--and can lead to economic stagnation.
    In line with this principle, there are bipartisan bills 
Congress could pass today that will ensure the United States 
remains the global leader in emissions reduction, in economic 
productivity, and clean energy production. Bills that focus on 
what works for Americans and their economic interests and well-
being.
    Earlier this month, I expressed in a letter to Chairman 
Pallone, that we were encouraged by his expressed willingness 
to develop climate policies through a ``collaborative process'' 
that would ``ensure every effected community, industry and 
stakeholder'' has a seat at the table.
    We eagerly await the opportunity to work together on these 
important policies to encourage innovation, conservation and 
adaptation. There's so much we could do together in this space 
to help consumers and reduce emissions.
    Today's hearing will give us all an overview of more 
efficient, cleaner transportation systems. I am looking forward 
to realistic, practical policies that will be good for American 
consumers, our economy, and our environment.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I, as chair, would like to remind Members that, 
pursuant to committee rules, all Members' written opening 
statements shall be made part of the record.
    Now we introduce our witnesses. And you look like you are 
quite the team there, shoulder to shoulder.
    We will begin with Dr. Emily Wimberger, climate economist 
of the Rhodium Group. Is that Weimberger or Wimberger?
    Dr. Wimberger. Wimberger.
    Mr. Tonko. Wimberger. I apologize. Wimberger.
    Mr. Jeremy Baines, president of Neste US; Mr. J.P. Fjeld-
Hansen, managing director and vice president, Musket 
Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Truckstop 
Operators; the Honorable Fred Felleman, commissioner, Port of 
Seattle and the Northwest Seaport Alliance; Mr. Timothy 
Blubaugh, executive vice president of Truck and Engine 
Manufacturers Association; Dr. Wayne Eckerle, vice president, 
research and technology, at Cummins; and, finally, Mr. Adrian 
Martinez, staff attorney for Earthjustice.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute left. Please 
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will 
turn red when your time expires.
    At this time, the Chair will now recognize Ms. Wimberger 
for 5 minutes, please, to provide your opening statement.

   STATEMENTS OF EMILY WIMBERGER, Ph.D., CLIMATE ECONOMIST, 
 RHODIUM GROUP; JEREMY BAINES, PRESIDENT, NESTE US, INC.; J.P. 
FJELD-HANSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSKET AND 
TRILLIUM CORPORATIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
   TRUCKSTOP OPERATORS; FRED FELLEMAN, COMMISSIONER, PORT OF 
    SEATTLE AND THE NORTHWEST SEAPORT ALLIANCE; TIMOTHY A. 
     BLUBAUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TRUCK AND ENGINE 
     MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; WAYNE ECKERLE, PH.D., VICE 
 PRESIDENT, GLOCAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, CUMMINS, INC.; AND 
         ADRIAN MARTINEZ, STAFF ATTORNEY, EARTHJUSTICE

              STATEMENT OF EMILY WIMBERGER, Ph.D.

    Dr. Wimberger. Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Emily 
Wimberger, and I am an economist at Rhodium Group, which is an 
independent firm whose research supports decision makers in the 
public, financial, services, corporate, and nonprofit sectors. 
Prior to joining Rhodium, I was the chief economist at the 
California Air Resources Board. Thank you for convening this 
hearing today and inviting me to speak.
    First I will start, I will reiterate some alarming 
emissions terms that were mentioned by the Chair. Each year 
Rhodium provides an independent assessment of U.S. greenhouse 
emissions and progress made towards long-term climate goals. In 
July of this year, Rhodium released Taking Stock 2019, which 
found that by 2025, the U.S. is on track to reduce emissions 
anywhere from 12 to 19 percent below 2005 levels. This is a far 
cry to commitments that were made under the Paris Agreement 
pledge to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent.
    Even more alarming, Rhodium's emissions estimates for 2018 
show that greenhouse gas emissions rose last year after 3 years 
of decline. Rhodium estimates that carbon emissions from fossil 
fuel combustion increased 2.7 percent in 2018, the second 
largest annual increase since the year 2000.
    The transportation sector remained the largest source of 
emissions on the back of strong economic growth and demand for 
diesel and jet fuel.
    While these trends put the U.S. farther from achieving 
long-term climate goals, decarbonizing nonlight-duty 
transportation presents tremendous opportunities for American 
innovation and global economic leadership. To meaningfully 
reduce emissions in the sector, we must reduce our dependence 
on fossil fuels. Federal policies that focus on 
electrification, low-carbon fuels, and efficiency can create 
markets for advanced technologies that will reduce emissions 
and create opportunities for growth across the U.S. economy.
    Since 2010, sales of electric passenger vehicles in the 
U.S. have grown from under 10,000 a year to over 360,000. 
However, we have not seen that uptake in the nonlight-duty 
sectors. In the U.S., electric buses have only recently been 
introduced in very low volumes. And electric trucks have yet to 
meaningfully reach the market.
    There are, however, examples of policies that drive 
electrification and nonlight-duty applications. Globally, 99 
percent of the electric bus fleet is in China, where national 
mandates have led to widespread electrification.
    In California, regulations are driving electrification of 
buses, marine vessels, offroad equipment, and trucks as the 
State works to achieve legislatively mandated climate targets 
and air quality standards. California's policies have created 
markets for energy-efficient products, low-carbon fuels, and 
zero-emission vehicles and equipment. The State is home to 
nearly half of the zero-emission vehicles in the United States, 
over 40 percent of North American clean fuel investment, and 
the world's best electric car manufacturer.
    There are also important opportunities for low-carbon fuels 
to complement electrification and nonlight-duty transportation. 
There are high barriers to electrification in some applications 
where deployment of advanced biofuels and electrofuels created 
with clean power will be critical for decarbonization.
    Effective policy design can drive long-term deployment of 
the lowest-carbon fuels by providing clear market signals and 
certainty to businesses, making investments in fuel development 
and deployment.
    The Federal Renewable Fuel Standard and California's Low 
Carbon Fuel Standard have been critical in driving innovation 
in low-carbon fuels. However, biofuels derived from plants and 
waste make up just 5 percent of current U.S. liquid fuel 
demand, and advanced biofuels have struggled to reach market.
    Efficiency is a third tenet of decarbonizing nonlight-duty 
transportation, moving more people and goods with fewer 
emissions. While tremendous efficiency gains have been made in 
light-duty vehicles, similar gains have yet to be realized in 
other applications. Federal policies that target engine 
standards, more stringent locomotive and oceangoing vessel 
standards, and deployment of cleaner technologies for aircraft 
will result in cost savings to consumers and American 
businesses. In addition, policies that increase efficient 
mobility and transit options can provide health and community 
benefits.
    Technologies that increase fuel economy can also amplify 
carbon reductions achieved through electrification and the use 
of low-carbon fuels.
    Reducing emissions in nonlight-duty transportation 
applications presents a tremendous opportunity to drive 
American innovation and create markets for new technologies 
that can be exported around the world. It is time for strong 
Federal leadership through comprehensive policies that promote 
electrification, low-carbon fuels, and efficiency. There are 
examples of cost-effective, comprehensive policies in States, 
cities, and regions around the globe that reduce emissions and 
promote economic growth. It is time for the U.S. to lead in 
this challenge.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on such a 
very critically important topic.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Wimberger follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Wimberger.
    And now, Mr. Baines, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please. Welcome.

                   STATEMENT OF JEREMY BAINES

    Mr. Baines. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jeremy 
Baines, and I am the president of Neste US. Thank you for the 
opportunity to speak here today.
    Neste is a publicly traded company headquartered in 
Finland, and has a rapidly growing presence in the United 
States. We are the world's largest producer of renewable 
diesel, and will be the number-one producer of sustainable 
aviation fuel by the end of the year.
    We are also in the business of fighting climate change. And 
our purpose is to create a healthier climate for our children 
and for the next generations.
    We are all wondering how to provide solutions for these 
hard-to-decarbonize transportation sectors. We can't, after 
all, just hook an extension cord to an airplane or a ship. But 
there are viable, scalable, and sustainable solutions.
    Low-carbon liquid transportation fuels must do the heavy 
lifting to decarbonize these sectors. That's why Neste shifted 
its business model to focus on making and selling renewable 
products that can help decarbonize hard-to-abate industries 
like heavy commercial trucking, marine transport, and aviation.
    I will spend my time today talking about the aviation 
industry, specifically, how sustainable aviation fuel, also 
known as SAF, can help reduce carbon emissions from air travel. 
Today, aviation is responsible for around 2.7 percent of U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, the United Nations project 
that the global emissions could triple.
    The airline industry recognizes this challenge. They have 
voluntarily committed to halve carbon emissions from 2005 
levels over the next 30 years. I am inspired by this ambition 
and how they are attacking this challenge by improving 
efficiency and taking other steps to reduce the industry's 
climate impact. These are steps in the right direction. But, as 
the industry acknowledges, even all these steps are not enough 
to hit the industry goals.
    SAF must be part of the solution if we want our children to 
live in a world where air travel is not limited. SAF is a drop-
in fuel and works with today's aircraft engines, as well as 
existing storage, logistics, and airport infrastructure. SAF 
can reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or 
more, and in its significantly less pollutants like particulate 
matter. This is particularly meaningful to communities that are 
disproportionately impacted by pollution.
    SAF can be made from a wide variety of sustainable, 
scalable, and renewable low-carbon feedstocks, such as used 
cooking oils, MSW, forestry residue, or even captured carbon 
dioxide. Most importantly, SAF is available today. It is not a 
someday solution that has yet to be proven at scale.
    Unfortunately, there are structural and policy challenges 
that are preventing SAF from taking off. For example, SAF 
receives less credits under the renewable fuel standard 
compared to renewable ground transportation fuels. This means 
that it is more profitable for a company like Neste to reduce 
renewable fuels for road transportation compared to SAF.
    Congress can help change this dynamic by insuring there is 
a level playing field for all renewable fuels. Neste sees 
immense opportunity in SAF. It is the only product available 
today that can keep planes flying and reduce emissions. To help 
the aviation industry grow, SAF production needs to start 
rapidly increasing now. The head of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization put it like this:
    ``SAF production capacity needs to double and then double 
again.''
    We think there needs to be several more ``agains'' in this 
math. I believe this is a compelling reason for Congress to 
consider SAF-specific policies. Some promising options include 
permanent blenders or investment tax credit, exemptions for jet 
fuel excise taxes, or a RIN multiplier.
    When I joined Neste I was skeptical of renewable fuels. I 
felt at the time they were too complicated, costly, and 
unrealistic. Today I am in a very different place. I see 
renewable fuels, and especially SAF, as smart business, and a 
way to create a better world for our children. With policy 
support to scale the industry, SAF can provide a large 
contribution to the big emission reduction challenges we face. 
Now is the time to start a robust policy discussion to meet 
these goals.
    Neste looks forward to working with Congress and the 
aviation industry to identify win/win opportunities that can 
incentivize SAF and decarbonize air travel.
    Thank you. And I am happy to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baines follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Baines. We will talk about that 
extension cord later.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, 
please. Welcome.

                 STATEMENT OF J.P. FJELD-HANSEN

    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Thank you very much. And I will keep the 
accents going here.
    Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you 
today. My name is J.P. Fjeld-Hansen, and I am the vice 
president of Musket and Trillium, which are the supply and 
alternative fuel arms of Love's Travel Stops.
    Love's is a family-owned business that has grown from a 
single community store to the second largest travel center 
chain in the United States, with more than 500 retail fueling 
stations in 41 States. Today I am testifying on behalf of the 
National Association of Truckstop Operators. NATSO is the 
premier national trade association representing Love's and 
other highway fuel retailers.
    In my testimony today, I hope to demonstrate to you that 
travel center companies such as Love's are invaluable partners 
to policymakers as you seek to minimize the carbon footprint of 
the transportation sector. Motor fuel retailers are agnostic to 
the type of fuel we sell. However, our customers' decision are 
largely driven by price.
    The industry is very capable of efficiently bringing the 
lowest cost fuel to market. At the same time, customers are 
reluctant to transition to more expensive alternatives. This 
should be viewed as an opportunity, not as an obstacle.
    Motor fuel retailers are effectively surrogates for the 
customer. If you want to encourage consumers to transition to 
an alternative fuel, we know based on our experience what types 
of incentive programs work and what types of policies do not 
work. We could compete to sell low-cost fuel. If the Government 
can provide the requisite signals and policy certainty, we can 
bring actual affordable alternative fuel solutions to market. 
We are already doing that today.
    It is tempting to focus solely on how we want the world to 
look in 10, 20, or 30 years. I am here today to offer our 
assistance in this endeavor, and also to urge you not to allow 
these larger aspirations to distract you from making interim 
progress. By building on existing policies and infrastructure, 
we can improve the transportation sector emissions footprint in 
the short term while also considering more long-term solutions. 
We should be able to do both.
    As detailed further in my written testimony, Love's has 
invested significant capital to bring alternative fuels to 
market. Some examples would be our company Trillium agreed to 
set up a public/private partnership with the Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation where we constructed 29 CNG 
stations serving more than 1,600 transit buses throughout the 
State.
     In Miami-Dade County, we have built two CNG stations that 
are capable of refueling 600 CNG buses for the Miami-Dade 
County transit system.
    We also provide full-service design, installation, and 
maintenance for on-site solar and power generation projects, 
enabling customers to reduce their energy bills and improve 
resiliency.
    Trillium designed, built, and operates the Nation's largest 
heavy-duty hydrogen refueling station to support the Orange 
County Transportation Authority's fleet of hydrogen buses.
    And Trillium earlier this year completed the successful 
acquisition of the renewable natural gas production facility at 
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility in San Diego. And we 
also operate all four of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit 
System CNG stations.
    This is just a small example. In undertaking these 
projects, we responded to public policy and the need of our 
customers. And we are eager to continue playing this role. That 
is precisely how it's supposed to work.
    I encourage the subcommittee to learn from these lessons 
and apply those lessons to any incentive programs you create 
going forward. Once the regulatory incentive regime is in place 
that makes alternative fuel cost competitive, whatever the fuel 
might be, the private sector will bring those fuels to market 
most effectively. That is why it would be counterproductive to 
allow regulated public utilities to use their monopoly to 
squeeze out private-sector involvement in the EV recharging 
business.
    That is precisely what utilities are trying to do right now 
in a number of States throughout the country. And if they are 
successful, it will not only preclude companies such as Love's 
from participating in that market, it would cement in place 
stagnant technologies and fueling solutions that at the end of 
the day will not get consumers what they want.
    Fuel retailers have to be cognizant and responsive to their 
customers' demands in order to succeed; utilities do not. The 
best path forward is to leverage existing infrastructure and 
refueling sites that are strategically located where cars and 
trucks are known to travel, and develop policies that make it 
profitable for those businesses to invest in alternative fuels.
    On behalf of NATSO and the Love family of companies, I look 
forward to continue working with you to achieve what I believe 
are mutually compatible goals. And I am happy to answer any 
questions that you may have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fjeld-Hansen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Fjeld-Hansen.
    And now we move to Commissioner Felleman. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes. And welcome.

                   STATEMENT OF FRED FELLEMAN

    Mr. Felleman. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tonko and 
Ranking Member Shimkus, as well as distinguished members of the 
committee.
    I am Fred Felleman, Port of Seattle Commission vice 
president and managing member of the Northwest Seaport 
Alliance. The port's diverse business lines include managing 
commercial fishing and cruise terminals, as well as the 
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. In partnership with the 
Port of Tacoma we also jointly manage the fourth largest 
container port complex in North America.
    We are committed to carrying out our mission in an 
environmentally sustainable manner while recognizing the needs 
of disproportionately impacted communities. As founding chair 
of the port's Energy and Sustainability Committee, I look 
forward to this opportunity to share the progress we have 
achieved voluntarily and identify opportunities to collaborate 
in the future.
    In Washington State we are very fortunate to have a green 
grid powered primarily by hydroelectricity. In addition, we 
have made significant investments in wind and solar projects, 
creating additional renewable energy and jobs in the districts 
of Representatives Walden and McMorris Rodgers.
    The aviation and maritime sectors are particularly 
difficult to decarbonize. According to the International Air 
Transport Association and International Maritime Organization, 
air transport and maritime shipping each account for about 2 
percent of the global CO2 emissions and will 
continue to grow unless action is taken. Nevertheless, the Port 
of Seattle has a goal of being the greenest and most energy-
efficient port in the Nation.
    At Sea-Tac Airport we are providing preconditioned air and 
electricity to power aircraft while they are at the gate, 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40,000 metric 
tons. We are also installing charging stations on our airfield 
to support ground-handling equipment.
    Off airfield, we are transitioning our bus fleet and 
central heating plant to renewable natural gas. Our taxi and 
ride-sharing services are required to meet strict fuel economy 
standards, and we are providing electric vehicle charging 
stations to the public.
    Our longer-term goal is to fuel every flight at Sea-Tac 
with 10 percent blend of biofuel by 2028. Sustainable aviation 
fuels have a life cycle carbon footprint of 80 percent lower 
than the current jet fuel.
    For the maritime sector, the Port of Seattle is one of the 
first ports in the country to install shore power at a marine 
terminal, enabling cruise ships to turn off their engines while 
at berth, utilizing our low-carbon electrical grid.
    Plugging container ships into shore power at the Northwest 
Seaport Alliance's major terminals would also result in 
emissions reductions of nearly 14,000 tons of greenhouse gas 
annually. Connecting all our cruise ships to shore power would 
have saved over 10,000 metric tons last year alone.
    The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma also require that all cargo 
trucks entering Seaport Alliance international container 
terminals are at least 2007.
    At the Port of Tacoma they are nearing completion of an LNG 
terminal to serve maritime vessels. Additionally, the State's 
ferry service is transitioning to electrification.
    Moving forward, our primary strategy is to electrify marine 
terminals and convert diesel powered drayage trucks and cargo 
handling equipment to electricity or other clean energy 
sources.
    The job ahead of us is daunting. Maritime and aviation 
transportation systems and global supply chains are complex, 
and the port's authority to manage them is limited. Funding is 
a huge obstacle to faster implementation. And we must also 
carefully balance our environmental priorities alongside our 
economic and social responsibilities. Support from the Federal 
Government is needed to help us overcome these challenges to 
meet our carbon-emission targets.
    We ask that Congress support the transition to sustainable 
aviation fuels through funding, research, and interagency 
partnerships, support electrification for marine terminals and 
other clean-energy solutions for maritime operations, increase 
funding and expand program eligibility for environmental 
elements or projects that reduce emissions, and harmonize 
Federal and global efforts to decarbonize oceangoing vessels 
while at sea.
    Climate change is already impacting our abilities to 
operate our core business reliably and predictably. But this is 
also creating opportunities for innovation and job creation. 
Our ports are supporting the State of Washington's maritime 
Blue Initiative to drive innovation and advance clean maritime 
technologies. Creating jobs of the future will enable our 
region to capture a growing portion of the global maritime blue 
economy that is expected to reach $3 trillion by 2030.
    Similarly, by supporting the development of sustainable 
aviation fuels, there will be broad-based benefits for research 
institutions, refineries, farmers, foresters, and feedstock 
producers.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today. 
Decarbonization of the maritime sector is a big, bold, and 
essential goal. The Port of Seattle and the Northwest Seaport 
Alliance look forward to working with Congress to achieve this 
goal. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Felleman follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And now we will hear from Mr. Blubaugh for 5 minutes, 
please. And welcome.

                STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY A. BLUBAUGH

    Mr. Blubaugh. Good morning. Thanks to the committee for 
having me here today. My name is Tim Blubaugh, and I am with 
the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. I would like to 
share with you a little bit about our industry, about our 
successes in reducing both criteria pollution emissions and 
greenhouse gas emissions, and our investments in zero-emission 
technology, truck technologies.
    EMA is made up of the United States' leading manufacturers 
of heavy-duty trucks and engines. The products that EMA member 
companies design and build are not just big cars. The annual 
sales of heavy trucks in the United States is a small fraction 
of passenger car sales, yet they come in an extremely wide 
variety of sizes and configurations. Commercial vehicles are 
highly customized for many diverse applications, including 
parcel delivery vans, pickup and delivery trucks, refuse 
trucks, construction vehicles, regional freight tractors, and 
long-haul tractors.
    Heavy trucks are purchased by sophisticated business 
entities as a capital investment--one that must return a 
profit. A commercial fleet will specify the details of the 
truck they want the manufacturer to build, so that it will 
serve the needs of their unique trucking operation with the 
lowest possible life cycle cost.
    For more than 50 years, EMA member companies have worked 
cooperatively with regulators to dramatically reduce the 
environmental impacts of our products. The emissions from 
today's heavy-duty trucks and engines have been reduced by 99 
percent from those built 30 years ago. That remarkable success 
does not happen without enormous capital investment and 
incredible technological innovation.
    The success of those investments and innovations were 
maximized because the target emission regulations were aligned 
nationwide and provided the regulatory certainty needed for a 
level competitive playing field. Key to implementing those 
regulations, government and industry work collaboratively to 
update the Nation's diesel fuel supply to ultralow-sulfur 
diesel for particulate matter filters, and to establish a 
nationwide retail market for diesel exhaust fluid for NOx 
aftertreatment systems.
    After successfully implementing EPA's near-zero criteria 
pollutant standards, EMA member companies shifted gears to 
implementing EPA and DOT's historic heavy-duty greenhouse gas 
and fuel efficiency rules, and we later collaborated again to 
develop the more stringent Phase 2 rules that will go into 
effect in 2021, with further reductions in 2024, and yet more 
in 2027.
    Our industry continues to innovate. We have advocated for 
EPA to pursue the Cleaner Trucks Initiative announced last 
year, to both further reduce NOx emissions and to modernize the 
regulatory program. In doing so, we have cautioned that any 
additional NOx reductions must not undermine the existing 
greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency program, or the nationwide 
regulatory alignment that has consistently existed for the 
heavy-duty program. The inherent trade-offs between NOx and 
greenhouse gas reductions demand that any standard to further 
reduce NOX emissions must be carefully crafted to avoid 
undermining the Nation's greenhouse gas emission goals.
    EMA members are not just working in the regulatory space. 
Independent of any regulatory push, and on top of the enormous 
investments needed to meet the stringent Phase 2 greenhouse gas 
standards, our members are investing billions of dollars to 
develop zero-emission powertrains and trucks. However, 
converting a commercial fleet to battery-electric technology is 
nothing like convincing a consumer to purchase a zero-emission 
passenger car. Attractive styling or effective marketing will 
not persuade the trucking fleet's business managers, who are 
forced to operate on razor-thin profit margins, that battery-
electric trucks make financial sense.
    Converting the commercial vehicle marketplace to zero 
emission will require a coordinated effort by government, 
industry, and other stakeholders. Not only must manufacturers 
find the resources to develop the battery-electric technology 
for low-volume sales in a wide variety of vehicle 
configurations, but fleets need to adapt their entire trucking 
operations to such paradigm-shifting technology. Fleets may 
need to adjust truck routes, utilization, maintenance, and 
other practices; and they will need to invest in training, new 
maintenance facilities, and new parts inventories. Most 
importantly, fleets must invest in developing the 
infrastructure needed to charge the trucks.
    The transformation that the commercial vehicle industry 
went through to convert to ultralow-sulfur diesel and to 
establish the nationwide availability of diesel exhaust fluid 
was challenging, but it pales in comparison to the enormous 
challenge of converting the industry to battery-electric trucks 
and establishing the infrastructure needed to charge them.
    Our members are proud of what they have accomplished in 
implementing stringent emission standards. And we embrace 
future challenges. We look forward to continuing to supply the 
trucking industry with the products they need to cost-
effectively and efficiently move freight, while balancing the 
need to minimize impacts on the environment. While we work to 
increase the acceptability and deployment of zero-emission 
commercial vehicles, we also caution that there will be 
unprecedented challenges. Success will require time, enormous 
investment, cooperative efforts by all stakeholders, and, 
ultimately, marketplace acceptance.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Blubaugh follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And now we will move to Dr. Eckerle. You are recognized for 
5 minutes, please.

               STATEMENT OF WAYNE ECKERLE, Ph.D.

    Dr. Eckerle. Thank you. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member 
Walden, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of 
the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is 
Wayne Eckerle, and I have been doing research and technology 
for 43 years, 30 years at Cummins. Sustaining a vibrant economy 
while preserving the planet for generations to come is a 
challenge of our time. Cummins and I, personally, have set an 
aim to meet that challenge.
    Cummins celebrated its 100th anniversary this year. Over 
this 100-year period, Cummins has primarily supplied power to 
its customers with internal combustion engines. Today there are 
more than 15 million engines in use by our customers, primarily 
running on diesel, but also natural gas, renewable natural gas, 
and biofuels.
    Over the past three decades, we have improved efficiency of 
our diesel engines by 80 percent and have reduced our NOx and 
particulate emissions by 99 percent. We commend the committee's 
commitment to facilitate the transition of the U.S. economy to 
net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050. We also recognize 
that sectors that Cummins supplies significantly contribute to 
emissions. And we commit to doing our part to address climate 
change and air quality, and have adopted science-based climate 
goals.
    We look forward to joining forces in innovating with the 
broader energy community towards a comprehensive solution by 
decarbonizing our primary energy sources.
    So, what does the path forward to carbon neutrality look 
like? There has to be a multifaceted approach using multiple 
technologies. I see internal combustion engines continuing to 
play an important role to meet this goal. Cummins will continue 
to grow and apply our power train and vehicle system expertise 
to optimize power trains and systems of vehicles through 
connectivity and automation to generate greater energy and fuel 
efficiency.
    Cummins is also investing to enable its engines to use fuel 
sources that would otherwise be considered waste products, 
delivering robust power with fuels like landfill gas and 
digester gases.
    To reach the goal of a 100 percent carbon-neutral power 
supply, the energy source for the internal combustion engine 
must also be carbon neutral. To that end, Cummins is partnering 
with the Department of Energy National Labs and other companies 
to create the decarbonized energy sources needed to operate 
internal combustion engines in a 100 percent clean economy.
    In addition to continuing to innovate on our engine 
technology, Cummins is putting more focus on battery and fuel 
cell-powered electric power trains. We are investing heavily in 
power train electrification through our research and 
development, and through our recent purchase of several battery 
and fuel cell companies.
    For instance, we are the number-one global provider of 
hydrogen fuel cells for locomotives. We clearly see batteries 
and fuel cells as part of our portfolio of solutions to meet a 
carbon-neutral future. Factors like infrastructure, electricity 
source, geographic region, and power needs will often help 
determine which solution works in a given situation. But to be 
clear, an electric vehicle is not a zero-emissions vehicle 
unless electricity is generated from a power plant that also 
has zero emissions.
    Policies need to incentivize low or carbon-neutral 
technologies to help us reach our goal, otherwise cost will 
remain a nearly insurmountable barrier. Customers want payback, 
period--payback on their initial technology investment within a 
short window of time. Today, without subsidies, the electric 
powertrains cannot compete on cost with internal combustion 
engines.
    Cummins' continued investment in infrastructure for 
alternative fuels like natural gas and hydrogen fueling can 
help deploy these technologies faster. From a policy 
standpoint, in order to reach a carbon-neutral future and get 
there effectively and successfully, we need three things:
    One, we need government investment in R&D and 
infrastructure.
    Two, we need policies that support the goal and enable us 
to develop the technologies to get there.
    And three, we need national regulations that are uniform, 
predictable, and enforceable so we can continue to invest in 
these technologies to meet the national goals.
    In conclusion, the heavy-duty vehicle industry is 
undergoing significant change, and Cummins is leading the way. 
Of all the challenges that I have personally faced, this is by 
far the most difficult one. However, I also did not think 43 
years ago that we would have been able to reduce emissions in a 
diesel engine by 99 percent. Because of this past success and 
the American spirit of innovation and ingenuity, I am confident 
that, if the right policies are put in place and if the 
Government and business really do work together, we can develop 
the technologies to attain this goal.
    Thank you for having me here today.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Eckerle follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And then, finally, we will go to Mr. Martinez for 5 
minutes, please. And, welcome also.

                  STATEMENT OF ADRIAN MARTINEZ

    Mr. Martinez. Good morning, Chairman and members of the 
committee. My name is Adrian Martinez, and I am a staff 
attorney for Earthjustice. Earthjustice is a nonprofit legal 
organization. And I work out of the Los Angeles office. I have 
been working on smog pollution for the last 15 years in the 
Nation's smog capital. And while this has provided great job 
security, because we have a lot of smog in Los Angeles, it also 
has shown that we need to move to zero emissions.
    I am part of the Right to Zero campaign. And essentially 
what--the Right to Zero campaign was based out of our air 
quality work in California. And, in looking at how do we get to 
meet clean air standards, we looked at all the emissions 
sources, we kind of look at what regulations were on the books 
in California and federally, and what else we needed to do. And 
we came to one conclusion. We came to the conclusion that we 
need to move to zero emissions in our transportation sector, in 
our energy sector, and in our buildings, and then eventually in 
our industrial processes.
    And we came to that conclusion for many reasons. But when 
we look at the amount of air pollution that come from all these 
sources, there is just this incremental approach of slowly 
cleaning up engines was not going to work.
    In summary, kind of our solution is when we look at our 
best climate strategy in a place like Los Angeles, the best 
solution is to actually solve our air quality problems. And the 
main reason is, to solve our air quality problems we need to 
move to zero emissions.
    The first point I want to make today is that this area is 
moving very fast. This morning I saw two electric buses on the 
streets of Washington, DC. Three, even four years ago there 
would be zero, and I would have never thought I would see an 
electric bus on the street. We are seeing movement in the 
trucking sector, in the locomotive sector, and all these 
sectors. So, I am going to start with transit buses.
    On the transit bus sector, this is one area on the larger 
vehicles where we have seen a lot of progress. There are more 
than 2,000 buses on the roads or on order in North America. And 
this is a dramatic increase from years prior. The ways that the 
Federal Government can continue to support this, we need to 
continue to support transit agencies purchasing these vehicles. 
We need to encourage development of large-scale infrastructure 
to charge. It is one thing to charge one to five buses, it is 
another thing if you are a large fleet like Los Angeles Metro 
that needs to charge hundreds of buses at a depot at a time.
    This is an area where we are going to learn a lot of 
information. We like to focus on public agencies because, as 
they are figuring out charging and how to operate larger 
vehicles, this is information that can be transferred to 
private industry too.
    Second point, second sector I would like to focus on, is 
school buses. This is an area we are seeing a lot of progress 
nationally. There is a lot of interest in how do we transport 
our children to school in a zero-emission way. School districts 
need a lot of support for buses in general, but moving to 
electric school buses is a critical area.
    The one positive of school buses is, because of their 
operational profile where they are operating for very limited 
times of the day, and then some are even dormant during the 
summer, they could provide an additional greater resources for 
energy utilities. We are seeing energy utilities even as close 
as Virginia get into this, the game of electric buses, because 
they see it as a way to deploy electricity in a flexible 
manner.
    I want to focus on refuse trucks. We are starting to see 
more on electric refuse trucks nationally, and we are seeing it 
all over the country from New York to Carson, California, to 
Ada County, Idaho. We are starting to see deployments of 
electric refuse trucks. These are electric vehicles that 
inherently are popular. Whenever we talk to people about the 
potential for a quieter refuse truck, they are very excited in 
their neighborhoods.
    I want to close to talk about ports. One of the areas where 
we spend a lot of time focusing are on our ports. Los Angeles 
and Long Beach have the two busiest ports in the Nation, and 
these are some of the areas most impacted by air pollution in 
the region. The ports provide an important opportunity for 
advancing zero emissions. Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles and 
Mayor Garcia of Long Beach have committed to achieving 100 
percent zero emissions in cargo handling equipment and drayage 
trucks by 2030 and 2035, respectively. We are starting to see a 
lot of technology deployments.
    The Port of Los Angeles just deployed a top pick that is 
100 percent zero emissions. And just for context, this has a 1 
megawatt battery, so it is a big piece of infrastructure.
    Infrastructure is key, and this is a place where this 
committee and the Federal Government can play a big role.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    We will now move to Member questions. I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and we will go across the 
panel.
    Dr. Wimberger, let me start with you. This morning we have 
heard a lot of potential solutions, including some that are in 
the early stages of being deployed. But we also know we are 
working against the clock to achieve major emissions 
reductions. With that urgency in mind, what are the most 
important things the Federal Government can do to ensure these 
emerging solutions are commercialized at scale?
    Dr. Wimberger. That is a great question. I think there is a 
great role for the Federal Government to have technology-
neutral fiscal incentives to really drive research and 
development and early deployment of some of these advanced 
technologies. There is, we have heard a lot about sort of the 
expense of the up-front capital costs, and some of the 
uncertainty that businesses face when thinking about deploying 
specific technologies. So I think there is a real role for the 
Federal Government in the near term to see--technology neutral 
is really important, but to keep fiscal incentives on the table 
as a really important driver to overcoming some of those market 
barriers to getting technologies into market.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And let me go down the panel and ask each of you, what is 
most needed from us, from the Federal Government, to scale up 
the solutions you have highlighted in your respective 
industries? Mr. Baines.
    Mr. Baines. Yes. Well, I think a comprehensive approach is 
necessary. And there are a lot of policy options out there. 
Like was indicated, I think incentives for these nascent 
industries could be quite important. There can be, through the 
RFS program, there can be RIN multipliers. There are 
opportunities through the tax code as well. There are 
exemptions, investment exemptions or blenders incentives.
    So, I think there are many, many different policy options 
out there that the Federal Government can take a position on.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I think in that--I think the most 
important thing for us to make meaningful investments in this 
is that we get some horizon and some certainty around the 
regulations, and especially the tax credits or RIN mechanisms 
or LCFS mechanisms. So I think that is the really number one.
    And I also think it is important that we focus on all the 
all-of-the-above solution. I think if we get really pigeonholed 
into certain specific things, then that slows the efforts down.
    And I think also, if we are looking at existing regulation, 
like the RFS, I think Mr. Shimkus has brought forward, a 
cleanup of some sort of the RFS. And I think we should always 
make sure that these existing regulations are current. And I 
would like just to use one little example.
    We addressed the ethanol blend world really aggressively by 
lowering the mandate for ethanol because the market could not 
absorb more ethanol blending. So we took that down. I think, if 
we look at the cellulosic category, there we had very, you 
know, we had really aggressive goals, and the industry couldn't 
meet them. So we took the mandates down well through RNG. And 
that was based on switchgrass and all these other, you know, 
exotic things.
    But I think RNG has now come in and solved that. And there 
is a lot of runway to increase that one, so.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. If I might.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Felleman.
    Mr. Felleman. Well, certainly, the comprehensive approach 
makes the most sense. But in the near term, the idea that, 
whether it be cash credits or other incentives, the level 
playing field, as we have heard, is to start with. We need to 
fund research and innovation because a lot of these solutions 
have not been made. But there are a lot of smart people in the 
tech field that just haven't applied themselves to this world.
    Obviously, interagency coordination is critical. Public 
investments in, as we were speaking, we can be the guinea pig 
to try out things. We can justify at the port investing in 
programs that will ultimately create jobs at the same time as 
creating these innovations.
    But, ultimately, with the aviation biofuels, which is 
really one of the great challenges--and I got to visit Neste's 
facility in Rotterdam to take lessons learned there--but we 
need a market demand. And if DoD committed to a certain 
percentage that would basically--the refineries would come if 
they knew there was a guaranteed market for their fuels.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Blubaugh.
    Mr. Blubaugh. With the medium- and heavy-trucks commercial 
vehicle industry, we have to pay attention to the diversity, 
all the different products in the industry, and think about 
systems in a holistic approach, thinking about tractors and 
trailers, manufacturers and fleets, and infrastructure. I think 
the incentives help overcome the marketplace barriers to the 
higher cost. The incentives should be technology neutral.
    And I think we have to pay attention to barriers to 
deployment of greater greenhouse gas reduction such as more 
stringent NOx emissions, or things like the Federal excise tax 
that tax these enhanced technologies at a 12 percent rate.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Eckerle.
    Dr. Eckerle. As I mentioned, Government investment in R&D 
as well as in the infrastructure. Having sound policies that 
are aligned with the goal is really important because that will 
develop a fundamental technology that we can take forward.
    And, finally, national regulations that are uniform so that 
we are all rowing in the same direction.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And, finally, Mr. Martinez.
    Mr. Martinez. I think on of the big things that needs to 
happen is research and development and support for public 
agencies, figuring out how to charge larger number of vehicles. 
We have transit agencies that will have a lot more vehicles. We 
have ports. These types of investments we will learn a lot of 
information.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you to each and every one of you for your 
advice.
    And now we will recognize Mr. Shimkus, our ranking member 
of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If the staff would put up the chart from Love's produced to 
us. And, hopefully, we are going to have that passed out to you 
all too, if you have it.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, will you briefly--and it is hard to see, 
I get it, but you all have it there----
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Shimkus Can you just briefly highlight--I mean, I found 
this very, very helpful. You have questions marks here for the, 
you know, the cost of infrastructure or the vehicles you have, 
CI scores across the board, and range issues that I think are 
very, just very instructive. So, briefly, can you highlight 
some of these points?
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes. So what we really tried to achieve 
here was, you know, we are talking a lot about policy, and 
research, and R&D. We tend to talk very little about how this 
needs to look from the consumer's perspective.
    So what we were trying to do is say, kind of saying, 
``Well, if we set all these other things aside, what does it 
look like from the consumer perspective, and what are the real 
carbon score savings?''
    So, I have listed the existing fuels, being diesel, B20, 
and RD, renewable diesel, where we really don't need any 
infrastructure investments at all. Friends like Neste are 
building plants and we are getting access to the fuel. And it 
follows the existing logistic chain.
    CNG and RNG, there is a lot of existing infrastructure 
there as well, in our natural gas infrastructure. The 
investments there would really be to upgrade the fleets to CNG 
engines. It is a different engine altogether, so you need to 
have a unique engine in your truck. And you also need to 
develop, obviously, we have a lot of natural gas already coming 
out of the ground. We can supplement that with renewable 
natural gas. But that is a fairly established business already.
    Then you have all these new technologies that requires 
significant infrastructure investment.
    So, if we look at the price, yes, a CNG truck is a little 
bit more expensive than a diesel truck. When it comes to EV and 
hydrogen trucks, there really aren't any commercial options 
available on the market today. We hear a little about Tesla, 
Nikola, but these are not commercialized operations. So I 
really can't comment on any of the price.
    And I don't know if our friend from Cummins has any 
thoughts on it.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me just jump in because I want to 
get to three points.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. But I do want to highlight, in our discussions 
yesterday you talked about range. I think range is a big issue 
too.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Especially we have our colleague here from the 
Port of Los Angeles. And if you have a warehouse that is 500 
miles away, an electric tractor trailer that goes 300 miles, 
and then you have to stop for a charge, that raises the cost of 
the good. That is really challenging.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes. So, two things happen with range. In 
order to achieve range in the EV, you need to add battery 
capacity. And if you add battery capacity, you increase the 
weight.
    So, if you want to have an electric vehicle that goes 500 
miles, you will lose 40 percent of your payload just because of 
the weight of the battery.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you. And I don't mean--I do mean to 
cut you off because I----
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes, yes. No, no, no.
    Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Want to get to some other 
questions.
    I also like the importance of this hearing on we are 
tapping around the renewable fuel standard and the bucket, 
cellulosic bucket, or what we call the advanced bucket, that 
industry then moved into the RNG debate, which I think is 
really critical and important.
    Mr. Baines, Feldhausen, Mr. Eckerle, talk about that real 
quick, about the--maybe not Eckerle as much, but as far as the 
RIN issue debate on this portion.
    Mr. Baines. Sir, if we look at the sustainability of 
aviation fuels, that RIN, it's a multiplier of 1.6. For 
renewable diesel, it is a multiplier of 1.7 today. I think that 
is, those are the--these kind of policy options, they really 
incentivize producers to go one way or another.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and let me drop in now with a question on 
you have mentioned the word ``drop-in fuels.'' Let me go to Mr. 
Eckerle because I haven't asked him, the importance of drop-in 
fuels?
    Dr. Eckerle. Yes. I mean it----
    Mr. Shimkus. And a definition of it real quick?
    Dr. Eckerle. Yes. Drop-in is, you know, basically you could 
run on our current petroleum fuel, that fuel with no change in 
our engine system. And so, you know, we are all in favor of 
that. It----
    Mr. Shimkus. So that would cut down maybe a huge 
infrastructure cost if you dealt with a different debate or----
    Dr. Eckerle. If there is enough supply.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me stay with you and finish with Mr. 
Blubaugh.
    You both in your testimony talk about a national regulatory 
environment, I think Mr. Blubaugh's statement. And Mr. Eckerle, 
you mentioned national-level emissions policy and regulations.
    What do you mean by that?
    Dr. Eckerle. Well, what I mean by that is, for us, as we 
develop our products, if we have to develop them for different 
regulations, it really divides the resources that we have. 
And----
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Blubaugh?
    Mr. Blubaugh. The same. All EMA members supply vehicles 
nationally and globally. If we have one national program, we 
can develop those products much more efficiently, provide them 
at a lower cost, higher----
    Mr. Shimkus. So, I will finish with my--I got 1 second 
left--and just say I think you are addressing the concern that 
there will be a Balkanized market based upon regional 
differences and rules and regulations. And I think that is an 
important point to be made.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone, full committee 
chair, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    I wanted to first ask Mr. Martinez. I appreciate your being 
here today, and thank you for your work on behalf of the front 
line communities in Southern California. How would you describe 
the nexus between climate pollution and other pollutants, like 
ozone and particulate matter? And how will addressing the 
climate crisis help communities like the ones that you have 
worked with, if you will?
    Mr. Martinez. Yes, there is a big nexus, because when you 
look at a lot of the climate pollution there is also air 
pollution associated. So, in Los Angeles and communities 
throughout the Nation, the ports, airports, they are a large 
source of emissions. And what we are seeing, a really effective 
tool is to address the air-quality problems as a way to push 
the air emissions. And we are seeing ports and other entities 
move that way, albeit it is a difficult approach, but it is 
something that is needed.
    And I just want to put a plug in. The Moving Forward 
Network has provided some recommendations on how to move 
forward, some national standards on these types of equipment to 
advance zero emissions. And I think those will be important 
issues to address.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    As I discussed in my opening statement, smart policy plays 
a critical role in driving American innovation. And this is 
especially true for the transportation sector. So I wanted to 
move to Mr. Eckerle.
    In your testimony you highlighted Cummins' legacy of 
innovation. In your experience, how has ambitious and 
predictable policy helped to fuel this innovation at Cummins? 
And how would Federal climate policy affect your work for the 
products of the next decade?
    Dr. Eckerle. Having predictability around regulations is 
very, very important. Our product development cycle is on the 
order of 3 to 6 years. And so, as we do that work, when we have 
an eye on where we have to be and when, it just drives our 
investment. And so it really allows us to focus and be able to 
do the products that are needed.
    From a climate change standpoint, it is very similar. To 
the extent that we have a national regulation, we understand 
it. We will tailor our investments appropriately and be able to 
hit the goal line much more efficiently.
    Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
    And in my opening statement, again, I mentioned that 
certain transportation subsectors can't be readily electrified 
and are going to need transition to low- and zero-carbon fuels, 
and that Congress can play a key role in this transition as 
part of the 100 percent clean economy of the future. So let me 
ask Mr. Baines, how has California's low-carbon fuel standard 
influenced your investment decisions and strategy for 
developing and commercializing innovative liquid fuels?
    Mr. Baines. Well, I think the low-carbon fuel standard 
provided a really clear and robust policy for us to be able to 
build our production around, and to be able to develop it as a 
market.
    It is a long-term policy, so there is a transparency for us 
to be able to make the kind of investments that are needed to 
produce low-carbon fuels.
    Mr. Pallone. Then let me ask you, and also maybe Dr. 
Wimberger, what should the Federal Government be doing in the 
near term to help drive the market for low, for zero-carbon 
fuels in aviation, and for oceangoing vessels? I'll ask Mr. 
Baines and then will ask Dr. Wimberger.
    Mr. Baines. Well, I think it goes, again, to this 
comprehensive approach with there are many different policy 
options that are out there. Incentivizing the research and the 
production of these fuels, incentivizing the incorporation or 
the blending of those fuels are different options.
    There are some options that we can have in the RFS program 
around the RIN multiplier, like I mentioned earlier on. And the 
tax code can also play an important role in that.
    Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
    Dr. Wimberger.
    Dr. Wimberger. I would echo a lot of the statements about 
consistent policies and having a really strong price signal. 
Through a clean fuel standard that opens up to, that 
incentivizes fully the lowest-carbon fuels across different 
applications, so not just focusing on liquid fuels but thinking 
about electrofuels, and thinking about really innovative ways 
that we can have a really strong price signal that will drive 
innovation and technology in these areas.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot.
    Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative McKinley for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think this whole concept of 100 percent renewables by 
2050 is interesting. As an engineer, it is going to be great: 
full employment for engineers and scientists for the next 30 
years. But I think it is delusional to think that in some 
aspects that we are ever going to achieve that. So I am curious 
to see how this language gets worked out.
    I want to focus on airplanes as much as I can, because the 
other things maybe it is more doable. Airplanes, teach me. I 
can learn about this because I am just curious. Jet fuel, the 
specific energy of jet fuel is 50 times the density capacity 
for batteries, with lithium ion batteries. I am curious how we 
are going to do that, to move into that arena on that, 
especially given that, for a Tesla car using lithium ion 
batteries, it is 1,000 pounds for an automobile.
    Can any of you give me an idea of what is the size? If it 
is 1,000 pounds for a Tesla car, what is it going to be for an 
Airbus 320? Anyone have an idea? I don't have that. I am not--
please.
    Mr. Felleman. Well, I do know that there is a company in 
the Seattle area that is in the process of getting 
certification for a modification of a Beaver. It is an older 
plane, but they are using one engine as an electric engine and 
one as a traditional jet engine. And they are able to 
demonstrate the ability to do, in a relatively small plane, the 
ability to actually fly. So----
    Mr. McKinley. I am fine with the smaller planes----
    Mr. Felleman [continuing]. The technologies are getting 
there.
    Mr. McKinley [continuing]. We have right now. We know the 
capac--we can do that. The Purdue engineers at their 
aeronautical program have put something together. MIT is saying 
``small planes, yes, we can do that.''
    But I'm talking about the 320s, the 747s, the 737s, you 
know, how we are going to be able to do that? So I am curious, 
what is the size? And it is one thing to say the size, whatever 
that might be, but then I want to go to the airports. What is 
going to happen if you exhaust your battery so it is at the 
end, are you going to--how long is the plane--if we complain 
now about our length of time waiting for traffic, how long is 
it going to be to recharge that battery to fly that plane back 
to Pittsburgh or back to San Diego or wherever that might be? 
Or are we going----
    Mr. Felleman. Sorry.
    Mr. McKinley. Or are we going to replace the battery, which 
might be the faster way to do, pull it out and replace it? That 
is fine. What happens in small towns? What happens foreign when 
we fly to Honduras or we fly to Guatemala, are they going to 
hold our batteries for us so that we can move them in? I don't 
think so. I think we are going to be--we are going to create a 
problem for ourselves that are going to have consequences as a 
result of this because we are just, quite frankly, we are not 
there yet.
    I think that I want us to do it. I love the idea. I think 
it is--for an engineer I think it is fabulous to be able to 
have this kind of aspirational goal where we might go with 
this. But I would think that, quite frankly, instead of doing 
these delusional concepts, why aren't we spending the time to 
develop batteries better than we are right now, putting funding 
into research at National Energy Technology Laboratory to find 
out how?
    How are we going to find ways to replace lithium? Because 
we know it takes 500,000 gallons of wastewater to produce one 
ton of lithium. And that will only generate enough batteries 
for 10 cars. We have to find a replacement for lithium.
    So I am hoping over the next 30 years is we use our 
engineering technology or science and find new batteries, new 
ways of doing it, or cobalt where the increase--where we are 
dealing with a terrorist activity, a terrorist government in 
Congo, and their increased price on cobalt was 142 percent last 
year. Do we want to do business with people trading in red, in 
blood diamonds? I think we should be spending more time, 
instead of passing legislation like this, putting more money 
into research to find out how we can do, how we can actually 
achieve this.
    Because this, there is a great article in Aviation Week, 
just came out in January, that it isn't going to happen, folks. 
We can do it on small planes, but when we get to larger planes, 
we don't have it. It is going to take more than 30 years or 
longer.
    But I am looking at posing a challenge to you. What do we 
do in a small airport? What are we going to do to them when 
they land on that? What are we--can any of you give me an idea?
    Well, my time has expired. How are we going to deal with 
this in Peoria, Illinois?
    Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. McNerney [presiding]. The gentleman yields. And the 
acting Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. No, you are the chair. You are the chair.
    Mr. McNerney. The chair, the real chair.
    First of all, I want to say, very encouraging testimony. I 
see we are really committed to moving in the right direction, 
and I really appreciate that.
    Commissioner Felleman, the Port of Stockton is in my 
congressional district, so finding ways to reduce port-related 
emissions is very important to me and my constituents. You 
mentioned how Federal support for the development of 
electrified cargo handling equipment is essential to 
decarbonizing the sector. At the Port of Stockton we have seen 
how State and local partnerships can make a real difference.
    Can you speak to some of the hurdles that are facing 
widespread adoption of electrified cargo-handling equipment at 
ports across the country?
    Mr. Felleman. Thank you. In fact, you know, the Port of 
Seattle has been beneficiary of some of California's hand-me-
downs because they have been taking the initiatives to make 
progress on the technology that we are now advancing from 
there.
    But one of the challenges is just the power for the top 
picks. There is, like, a lot of--well, it hasn't been designed 
for actual commercial utilization. But there are--basically it 
is the terminal operators that have to shoulder the response.
    Our port is a landlord port, so we basically lease to the 
terminal, and terminal operator then, you know, assumes all 
those costs. So, initially, changing over from a Tier 4 is like 
what we are doing right now. We are getting to the better 
diesel operations. But to go from that to electrification is 
primarily an expense.
    We do have the shore power. That infrastructure is getting 
put in place. And the discussion about battery change-out, in 
Long Beach we know that, you know, the cars coming in, they 
swap out the battery packs. That is not the challenge. Storage 
and electricity isn't a challenge. It is, you know, primarily 
an expense cost. And actually the technology of not all of it 
has been electrified.
    Mr. McNerney. Can you speak to how to power demand is 
managed at ports and how electrification of machineries impacts 
that?
    Mr. Felleman. Well, we are sort of lucky in the Seattle 
area. We have the green grid from hydropower.
    Mr. McNerney. Right.
    Mr. Felleman. And City Light has its own dam.
    But if we really had a huge requirement we--Bonneville 
Power Authority can route power to our thing, that is the 
Columbia River system. But I think ultimately it is going to 
require storage so that we can use, you know, like, cruise 
ships are only at our dock for, like, 10 hours. And they are a 
huge demand. So, we can sort of schedule, you know, having 
storage in place or when the demand varies.
    So, I am hoping that, like with the electronic world, that 
we will have a Moore's Law of batteries. That, I would agree 
very much, that that's where we have to continue to invest, 
but----
    Mr. McNerney. Right. Battery storage is key to this. And 
they are making investments and improvements now, I think. I 
don't know if we are going to see Moore's Law, though. That is, 
that would be pretty optimistic.
    Mr. Eckerle, can you discuss how we can best deploy zero- 
or low-carbon fuel systems at ports across the various types of 
transportation systems to serve them?
    Dr. Eckerle. Well, it is really a matter of getting 
infrastructure from our standpoint as those fuels become 
available. You know, we are ready and able to utilize those in 
our engine systems.
    Mr. McNerney. So it is really the investment in Federal 
dollars needed in your opinion for that?
    Dr. Eckerle. Yes. In the infrastructure, yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Dr. Wimberger, I want to thank you for your work at the 
CARB. Basically you have set standards for the country, and it 
has made a lot of difference in our district.
    I mean, it is clear that in the Central Valley the tule fog 
that used to be a real problem is now dissipating and not 
appearing because there is less particulate pollution in the 
air to attract that fog. So you have made a lot of difference 
in people's lives.
    Ports are a major hub for heavy-duty trucks. In mid-
November 2018, the U.K. announced the Cleaner Trucks Initiative 
focused on modernizing regulations for heavy-duty trucks 
relative to heavy NOx emissions. But to date the EPA has not 
proposed a single regulation under that initiative, and it is 
not likely to do so until the spring of next year.
    How are we going to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions 
on a tight schedule to protect public health and reduce 
greenhouse emissions?
    Dr. Wimberger. That is a great question. I think the chair 
of Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, just responded to EPA, 
the head of EPA, there are challenges in California in 
achieving our 2031 and 2032 NOx requirements in the south 
coast. And a lot of that does deal with emissions that are 
covered under Federal regulations, so including trucks, and 
ports, and locomotives. And there were commitments made to work 
together collaboratively to see reductions in those areas.
    And I think there are ongoing conversations to think about 
how we can reduce NOx emissions in that time frame that are 
required. There is only so much I think the State can do. And 
we are seeing huge declines in California for NOx emissions in 
nonattainment areas under California-specific regulations. But 
there are mobile sources where EPA does have preceding 
jurisdiction, and we are seeing increases in those emissions in 
the future.
    So there is ongoing--it is going to be tricky, it is going 
to be tough, but we have reduced emissions tremendously in 
California and will continue to do so to protect public health.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. My time has expired. And I am 
going to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, you know, I think 
this idea, this notion of 100 percent clean energy for our 
transportation network, is a very noble, a noble goal. And I 
also think that it is a mischaracterization for those that 
think that my Republican colleagues and I don't support green 
energy initiatives. We simply don't believe that you can ground 
our economy to a standstill in order to get there. You have to 
have an economy that will support market-driven solutions to 
accomplish these things if we want to get there.
    And, you know, technological innovation has unlocked a vast 
supply of natural gas in the shale plays in my district in 
eastern and southeastern Ohio. And as we are all aware, these 
shale plays have helped to drive down the price of natural gas, 
making the fuel a very affordable option for our energy and 
manufacturing needs.
    So, Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, how has the current price point of 
natural gas influenced Trillium's decision to build projects 
reliant on compressed natural gas?
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I would say there was a wave kind of 
converting over-the-road engines to CNG back in 2012, 2013 when 
you had, you know, crude at a hundred-and-some dollars, and 
natural gas was still $2.50. The fact that crude has come down 
since then has lessened those incentives. But you still have 
the fuel mixer credit, which is part of RFS, I guess, or the 
tax extenders that would, you know, incentivize more usage. But 
we see tremendous progress on the transit side.
    So, if I look at the over-the-road trucker, the guy who 
bought the CNG truck in 2014, he probably is buying a diesel 
truck today based on the incentive structure that is available.
    But on the transit side, where you have the asset that 
depreciates a little over time, it is still an economic 
advantage. And as you can see on the schedule, just compressed 
natural gas using fossil natural gas gives you a 21 percent 
reduction in carbon intensity. So, it is not zero, but it is 21 
percent.
    Mr. Johnson. It is moving in that direction.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. As you know, continuing with you, the U.S. is 
also exporting liquefied natural gas to our allies across the 
world because of our vast supplies and resources.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. Do you feel this increasingly global supply of 
gas could influence the greater use of CNG transportation 
projects throughout the rest of the world?
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I think you are seeing natural gas 
increasingly becoming a fuel source in other parts of the world 
as well.
    Mr. Johnson. Good. Good.
    Mr. Eckerle, continuing along this line, I understand 
Cummins produces engines that run on CNG. Can you talk about 
the prospects of that business, the research you are doing to 
improve the performance and application of natural gas-fueled 
engines?
    Dr. Eckerle. Yes. And we work on improving performance by 
natural gas engines just like our diesel engines. And so we are 
continually working on technology that is going to reduce the 
emissions. And we are increasing the efficiency of those 
engines substantially as well.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. So, how can your work advancing 
technological innovation in the United States engine market 
translate to clean engine and fuel advances that are affordable 
in other nations that are much higher in their greenhouse gas 
emissions than the United States are?
    Dr. Eckerle. Yes. You're probably aware Cummins is a global 
company, and last year we produced 1.5 million engines, many of 
those in countries outside North America. And the technology 
that we are applying in North America we are applying in those 
countries as well. So, the efficiency benefits are global. And 
all of our projects, we are working to meet lower greenhouse 
gas in all those countries.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Blubaugh, do you have any thoughts 
along those lines?
    Mr. Blubaugh. Yes. The heavy-truck industry does export 
quite a bit, as Dr. Eckerle said. Some of the challenges are we 
have tried to export the cleanest diesel trucks. And what you 
need, you need ultralow-sulfur diesel to do that, and you need 
diesel exhaust fluid.
    We have just gotten Mexico moving forward to where they 
could adopt the cleanest trucks, the 2010 trucks, but you need 
that infrastructure to support those vehicles.
    Mr. Johnson. Sure. OK.
    And, Dr. Eckerle, I apologize. I couldn't see your name tag 
through your cup. I didn't--I called you Mr. Eckerle instead of 
Dr. Eckerle, so I apologize.
    Dr. Eckerle. No need to apologize. I can be Wayne.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes Representative Barragan for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
conversation and you all being here. I happen to represent 
America's Port. It is the busiest port by container volume in 
the country. We have a lot of jobs, and our economy is heavily, 
heavily dependent on it.
    And with that said, my district is one of the most heavily 
polluted districts in the country. It has the Port of L.A., 
including the Port of Long Beach right next door, and it is 
surrounded by three freeways. And so this topic of what can we 
do is critically, critically important to me and my 
constituents.
    Now, the ports combined are right across in a part of my 
district, and they are responsible for significant amounts of 
local air pollution, so from sulfur dioxide particulate matter 
and nitrogen oxide levels, which is exacerbating the 
environmental disparities in my district, a district that is a 
majority minority, almost 90 percent Latino/African American. 
And they are on the front lines of the pollution that is 
resulting.
    There has been some discussion about the ports and what has 
been done. Now, although the ports have actionable clean air 
plans which have reduced emissions, there is so much more work 
to do. And the purpose of these hearings is to try to get ideas 
on what we can do, and legislation we can add so that we can do 
our part.
    Now, the climate crisis is urgent. It is urgent. And we are 
seeing people marching and people recognizing that. And we, as 
legislators, need to as well. And so I appreciate the work you 
are doing, Mr. Martinez, in my community and in the area to 
address the issues. You talked a little bit, Mr. Martinez, 
about some of the work you have done with pollution and 
environmental justice issues in Los Angeles County and 
California. Can you speak--and you spoke a little bit to the 
progress of what is being done to reduce emissions--but can you 
maybe give us some concrete steps that can be taken to build on 
that progress?
    Then we can consider trying to put into either this 
legislation that we are going to come up with on the 100 
percent by 2050 and/or the LIFT America Act, which is our 
committee's infrastructure portion of the bill.
    Mr. Martinez. Yes. If you look at the examples of the Port 
of L.A. and the Port of Long Beach, it started out with an 
emissions inventory. To the extent ports haven't done one of 
those, they should, because you need to know where your 
emissions are coming from.
    Second, they developed what are called Clean Air Action 
Plans. You know, these are strategies for each category of 
equipment.
    And then the third thing is I think the Ports of L.A. and 
Long Beach have their zero-emission goals for at least two big 
parts of their operations, trucking and cargo equipment. I 
think that is important.
    One thing that the Port of Long Beach did that was 
particularly important was an EV Blueprint process where they 
spent some time bringing all stakeholders from industry, from 
community, and the kind of the best thinkers on how do we get 
to electrify their cargo equipment. And I think that pursuing 
that at ports across the Nation to allow them to figure out how 
do they get to zero emissions would be a good strategy.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. According to information from the Clean 
Air Task Force, marine shipping is 2.6 percent of the global 
greenhouse gas emissions and could account for 17 percent of 
these emissions by 2050. Equally concerning is that existing 
fueling solutions are either marginally cleaner or face 
technological obstacles.
    Mr. Baines, are Federal programs to invest in and support 
the development of emerging energy technologies in shipping 
sufficient? And can you expand on recommendations in your 
testimony for how we can do more to support innovation to drive 
down emissions?
    Mr. Baines. Thank you for the question. Neste does focus 
mainly on the road transportation and the adjacent sector. Our 
fuels can be used in marine applications. Our renewable diesel 
is being used today in California in some of the ferries where 
it already reduces emissions.
    I think one of the beauties of the fuels that we produce is 
that it is a drop-in fuel. So it is the existing engines, it is 
the existing infrastructure, it is existing technology today. 
So there are no investment costs required to be able to benefit 
from lower greenhouse gas emissions, from lower environmental 
pollutants.
    So, I think that is a great advantage of these kind of 
fuels that we produce today.
    Ms. Barragan. One of my concerns is we talked a little bit 
about the natural gas and the calls for low-sulfur substitutes 
but, you know, I think we need to think bigger than that, and 
we need to think bolder than that in figuring out how do we get 
to the zero emissions, how do we get to that place given the 
urgency that we have, so that we can make sure that we are 
doing enough to avoid the warming of the 1.5 degrees Celsius.
    So, I just wanted to thank you all for your work. And, 
hopefully, we can continue the discussion. Five minutes is 
nowhere near enough time to have this conversation.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Long of Missouri 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the transportation 
sector represents the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in our economy. And we have a lot of room for 
improvement to reduce emissions. That being said, I think it is 
important that this committee works together to put forward 
practical and commonsense solutions rather than proposing pie-
in-the-sky deals that are unrealistic and would harm our 
economy.
    That is why I was proud to work with my good friend 
Congresswoman Matsui from California on a bill to reauthorize 
the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which I was glad to see 
passed the House with bipartisan support.
    Our bill provides grants to States to upgrade older diesel 
engines with cleaner, American-made technology. This is a great 
example of bipartisan solution that makes real differences in 
the real communities like mine. My home State of Missouri is 
using the DERA grant money to upgrade school buses to make sure 
our children are breathing cleaner air on their rides to and 
from school. Diesel engines can have a long working life with a 
slower turnover rate, which allows older engines to operate for 
a longer time.
    With roughly 10 million old diesel engines still in 
operation today, it is important that we continue to make sure 
of homegrown technologies to upgrade these engines and improve 
our environment.
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 
2019 reauthorizes the program through 2024. As EPA 
Administrator Wheeler notes, this is an effective and 
innovative program to improve air quality across the country. 
DERA fund has proven to be a cost-effective tool to help 
communities meet their air quality implementation plans and 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
    My question: What is your view of the program, and is this 
an example of the practical use of existing policies to drive 
for cleaner transportation?
    Mr. Fjeld-Hansen. I would say typically we look at our role 
as really adapting to the programs. And we rely on gentlemen 
like yourself to really come up with a lot of the call it 
politics behind it. And our job is really to bring it to market 
effectively and cheaply.
    And I think turning a little example on that is, I think 
you brought up the DEF there earlier, which I think is the 
great story where you are seeing an implementation. I think we 
are about 60 percent implemented today with these new modern 
engines that are low emission. So, it is working for sure.
    Mr. Long. Good. OK. Well, you answered the second part of 
my question in that, so I appreciate that.
    And in this series of climate hearings I have tried to 
focus on how we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions while 
keeping energy and commodity prices low, particularly for rural 
agricultural communities like those that I represent where two 
of the biggest industries are farming and trucking. From what I 
have seen, the Green New Deal and other decarbonization efforts 
seek to replace fossil fuels entirely with renewable energy.
    Mr. Blubaugh and Mr., or I guess Dr. Eckerle, I just 
learned, do you have any tech--do we have the technology to 
decarbonize the farming and trucking industries while 
continuing to produce and move goods to market without raising 
costs on farming, trucking, or consumers?
    Mr. Blubaugh. First I would like to say, with DERA less 
than 50 percent of the trucks are current technology, because 
trucks are durable and the new trucks are expensive. DERA is an 
excellent way to overcome that hurdle and get more to the newer 
greatest, latest and greatest technology.
    As far as farming equipment, upgrading farming equipment is 
a challenge. It can be done. We are working on the technology 
to do so. But the cost of the technology is often a barrier, 
and similar to the benefits of DERA, allowing farmers or other 
people who use that equipment the ability to afford the new 
technology is critical.
    Mr. Long. OK. And can we do it without limiting the 
mobility inherent in diesel engines?
    Mr. Blubaugh. It depends on what technology. We can't--
there is no broad-brushed approach to this. It depends on what 
is the application and what is the technology.
    Obviously, current, latest, the clean, near-zero-emission 
diesel technology can do that without limiting its performance 
of its electrification.
    Mr. Long. OK. And for you or Dr. Eckerle, either one, what 
would be necessary for electrification to work for heavy-duty 
vehicles and farm equipment?
    Dr. Eckerle. The more power that a piece of equipment or a 
piece of transportation uses, the more difficult it is going to 
be to replace it with true electrification. Now, there are 
certain applications where carbon-neutral fuels are going to be 
the right answer, you know, from an internal combustion engine. 
So, one size does not fit all here.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you. I have no time to yield back, but 
if I did I would yield it.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tonko. We understand your kindness, sir. The gentleman 
yields back.
    And we now recognize for 5 minutes the Representative of 
Delaware, Representative Blunt Rochester.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very 
important hearing today. The science is clear: We must 
transition to a 100 percent clean energy economy as quickly as 
possible and if we are going to avert the impacts of climate 
change.
    I hear every day from my constituents in Delaware about the 
impacts that they already feel. Whether it is a farmer whose 
crops are suffering from extreme weather, or a small business 
owner who relies on the tourism of our Delaware beaches, or 
young students just worried about the future, Delawarians know 
all too well we must address the climate crisis.
    The transportation sector will play a key role in solving 
this problem as it is our now, is our country's largest source 
of carbon pollution. We have an opportunity to transition our 
transportation sector to zero- or low-carbon fuels, but we must 
do it in a just and equitable way. All too often, the 
communities that are hit first and worst by the impacts of 
climate change are communities of color, that suffer from some 
of the worst air quality in the Nation, and floods any time 
that it rains.
    Thank you to the panelists for your testimony today. I am 
especially excited about today's hearing because we have a 
modernizing and expanding port in Wilmington, Delaware, where 
we have a real opportunity to innovate during this expansion to 
reduce our emissions. Already as part of this expansion our 
port will have electric cargo-handling equipment.
    My first question is to Mr. Felleman. You detailed the 
great strides that the Northwest Seaport Alliance is taking to 
reduce emissions. And following along on Ms. Barragan's 
questions, what steps can Congress take to accelerate these 
efforts at ports across the country?
    And, absent Federal action, do you think that we will be 
able to really see progress in terms of transitioning to low- 
and zero-carbon fuels at ports? Will it happen on its own?
    Mr. Felleman. I really appreciate the point. If we don't 
have a national policy, a commitment to doing this, then it all 
falls apart.
    If you look at our greatest competitor to the north, Canada 
has a national policy to move freight across the country. And, 
in fact, they are serving Chicago at a cheaper cost than we are 
at the Port of Seattle because they have a unified national 
policy to do that.
    There are efficiencies that we can achieve. One of them, 
most importantly, is on-dock rail. And so you eliminate 
trucking to a portion of your use. So, that is one way to be 
very efficient.
    Unfortunately, the rail lines right now are just a little 
bit of a monopolistic challenge is we are $300 a container at a 
cost disadvantage to Canada because of disparitous rail rates. 
So, while we want to get this cargo onto rail, at the same time 
it is an asymmetric situation for us.
    But there are other efforts like idle reduction measures 
that you can--you know, scheduling a truck to get to the dock 
when the container is ready to pick up. But the ScRAPS program, 
the DERA program that was spoken of, we have taken great 
advantage of that. And I only think that that is one way in 
which we can, as I said, turn over these long-lived trucks and 
get onto the next phase.
    So----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    Mr. Felleman [continuing]. But I think, just as Mr. 
Martinez said, you know, you have to measure what you care 
about. So you have to have an inventory. We are on our third 
round of inventories. We are watching the relative parameters 
go down. As we win some things, trucks become a greater portion 
of the pie. So, I think that is a critical way to be strategic.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So I am going to shift to Mr. 
Martinez.
    How will the steps taken by the Port of L.A. to reduce 
emissions improve air quality for communities near the port?
    Mr. Martinez. Yes. So, the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach 
have been doing programs for many years. I am part of a 
coalition that is pushing them to do more because the air 
pollution crisis in the communities is still very high.
    One thing they did that I think is important, they are 
working to advance zero emissions in cargo-handling equipment. 
And one of the biggest challenges there is on infrastructure. 
How do you plan for adding a significant amount of new 
equipment, and how do you charge it in an effective and safe 
way?
    And I think helping them figure that out, and support for 
that will be important.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Well, thank you for that.
    I want to say I was fortunate to be on a bus, one of our 
electric fleets in Delaware this year. We did kind of a ribbon 
cutting, and it was really nice. They had ``It's Electric,'' 
you know, on the bus, for Electric Slide. But it made me think 
as you were talking, you know, Mr. Martinez, and I guess I am 
going to ask this of Mr. Eckerle, can you elaborate on why a 
national policy rather than a patchwork of different efforts is 
really necessary?
    Dr. Eckerle. Because it allows us to focus on the right 
technology. The more we are divided, the more different 
technologies we have to invest in, we can't do a great job for 
everybody.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 
Representative Carter, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you 
for being here, ladies and gentlemen.
    I have the honor and privilege of representing the 1st 
Congressional District of Georgia, which includes two major 
seaports: the Port of Savannah, the number-two container port 
on the Eastern Seaboard, and the Port of Brunswick, the number-
two roll-on/roll-off port in the country. So, very familiar 
with what we are talking about here. And very appreciative of 
all your initiatives to make sure we are doing everything we 
can to decrease emissions.
    I wanted to ask you, Mr. Felleman, I wanted to ask you 
about the Port of Seattle. Because I know that you mentioned 
that the port has done quite a few things to decrease emissions 
in electrification, increasing the efficiency of the diesel 
engines, even as much as, from what I understand, putting out 
mussels and oysters to help in carbon sequestration. What a 
great idea, and what a great initiative. That is wonderful.
    But what I have a question about is about mandates versus 
incentivizing. Because the Port of Savannah and the Port of 
Brunswick--the Georgia Ports Authority runs both of them--have 
done a great job by theirself in making sure that they have 
decreased emissions, and making sure that they have done all of 
the above in making sure that they are taking care of our 
environment. And I just found, you know, there was an 
announcement earlier this year that you were investing in 
technology to improve traffic flow at the terminal. How is that 
going?
    Because the city, the port in Savannah, is one of the least 
congested ports in America, which I think makes it very 
attractive to a lot of the users, the fact that it is the least 
congested, one of the least congested around.
    Mr. Felleman. Well, with all due respect, your ability to 
have started to outcompete the Port of Seattle makes me 
reluctant to give you our tricks. But I do very much appreciate 
your interest.
    You know, one of the challenges the Port of Seattle has is 
that we are really embedded into the city. So our last mile is 
a particular challenge. So that advantage that you have as a 
less, uncongested area is a great advantage.
    The benefits of getting trucks on appointment is a huge 
thing. So having smart gates has been something that we have 
been investing in. So trucks can actually sit and wait in a 
parking lot and get called on appointment. So this is a big 
advantage.
    Mr. Carter. And that decreases idling time, would it?
    Mr. Felleman. Yes. Yes. And it is a better condition for 
the drivers.
    One of the things we didn't speak to is really kind of a 
trucking model. For those folks that are lucky enough to be in 
a fleet, the fleet can make a major investment and amortize it 
over a long time. The drayage fleet is an independent operator. 
So they only--these guys, mostly immigrants, very 
disadvantaged, are only paid per container they move. And so it 
is greatly in their advantage as well to have a faster 
turnaround.
    And all these things that we have talked about, the 
business model, anything that saves fuel is good for the bottom 
line. So this is ultimately everybody's best interest to find 
ways of doing that.
    I don't know that--I think the throughput was the primary 
thing. But I don't know if you have on-dock rail, because that 
is one of the great efficiencies----
    Mr. Carter. Yes.
    Mr. Felleman [continuing]. That you can move so much more 
cargo through.
    Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
    Mr. Felleman. And then the train engines we have heard 
about are also----
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Felleman [continuing]. Getting quite a bit cleaner.
    Mr. Carter. Right. And that has been something. And another 
thing that we worked on in Georgia is the inland ports. Now, 
that has really helped us where we can rail the cargo to the 
inland ports and then disperse them out. That has helped with 
the congestion, and it has also helped with the efficiency of 
the port as well.
    I am, as you can tell, I am very proud of the job that the 
Georgia Ports Authority has done. I think it is they have done 
an outstanding job. So a lot can be learned there.
    But my main point I wanted to get at is that, you know, 
they have done a lot of things on their own without having to 
be mandated on it. And that is what I am really proud of and 
really want to see us do. I hate for us in Washington, DC, to 
be mandating everything that has to be done to increase 
efficiency.
    Mr. Felleman. Well, I appreciate that. I am sorry I missed 
that point in the first part.
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Felleman. The fact is that Washington State, and 
probably you as well, are in attainment. Like, we are not 
breaking the law yet, as in California they have to do this if 
they want to stay in business.
    Mr. Carter. Exactly.
    Mr. Felleman. But our goal, elevated self-interest, we 
don't want to fall out of attainment. So by taking these 
initiatives proactively before the law requires it enables us 
to grow responsibly.
    Mr. Carter. Absolutely. And I think in a much better way.
    Mr. Felleman. Yes. So, some of these things need some 
investments federally for innovation to get us to the next 
level. But as long as we realize that, if our future is to 
serve this greater growing market, we have to take these 
initiatives before the hammer comes down.
    Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
    Well, thank you. And thank all of you very much for all 
your initiatives. And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington. 
Representative Rodgers is recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, want to 
thank the panel for being here today as we look to reduce 
emissions in the transportation sector. It is important we 
pursue policies that reduce transportation-related emissions, 
that are realistic, technology neutral, and make economic 
sense.
    Government mandates, as my previous colleague just 
mentioned, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, can 
often have drastic unintended consequences. In Washington State 
right now some politicians and special interests, for example, 
are threatening to breach the four Lower Snake River dams that 
are in my district. Governor Inslee is currently spending 
almost $1 million of taxpayer money to justify doing it.
    Setting aside the significant negative impact on our clean, 
renewable hydropower generation, breaching the dams would also 
significantly increase light-duty vehicle emissions. Many 
farmers and other businesses in eastern Washington rely on 
barging on the Snake River and on the Columbia River to ship 
their products west to the ports. Barging is one of the most 
efficient, eco-friendly methods of cargo transportation. If the 
dams were breached, farmers would have to look at other 
shipping methods.
    We export 90 percent of the wheat that is grown in my 
district. We export 50 percent of the potatoes. We export peas, 
lentils, garbanzo beans. It would have taken, in 2017 alone it 
would have taken 135,000 semi trucks to move the cargo shipped 
on the Snake River, additional. This would drastically increase 
emissions in Washington State, not to mention the additional 
congestion that we already face at the port.
    I believe instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on an 
expensive effort to increase carbon emissions and decrease 
clean energy production, we should be encouraging the 
development of new technologies and efficiencies that decrease 
emissions in the transportation sector. One of the biggest 
challenges in decreasing emissions from vehicles is turning 
over fleets and getting older, less efficient vehicles off the 
roads.
    I am concerned about costly, government-imposed mandates 
and policies that significantly increase the cost of new 
vehicles. You can mandate the most fuel-efficient, green car or 
truck in the world, but if no one can afford it, it is not 
going to decrease carbon emissions. Right now the average car 
in America costs $38,000. A lot of people cannot afford that, 
even though we would especially want our teenagers to be 
driving the most efficient and safe cars. But they can't do it 
because they can't afford it.
    So what are we doing? Our cars are getting older. Average 
car in America is now 12 years old. In my district, it is 15 
years old.
    Mr. Blubaugh, approximately how much more does a new truck 
cost today as the result of all the new emission reduction 
technologies? And are there any barriers, for example, a 12 
percent Federal excise tax, to purchasing newer, cleaner trucks 
that Congress could address?
    What are the risks if we impose even more costly emissions 
requirements? If we were just able to fully turn over existing 
medium- and heavy-duty fleets in the current and near term, 
what would the emission reduction impact be?
    Mr. Blubaugh. Thank you. As I said before, I think less 
than 50 percent of the trucks on the road today are to the 
latest emissions standards that went in place in 2010, almost 
10 years ago, and we still haven't gotten 50 percent.
    The benefits of turning the fleet over to those new 
cleanest diesel engines would be tremendous. It is hard to 
measure exactly what it would be. If it is a truck that was 30 
years old, the benefits would be dramatic. If it was a truck 
that was 15 years old, less dramatic but still a huge 
improvement.
    And one of the barriers that we see is, that you pointed 
out on passenger cars, we see that on the heavy-truck world, we 
call it a pre buy and a low buy. Before the 2007 emissions 
standards went in place, truckers bought a lot of vehicles. We 
ramped up production to sell the older vehicles. It is not an 
efficient way to produce vehicles. It causes us to hire people 
and then turn around and lay them off later. The pre-buy and 
low-buy cycle is not advantageous, and it doesn't help the 
environment before it increases the number before the standard.
    So we think mechanisms like the FET that adds 12 percent to 
the cost of this--it adds 12 percent to the cost of the 
vehicle. So, if we add $20,000 to $40,000 worth of emissions 
reduction equipment, that is $2,400 to $4,800 in tax on top of 
that increased expense.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
    I am really excited about the sustainable jet fuels program 
also. And I didn't allow enough time for you to talk about it, 
Mr. Felleman. I am sorry.
    I yield. I ran out of time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    I have received a number of documents for the record. And 
so we will ask, request unanimous consent to enter the 
following into the record.
    They include a letter from the Association of American 
Railroads; a letter from Securing America's Future Energy, or 
SAFE; a letter from the American Public Gas Association; a 
letter from the Diesel Technology Forum; a letter from the 
Advanced Engine Systems Institute, including the executive 
summary of a June 2019 report from the Manufacturers of 
Emission Controls Association. We have a letter from NGVAmerica 
and, finally a chart provided by Mr. Fjeld-Hansen comparing 
various truck engines.
    So, I request unanimous consent to enter the following. 
Without objection so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Tonko. I see we have been joined by our colleague from 
Illinois, the gentlelady from Illinois, Representative 
Schakowsky. Take a moment. When you are ready. Settle in. I 
will recognize you for 5 minutes, please, a devoted member, I 
would say, of Energy and Commerce.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to apologize to the 
panel. It is just there are all these other hearings and 
negotiations going on. So I thank you for being here. I thank 
you for your testimony. I do have a few questions.
    So, I am from Chicago. And Chicago area is home to five 
airports, including two major ones, O'Hare and Midway. And last 
year O'Hare International Airport was the busiest airport in 
the world in terms of takeoffs and landings. And we know that 
aircraft account for about 9 percent of transportation 
emissions. And, you know, while that doesn't sound huge, it has 
also increased more than any other subsector in 2017 in terms 
of emissions.
    Globally, passenger traffic increased about 6.4 percent 
last year. With air traffic increasing, it is important that we 
ensure that that aircrafts transition to clean energy and 
renewable fuel.
    So, Mr. Baines, and where are you? Mr. Baines, in your 
testimony you mentioned the importance of sustainable aviation 
fuel. So I am wondering if you could talk a little bit about 
that. Where does the United States stand compared to other 
countries in terms of the development and deployment of 
sustainable aviation fuels?
    And let me just ask a second question. In your opinion, why 
has the United States been so slow in developing and using 
sustainable aviation fuels?
    Mr. Baines. Yes, good questions, actually. Sustainable 
aviation fuel is a drop-in fuel. I think that is the big 
advantage of the fuel today, so you just drop it into the 
existing infrastructure.
    I think one of the reasons why it hasn't been used very 
much yet is it is really a nascent industry. There are a number 
of players in the market today. Neste has the capability today 
of being the largest producer of sustainable aviation fuels.
    Different countries have adopted different policies. In 
Europe they have taken more of a mandate approach. In the 
United States there are different policy options, where it is 
going to be maybe more incentive based. The point is to have 
this comprehensive approach. That is the most important. And to 
have the transparency of, what is the direction you would like 
the industry to go?
    I think it is fair to say that the aviation industry wants 
to have sustainable aviation fuels. They are committed to 
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. So this is really a 
solution that can work today.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to go on to a different 
issue.
    Airport and air traffic systems also have massive impact on 
the communities that are around them. Often these are 
disadvantaged communities who are disproportionately affected 
by noise and conventional pollution. So, Mr. Martinez and Mr. 
Felleman, what steps can port authorities take to protect these 
communities that are near airports?
    Mr. Felleman. One of the things we found that, just within 
the last few years, is the implementation of NexGen. And so, 
what it has done is taken what was a diffuse impact and 
concentrated it so that the planes are flying in a much more 
singular route. And so this really makes for winners and 
losers.
    And so, the way in which FAA implements that is some 
communities have it more diffuse, some communities have it 
direct on. And we find that it doesn't seem to be necessarily 
with a rhyme or reason, like why it is implemented and some 
places they are not. There are efficiencies associated being 
able to move planes, you know, in a quicker descent and/or 
closer spacing. Because, like I said, there is tremendous 
disproportionate impacts associated with that.
    The flight patterns themselves, if we can put more over the 
water for longer periods of time, Puget Sound is kind of an 
unusual water body----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to cut you off with that, and 
maybe we could get something in writing from you. But Mr. 
Martinez, I want to give him a second to answer that.
    Mr. Martinez. Yes. I would just point out that L.A. World 
Airports is moving to zero emissions in all, in its buses and 
other fleets, and then trying to figure out additional 
aircraft. And I will provide some follow-up afterwards.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I appreciate that. It is an important 
issue in the Chicago area, so we want to be able to help the 
communities surrounding the airports.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. And we know you 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Shimkus. You should thank the ranking member, too.
    Mr. Tonko. Did you want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois, too?
    Ms. Schakowsky. I certainly do. I want to thank Mr. 
Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I really do appreciate the opportunity to 
participate here, a little bit anyway. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, we thought you might have been the 
last person today, but we are also following by Dr. Ruiz, 
Representative from California. You are recognized for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 
Member. Thank you. And thank you to all the witnesses here 
today to discuss how we can decarbonize the American 
transportation sector.
    In the face of our current climate crisis, it is urgent and 
imperative to drive our transportation system towards cleaner 
fuels and technologies. We must also address the threat that 
medium and heavy-duty transportation poses to clean air and our 
public's health.
    As an emergency medicine physician, I have seen the human 
face of the public health consequences of air pollution. Air 
pollution causes asthma, stunted lung development in children, 
respiratory infection, heart attacks, strokes, premature death. 
Mortality in polluted areas is higher than in other areas.
    A study published in April of this year on the proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that over 100,000 
Americans die each year of illnesses caused by human-caused 
particulate matter pollution in the air. Particulate matter are 
tiny particles, as you know, emitted from chemical factories 
and transportation vehicles that can penetrate the lung-blood 
barrier, entering the bloodstream directly and poisoning our 
community members' lungs.
    Ms. Wimberger, in addition to the personal suffering caused 
by the health effects of air pollution,there are significant 
monetary costs to individuals and society. Can you speak about 
these costs and the burdens they impose on communities?
    Dr. Wimberger. Yes. I think this is a really important 
point. We talk a lot about the costs of taking action, and the 
capital costs and the up-front costs of equipment and fuels and 
vehicles. We don't talk about the cost of not taking action and 
thinking about the health impacts that we are seeing, not only 
from increased levels of criteria pollutants and toxics, but 
also carbon emissions, and looking at the social costs of 
carbon and the health impacts associated with it.
    There are very dire consequences that we are already facing 
in California. We are seeing exacerbated wildfires. We are 
seeing nonattainment areas and increased cases of asthma and 
premature mortality. So there are very real costs to not taking 
action, which is the flip side of the coin, that I think we do 
need to--as an economist, I think we do need to consider that. 
It is a really important point.
    Mr. Ruiz. Absolutely.
    As we know, air pollution is particularly worse in low-
income communities and communities of color. Riverside County 
where I am from, and now represent, ranks among the worst in 
the Nation for ozone pollution. And the Inland Empire in 
Southern California, of which Riverside County is a part of, 
also has some of the country's highest level of particulate 
matter. The fact is, respiratory illnesses caused by air 
pollution are preventable if we commit to upholding proper 
safeguards to achieve a 100 percent clean economy and 
decarbonize areas of our economy like our transportation 
sector.
    Mr. Martinez, the Environmental Protection Agency's own 
website acknowledges that low-income neighborhoods, Tribal 
populations, and communities of color that live in urban areas 
may be disproportionately exposed to air pollution, which is 
barrier to economic opportunity and security. Do you think the 
Federal Government is doing enough to protect these 
disproportionately vulnerable communities?
    Mr. Martinez. No. I think there is a lot more that needs to 
happen.
    Mr. Ruiz. Can you explain or expand on how Congress can 
help address these environmental injustices as we consider 
pathways to decarbonize our transportation sector?
    Mr. Martinez. Yes. And Riverside is kind of the hotbed of 
air pollution in California. They get the regional smog, the 
fine particulate, and the localized health effects from 
hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks operating in Riverside 
each day.
    There is a lot more that can be done to set additional 
standards for trucks, locomotives, and other equipment that 
would be beneficial. There is a lot of work----
    Mr. Ruiz. But those are general, they don't really 
specifically address the environmental injustices. In fact, I 
recently introduced a bill, H.R. 3923, the Environmental 
Justice Act of 2019, which requires agencies consider the 
environmental justice implications of the programs, policies, 
and activities, such as transportation programs, helping ensure 
that we protect our communities and vulnerable populations.
    So, I definitely look forward to working with you on the 
committee, and everybody else here, toward a 100 percent clean 
economy that protects our Nation's health and ensures all 
individuals have clean air regardless of income, race, or ZIP 
Code.
    And let me just, since I have 40 seconds left, right now in 
my district we are experiencing an extreme environmental 
injustice where a company who had not had permits to function 
had a fire on its mulch where there is other debris on there as 
well. It has polluted the air with smoke for 8 days now, 4 days 
of an entire school district shutting down, 25 students getting 
sick enough to go to the hospital, 6 transported via ambulance.
    In addition to the pollution that we are facing in 
Riverside County, primarily because the 10 runs through there, 
this is a rural, underserved community of farm workers of which 
I am part of. I am a result of this community. I grew up in a 
farm worker trailer park. I understand the environmental 
hazards that lack of consideration of environmental justice 
issues can have on the health, and the long-term viability, 
outcome, wellness, education, and development of children who 
have to breathe the pollution.
    So, I look forward to working with you to getting this 
done.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. I thank all of my 
colleagues for participating today in what I think was a very 
important hearing. And certainly and most importantly want to 
thank all of our witnesses who have been a tremendous force on 
behalf of innovation and change. And we thank you for joining 
us at today's hearing.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. I ask each 
witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive.
    And at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                            [all]